Does a Billboard #1 have any value?

[dopega 3,527]

Thats why I stick to music thats at least five years old 

[Haroon 49,685]

I think it does, it shows that it was big enough to be the most popular song for that week. That's all the charts have been and that's all they'll be  

[ViviLittleM 3]

it's better to have a #1 album

[LaLuna 12,732]

No. Having a #1 on Billboard doesn't mean sh*t. Anyone with a catchy song can get to #1, and it doesn't necessarily equal talent or longevity. A lot of one hit wonders got a #1 only to drop off the face of the earth soon after. I don't see it as much of an accomplishment. The true accomplishment lies in the artist's longevity and impact. 

[adamsenigma 9,520]

On 16/5/2016 at 3:10 PM, Bitter said:

anyone who has a good taste i guess.

Stop being so bitter lmao I don't like work either but that song is everywhere, from radio to social media. 

[Sizzily 14,543]

No, it just show that we are easily entertained and have short attention spans tbh 

[StrawberryBlond 13,290]

On the one hand, the charts are fairer now than ever before. It's not reliable enough just to count how many people bought the song that week, that's too superficial (even more so worldwide, where radio play counts for basically nothing and a song could be #1 with, like, 10k downloads). The inclusion of streaming has ensured that the most popular song truly gets the top spot because a song's popularity is about more than who is buying it. it's also to do with how many people are watching the music video, streaming it for free, jamming along to it when it comes on the radio, how much it's being absorbed into the culture. The new system allows for that. It allows the public to have more of a say and takes away the ridiculous concept of radio holding all the power. It was terrible how, for years, if a song wasn't "radio friendly," US radio wouldn't play it and it wouldn't stand a chance at #1. It was the part of US charts that I firmly disagreed with and what made them so much less fairer than worldwide charts, so I'm glad this has been fixed.

But on the other hand...

Who's buying it and who's buying it alone is still a good way of judging a song's popularity. Basing it not on how many people are listening to it (for free) but on how many are prepared to actually pay for it seems like a more accurate measurement of how good the public think a song is. To incorporate, say, YouTube views seems ridiculous as they can be bought and inflated. And just like radio, just because people are listening to it doesn't mean they like it. If anything the amount of likes and dislikes should play a role, not the views.

At the end of the day, it's a mixture of the two. They have good points and bad points. I really like how it takes a lot more than just the most amount of downloads that week to go to #1, though. Speaking as someone from the UK, I can't tell you how many undeserved #1's my country has given artists. There was a year where we had 42 #1's. 2014 was the year that produced the second highest amount of all time in our country. But then systems started changing. No one uses the pre-order system anymore (that's what caused all these "hits") and Spotify streaming was introduced. Now our charts are the closest thing to American charts that we've ever had. Songs can actually be #1 for several weeks now and it's actually exciting to see who's going to be #1 as it's actually ambiguous now. Before, if your song was at #1 on itunes all week, you were getting that #1, no two ways about it. Now you have to have so much more support than just a few thousand downloads, so your #1 means more. Drake's One Dance is on its 5th consecutive #1 week here and only one song has been a one week #1 thus far. That was unthinkable just 2 years ago.

[Ciccone Madonna 1,362]

I think having top 10 songs has more value in the longterm for career longevity. Cause, a song may chart high into top 10 for many weeks and not hit number 1, though becoming a bigger sensation than a song that was #1 for only a week. Thriller was #4 and it MJ singature song. Express Yourself was #2 and i remember back in the day that i was a lot on the radio.

[Prismatic 4,789]

2 hours ago, ViviLittleM said:

it's better to have a #1 album

I agree. When it comes to single, peak is more important. But when it comes to album sales >>>> but also having it a #1 is a plus. 

[VenusBlackStar 1,301]

I think Internet and digital sales and streaming lessened the value of a #1 record on the charts, but I still think it's a big deal cuz it's always nice to see an artist you love make it.

On the other hand, Internet/digital sales/streaming might make it HARDER to get to the top spot cuz easier access to music means higher visibility for way more artists than possible pre-Internet, so the landscape is more flooded. I feel like it could go both ways and that makes promotional resources that much more important but in a different way.

But at the end of the day it's really just ammunition for pressed stans on Twitter and fan forums like GGD.

[ALGAYDO 26,390]

Tbh having a #1 is only good because you can brag about it. It doesn't indicate the quality of the song whatsoever. 

[OBEY 57,107]

You're all saying it doesnt have any value anymore because you don't like the songs that are #1  

[Kenji 90]

In the 80's USED TO BE the Bible of the charts.

[Jay.P 2,331]

Not anymore

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

Streaming is weighted too heavily

i don't like it.