| |
Discussion: Why does Britney only have 5 hot 100 number 1's?
Member Since: 11/7/2009
Posts: 9,863
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dirrtydiana
Reaching even further, I see 
Britney's music from the 01-04 radio ban was more urban than ever. Still pop, but heavily leaning towards urban.
Read pages one and two to educate yourself. And I'm not using those as "receipts." I am telling you she SOLD on video promo alone. Britney ha power 
Yet they sell millions and Britney is still here. That must keep you up at night  |
Kind of. Slave even charted on R&B radio chart or whatever it's named.
Anyway, there is a lot of reach in this thread, people can't deal with the fact that she was never overplayed as much as some of their faves, she was radio banned and YET, she has bigger and more memorable songs than them. 
Plus, she had a multitude of worldwide hits, chart-wise if that's all you want.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 12/22/2011
Posts: 1,749
|
It's not like radio ban (if such existed) happened during her early days.It happened only after 5 years of her career when she only had 1 #1 single.
Radio ban is more like of a cool thing too dicsuss because her fans wants her to be controversial.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shamser
It's not like radio ban (if such existed) happened during her early days.It happened only after 5 years of her career when she only had 1 #1 single.
Radio ban is more like of a cool thing too dicsuss because her fans wants her to be controversial.
|
Where's the logic in this post?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/7/2009
Posts: 9,863
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shamser
It's not like radio ban (if such existed) happened during her early days.It happened only after 5 years of her career when she only had 1 #1 single.
Radio ban is more like of a cool thing too dicsuss because her fans wants her to be controversial.
|
We would "want her to be controversial" if we were trying to pass the radio ban as due to her image, sexual innuendos or whatever you call it, when it was a business thing. Plus, prior to the radio ban, her singles were not released physically, so it damaged her chart performance singles-wise even more.
Why is this asked and discussed over and over (and over and over) again all the time?
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 12/22/2011
Posts: 1,749
|
Oh...and yeah.Her label only released limeted amount of singles to her first albums to push her album sales which is sort of cheating and it's funny that they are still cling to OIDIA record when for acts like Taylor and Beyonce last album it's much more impressive to sell million in a week with available singles and internet is way more popular now.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/8/2012
Posts: 8,210
|
A lot of better artists don't even have 5.
It's not that big a deal.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shamser
Oh...and yeah.Her label only released limeted amount of singles to her first albums to push her album sales which is sort of cheating and it's funny that they are still cling to OIDIA record when for acts like Taylor and Beyonce last album it's much more impressive to sell million in a week with available singles and internet is way more popular now.
|
It's not cheating. It was a smart marketing plan and guess what? It worked! high high
Also, that OIDIA record was very impressive as very few artists passed even 800k in their first week.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iHypeMusic
Because I'm sure the people buying One Direction's singles are the general public and not 10 year old girls.
Sales are a gamble. Some sales represent hits; the other half are frontloaded by popular acts who've yet to have their single noticed by GP.
Airplay will always be reliant on what's hot. Which is why it always triumphs sales. It's not really an argument when the proof is on the charts. And sales ESPECIALLY shouldn't be the only dependent thing, when there's now a trend of pre-orders boosting singles to #1 for a week to only crash hard after.
What happens when labels start releasing songs with pre-orders that always go #1, then fall directly a week after and the chart is no longer accurate to what's a hit at all? |
You can't discount part of the GP and pretend they don't count, nobody cares what sales are sustained when we're only talking about peaks, AirPlay will never determine what the GP actually likes (for proof, see some hits from the woman literally in my avi right now), and what happens then is that they are a #1 hit and your own definition of hit has no bearing on that. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2003
Posts: 50,977
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rolland
It's not a secret that those singles got the #1 because of her fans, not because the GP really liked the song. Hence why they were unable to maintain the top spot like real popular songs loved by the GP do. I mean she doesn't have the "one week wonder" nickname for nothing. 
