#1's regardless of what people say acclaim won't feed you and people don't get on this industry just to get acclaim they get on it to get $$, sell their music and make a living out of it. If that was the case they'd be doing something else with their lives.
Usually flops who can't get a hit/sell use the critical acclaim excuse(I don't make music to sell I only want people to liek my music ) but is only because they're not able to sell they wouldn't say that and wouldn't complain if they'd be #1 and selling a lot.
There's some rare cases where people have BOTH like Taylor Swift and Adele tho.
Taylor will get her 8 week number one with blank space.
Id prefer the 8 week number one tbh.
Does anyone have multiple 8 week number ones?
Bey has 3
Rihanna has 1
How many do Mariah and Madonna have?
But honestly, to the artist, #1's and/or good sales matter. Obviously they are chasing for success, and like some said here, metacritic don't pay bills or make anyone famous.
It's cute and good to be acclaimed but at the end of the day, the success is important. If the artist don't care for it, then he wouldn't even be on this business.
#1s because I'd rather be successful for my music than to receive "critical acclaim" or a high Metacritic score no one but ATRL knows about. I wouldn't want to care about what critics have to say about me, whether it's good or bad.
My fave already has a 9 week #1 and critical acclaim. But I'd rather she focused on quality than made something as horrible as some of the songs that went to #1 for 8 weeks.
Anyway, is a MetaCritic score of 70 really that good?
Not saying that people should be writing songs just to please the critics, but I'd hope that most artists would want to aim a little higher than that.
) but is only because they're not able to sell they wouldn't say that and wouldn't complain if they'd be #1 and selling a lot.
