Quote:
Originally posted by fridayteenage
I don't hold store in anything that requires the word consecutive, and I don't think specifying debuts is particularly special.
And since many ATRLers' fave argument is "not if it were your fave, lol ha ha cackle kii"...
Like, Shake it Off I think has something like consecutive T10 weeks after debuting at #1 or something like that, but that's not notable to me. Or, 1989 technically spent 52+ consecutive weeks in the T10, but whether or not it's consecutive doesn't really matter.
She also has #1 debut songs, but that's also not real notable to me because of the bunch of songs that either A) were disqualified from entering the chart from not being on sale back before airplay cuts could make the chart so then 'debuted' at #1 when they went on sale, or B) charted real low from early airplay and then jumped to #1; is it really that much better to go 101-1 than 100-1 or whatever?
|
Was this comment really necessary?
Having six studio albums debut at #1 isn't comparable to having a single track or a single album stay in the charts for "x" amount of time. This achievement was 13 years in the making so it's understandable why so many of us are getting excited over it. If it bothers you this much simply ignore the posts or the threads altogether, righting an entire paragraph & bringing Taylor into it just invites more hatred.
King!