96-1-4-5-6-7-7-12-9-10-6-5-7-8-9-12-15-18-25-28-32-40-45
1-5-8-8-8-6-9-10-9-9-10-13-16-15-24-35-39
1-6-8-10-10-11-12-16-30-43-75-59-66-76-88-100
Again, they reached #1 because of Britbots compulsively buying the song the first week (and radio deals?). Too bad the formula changed and you can't do the same any more. Airplay hasn't been the strongest factor ever since iTunes, and now we have streaming so there are plenty of ways to know when GP really wants to listen to a song, and when it just the fan-base effect that lasts no more than one week.  One week wonders are cute I guess, still #1 so  Meanwhile, there are acts that are able to maintain their #1 on iTunes and Hot 100 for multiple weeks, even months. I definitely know about that.
 |
The reason for them reaching #1 or not doesn't actually matter - People bought, people know it better than DJs and they will ALWAYS know better, whether you like it or not.
However, if that was indeed true, why didn't 'Work Bitch' (or several of her 2nd, 3rd and 4th singles) didn't go #1 as well? If the GP doesn't buy your song, it won't go #1, end of story. :-/ Most fanbases don't account for even half of a song's sales in a week, let alone all of them (but hey, thanks for thinking so highly of us).  Again, stop embarrassing yourself, for Christ's sake. I'll let it pass one last time because your favorite singer hasn't managed to get a solo #1 single in the US since 2000 (and most likely will never get one again), so I understand it's best for you to try to discredit sales when airplay was such a, err, friend of hers... Last millenium. 
Radio deals? Good thing you added a "?" there, cause none of Britney's singles have had such deals - except maybe for, lol, Ooh La La, and that is still very debatable. 
Last, but not least: anyone who follows charts would know about "#1s for weeks and months), it doesn't mean, however, our "faves" have managed, manage right now or will EVER manage to do so again, especially by themselves, as you, being a Xtina fan, know better than anyone over here. 
P.S.: Thanks for helping my point that only HIAM fell fast on the Hot 100 after the 1st week, as the other two songs spent over 2 months inside the Top 10, even minimal or zero promo and only backed by Pop radio stations.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 12/22/2011
Posts: 1,749
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BabyCantYouSee
It's not cheating. It was a smart marketing plan and guess what? It worked! high high
Also, that OIDIA record was very impressive as very few artists passed even 800k in their first week.
|
Make singles unavailable to push album sales is pretty much like too make album costs 99 cents.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/9/2012
Posts: 59,872
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 4AM.
You can't discount part of the GP and pretend they don't count, nobody cares what sales are sustained when we're only talking about peaks, AirPlay will never determine what the GP actually likes (for proof, see some hits from the woman literally in my avi right now), and what happens then is that they are a #1 hit and your own definition of hit has no bearing on that. |
Oh okay, this is where we realize you're on a different page from how charts are compiled.
Charts aren't compiled on what's LIKED (we have YouTube like bars for that?) they're compiled on POPULARITY.
Airplay is the biggest indicator of popularity, because it's what the whole public listens to. Therefore airplay will always be the most accurate way to show the Hot 100 (which by the way, is based on the most popular tracks in America, not the most liked).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2003
Posts: 50,977
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vini
Kind of. Slave even charted on R&B radio chart or whatever it's named.
Anyway, there is a lot of reach in this thread, people can't deal with the fact that she was never overplayed as much as some of their faves, she was radio banned and YET, she has bigger and more memorable songs than them.
Plus, she had a multitude of worldwide hits, chart-wise if that's all you want. |
That's all, and it's also the reason why all the haters are perched in here. 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shamser
It's not like radio ban (if such existed) happened during her early days.It happened only after 5 years of her career when she only had 1 #1 single.
Radio ban is more like of a cool thing too dicsuss because her fans wants her to be controversial.
|
Cool? Really now?
