Gaga's the main popgirl with least #1s?

[Arcanum 5,155]

45 minutes ago, thopekas said:

Koumarianou indeed is more wellknown than Abdul.

Lemme dance u through it then. 

Her debut was a *smash*

[doppelganger 3,933]

37 minutes ago, Dorothy Gale said:

As much as I love her, Mariah has so many forgotten #1's and even some of her more memorable hits like Obsessed didn't even make top five. And the fact that Nicki Minaj has never had one further proves that #1's don't mean much. 

That's probably because you didn't grow up in the 90s?

Obsessed wasn't a huge hit by any stretch, it's just that slow jams were really popular in the 90s. The popularity of pop stars todays pales in comparison with the likes of Mariah, Madonna, Michael at their peak. Imagine Gaga at her peak but lasting a decade. 

[ryhanna 3,507]

17 hours ago, Albertodift said:

No Britney has 5:

Baby One More Time

Womanizer

3

Hold It Against Me

S&M (Remix)

 

but you not knowing them sort of proves the point that #1 peaks dont matter as much.

WHaaaaaaaat? Nothing between BOMT and Womanizer went #1? That's so crazy. 

[dit 46,473]

2 minutes ago, ryhanna said:

WHaaaaaaaat? Nothing between BOMT and Womanizer went #1? That's so crazy. 

Apparently she went through a weird radio ban moment in her career around that time. It's really strange because her WW peaks reflect what her US peaks should of been with radio support with the songs released in that time. Toxic should of easily of easily been a top 3, Slave should of been a top 10 etc..

[ryhanna 3,507]

Just now, Albertodift said:

Apparently she went through a weird radio ban moment in her career around that time. It's really strange because her WW peaks reflect what her US peaks should of been in the US with radio peaks with the songs released in that time. 

I was sure at least Oops and Toxic would have been US #1's. My mind is blown. 

[Dorothy Gale 7,575]

7 minutes ago, doppelganger said:

That's probably because you didn't grow up in the 90s?

Obsessed wasn't a huge hit by any stretch, it's just that slow jams were really popular in the 90s. The popularity of pop stars todays pales in comparison with the likes of Mariah, Madonna, Michael at their peak. Imagine Gaga at her peak but lasting a decade. 

No one can last that long in today's music market where everything is so instantaneous, and music is consumed so fast. We get tired of artists like ten times as quickly nowadays. 

[dit 46,473]

Just now, ryhanna said:

I was sure at least Oops and Toxic would have been US #1's. My mind is blown. 

I know what you mean. Some of her songs felt more massive then what they were in terms of charts peaks. Her releases were events. I guess it just translated into album sales instead of single sales for her. 

[ryhanna 3,507]

11 minutes ago, Albertodift said:

I know what you mean. Some of her songs felt more massive then what they were in terms of charts peaks. Her releases were events. I guess it just translated into album sales instead of single sales for her. 

I just looked up the chart position of Oops in the US. #9!!!! Good god, if one of Britney's earliest and most iconic hits only cracked the surface of the top 10, it makes you wonder why anyone here is worried about the charts for Gagz.

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

5 hours ago, Werk said:

The fact that a far more explicit mv like Anaconda isn't though  

No wonder this world is fcked. YouTube is a disgusting hypocrite. 

[Supersonic 49,376]

1 hour ago, Albertodift said:

Apparently she went through a weird radio ban moment in her career around that time. It's really strange because her WW peaks reflect what her US peaks should of been with radio support with the songs released in that time. Toxic should of easily of easily been a top 3, Slave should of been a top 10 etc..

 

1 hour ago, ryhanna said:

I was sure at least Oops and Toxic would have been US #1's. My mind is blown. 

That was done deliberately by her label. Back in the day, only songs that had CD single releases could chart in the USA. But they only released Britney's singles as limited editions or refused to print any, so people would have to the album.

That resulted in astronically high first week sales for Britney's first few eras, sans her debut album.

Ooops!... I Did It Again (1,300,000)
Britney (745,000)
In The Zone (609,000)

That all changed in the digital era when iTunes came up and people could be songs on their own.

[RochestrMonstr 3,216]

This thread is making me realize just how unimportant #1's are. Especially the Britney examples. 

Oops I Did it again had huge impact and is probably her second best known single. Yet it missed the top five. 

Hold it Against Me and Womanizer are forgettable trash with no lasting impact, but both hit #1. 

[He8MyHeart 9,765]

I forget how successful Rihanna is sometimes.

[JohnWayne23 5,227]

There's no denying that Gaga is an albums artist over a singles artist. But the amount of top 10s she received from 2009-2011 is crazy good, even if only 3 went #1

[JohnWayne23 5,227]

7 minutes ago, RochestrMonstr said:

This thread is making me realize just how unimportant #1's are. Especially the Britney examples. 

Oops I Did it again had huge impact and is probably her second best known single. Yet it missed the top five. 

Hold it Against Me and Womanizer are forgettable trash with no lasting impact, but both hit #1. 

Yup, and #1s are actually misleading. People think that means the song was MASSIVE but actually that spot can sometimes only speak for one week of the song's charting. Britney's HIAM, actually freefell a lot after that #1 debut

[Irrelevant 20,282]

7 hours ago, SEANGT said:

so...how many does she have? lol. two right? 

3... 

Just Dance, Poker Face and Born This Way