And "after 5 years"? Her music career started in '98, the radio ban started in '01 - How da **** is that "after 5 years of her career"? 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shamser
Oh...and yeah.Her label only released limeted amount of singles to her first albums to push her album sales which is sort of cheating and it's funny that they are still cling to OIDIA record when for acts like Taylor and Beyonce last album it's much more impressive to sell million in a week with available singles and internet is way more popular now.
|
Not freakin' CHEATING. 
I'm done.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shamser
Make singles unavailable to push album sales is pretty much like too make album costs 99 cents.
|
In what way?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/3/2012
Posts: 42,099
|
Because her songs are never that huge. She was overshadowed by urban artists in the 2000s decade, and now she is overshadowed by other pop stars today (Rihanna, Katy Perry, Beyonce, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 27,745
|
In the beginning of her career the majority of her singles were not released as physical singles, and digital singles were not counted until 2005. Up until 2001 the majority of her singles reached their position based on airplay alone. Oops!... even broke a record when it was initially released, but it wasn't released as a CD single. Releasing a CD single in the U.S. was a rarity for her and only some songs were released like From The Bottom of My Broken Heart, which went platinum in a few months (and was the 8 best selling physical single of the 2000's no less). Then when she got banned from Radio during the Britney era she didn't have physical singles nor radio airplay so she was almost completely ineligible to chart. Thankfully OIDIA, Slave, Stronger, etc are all elegible for Gold (digitally).
This has been explained about a million times already but kiii at her haters trying to use it against her.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iHypeMusic
Oh okay, this is where we realize you're on a different page from how charts are compiled.
Charts aren't compiled on what's LIKED (we have YouTube like bars for that?) they're compiled on POPULARITY.
Airplay is the biggest indicator of popularity, because it's what the whole public listens to. Therefore airplay will always be the most accurate way to show the Hot 100 (which by the way, is based on the most popular tracks in America, not the most liked).
|
No. Not even close. If I play my farts on all Clear Channel stations every five minutes, does that make them the most popular track in America when they debut with a billion AI? No. "Popularity" = how much the GP likes something. "Popularity" = the things they actually pay for. Not what they are forced to hear and don't like enough to buy (WHYB anyone?).
Quote:
pop·u·lar
adjective
1.
liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group.
"she was one of the most popular girls in the school"
synonyms: well liked, favored, sought-after, in demand, desired, wanted
2.
(of cultural activities or products) intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals.
|
Let's go back to your previous picky argument about how "inaccurate" it is for any chart to allow Britney, or 1D as you also said, to have lots of #1 hits. Aside from the misuse of the word "inaccurate" in the first place, here are the top five artists by #1 hits on Hot Digital Songs (which you might recognize as the leading sales chart from 2005 onward in the US):
1. Rihanna (13)
2. Katy Perry (10)
3. Eminem (9)
5. Britney Spears (7)
5. Taylor Swift (7)
First off, I don't see 1D anywhere on there, so that part of your claims is kind of tossed out the window already. Anyway, let's examine what this means: each of these artists has held the most-purchased track in America for at least one chart week with as many songs as are next to their names. Not paying any attention to how long these songs charted, that translates simply into: "These artists had this many sales-based #1 hits". And yet, this is somehow inaccurate? Somehow undeserved, you might think? I don't understand that. 
Sales undeniably reflect consumer attitudes. Radio does not and it is therefore not a reliable factor in determining the actual popularity of a song with the GP. Radio, in fact, often piggybacks off of what people think the songs will sell in order to create a radio hit; the other way around is more rare.
And to tie this back to Britney; sales are the only one of these two mediums which can reliably and consistently indicate consumer preference for a given chart week, and she lacks #1 hits on the Hot 100 because it does not reflect each week's consumer preferences accurately.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/9/2012
Posts: 59,872
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 4AM.
No. Not even close. If I play my farts on all Clear Channel stations every five minutes, does that make them the most popular track in America when they debut with a billion AI? No. "Popularity" = how much the GP likes something. "Popularity" = the things they actually pay for. Not what they are forced to hear and don't like enough to buy (WHYB anyone?).
Let's go back to your previous picky argument about how "inaccurate" it is for any chart to allow Britney, or 1D as you also said, to have lots of #1 hits. Aside from the misuse of the word "inaccurate" in the first place, here are the top five artists by #1 hits on Hot Digital Songs (which you might recognize as the leading sales chart from 2005 onward in the US):
1. Rihanna (13)
2. Katy Perry (10)
3. Eminem (9)
5. Britney Spears (7)
5. Taylor Swift (7)
First off, I don't see 1D anywhere on there, so that part of your claims is kind of tossed out the window already. Anyway, let's examine what this means: each of these artists has held the most-purchased track in America for at least one chart week with as many songs as are next to their names. Not paying any attention to how long these songs charted, that translates simply into: "These artists had this many sales-based #1 hits". And yet, this is somehow inaccurate? Somehow undeserved, you might think? I don't understand that.
Sales undeniably reflect consumer attitudes. Radio does not and it is therefore not a reliable factor in determining the actual popularity of a song with the GP. Radio, in fact, often piggybacks off of what people think the songs will sell in order to create a radio hit; the other way around is more rare.
And to tie this back to Britney; sales are the only one of these two mediums which can reliably and consistently indicate consumer preference for a given chart week, and she lacks #1 hits on the Hot 100 because it does not reflect each week's consumer preferences accurately. |
and more, .
1. If you get 1 billion listens...HOW WOULD YOU NOT BE THE MOST POPULAR TRACK?  Anything that is listened to 1 billion times in a week, and is classified as a track, is the most popular song. You shot yourself in the foot.
2. I said One Direction WOULD be an example of someone to possibly go #1 all the time. I never said anything about them having huge #1's. They've released tracks that have done over 500k with relatively no airplay. What makes you think they wouldn't be urged by their label to do that even more if it guarantees them a #1?
3. Radio bases hits off popular artists, callout scores (what listeners think themselves), and requests. So you constantly acting like radio plays no role in what GP likes = incorrect. The same people you highlighted on the digital chart, also have some of the biggest hits of 2013-2014 (minus Britney of course!) so it's not like we're being forced to hear songs from people we don't like?
4. Yeah, no. By that chart logic "Work Bitch" would've been a Top 5 hit. Nobody knows the song exists. Bringing up it's sales that dropped, it's VEVO views that still didn't translate to even Gold sales, etc won't change that!
Stuff like Bieber's Music Mondays that fell a week later, Lana's preorders that fell a week later, etc going #1 / Top 10 constantly every week to only fall down the chart steeply a week later would make the Hot 100 a joke in too many ways. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
1) See the definition of popular (you might like the words in there!).
2) I think they ARE urged to sell a lot (since that actually generates a profit) without having to rely on radio!
3) Popular artists with songs that might be unpopular (WHYB again!), and callout scores, but then also payola. Radio might be influenced by what we like, but that relationship is not reciprocal and that was my point.
4) Sooo what's your point? Still would have peaked high. That's the point, not sustainability. #1's are achieved by peak; they don't have to sustain themselves (see most #1 debuts post-2000).
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iHypeMusic
Stuff like Bieber's Music Mondays that fell a week later, Lana's preorders that fell a week later, etc going #1 / Top 10 constantly every week to only fall down the chart steeply a week later would make the Hot 100 a joke in too many ways.
|
Becauuuuse you don't personally think they deserve the peaks they'd get?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 27,745
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iHypeMusic
4. Yeah, no. By that chart logic "Work Bitch" would've been a Top 5 hit. Nobody knows the song exists. Bringing up it's sales that dropped, it's VEVO views that still didn't translate to even Gold sales, etc won't change that! |
Work Bitch is almost Platinum though. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
