Does #1 really matter that much?

[Akiki 3,900]

14 minutes ago, RochestrMonstr said:

It doesn't actually "matter", but it's still nice to have! 

It's especially nice to see it happen to Shallow, to shut up the people who say Gaga needs to create radio-friendly music! (Although i'm sure they'll find a new reason to say it)

That being said, to me it felt like Million Reasons hitting #4 after the Super Bowl was a more important moment than Shallow hitting #1.  Shallow was already a massive worldwide hit, and hitting #1 in the US was just the icing on the cake.  Million Reasons on the other hand, didn't even get the modest success it had until that point. 

 

[migamiga 12,101]

only when we have them 

[jaXXXon 1,538]

Recently I watched a lot of BBH100 chart recaps from the 80s and 90s on YouTube. They were from this or that week back in this or that month of different years in those specific decades and I noticed something interesting: I almost didn't know any song from positions 50-11 but when the top 10 was shown I recognized most of the songs.

Just goes to show that most songs that peak outside of the top 10 (notice I said most, not all) aren't well remembered. I think that might have something to do with initial popularity (there's a reason they didn't smash the charts) and the fact that radio gives re-current airplay to songs that were hits rather than those that were not. 

So saying charts don't matter is very... well, not true exactly.  

[jaXXXon 1,538]

2 hours ago, mauvais said:

#1s absolutely don't matter. I read a great comment one time on some site that said something like "the GP doesn't even know these girls release albums" which is the cold hard truth. I told my mom that Shallow went #1 because she liked ASIB and works in the film industry so she isn't totally oblivious to metrics, and she was like "how does a song go number #1?" 

Billboard charts are the girls and gays version of, like, sports league rankings. 

Not only girls and gays follow charts. Fans of all kinds of genres follow charts as well.

[gypsy101 5,453]

3 hours ago, Akiki said:

It did nothing for poor Katy's Career 

lies, it did for many years

[mauvais 0]

🦚

[Akiki 3,900]

3 hours ago, mauvais said:

#1s absolutely don't matter. I read a great comment one time on some site that said something like "the GP doesn't even know these girls release albums" which is the cold hard truth. I told my mom that Shallow went #1 because she liked ASIB and works in the film industry so she isn't totally oblivious to metrics, and she was like "how does a song go number #1?" 

Billboard charts are the girls and gays version of, like, sports league rankings. 

I feel like it's good to be in the top 10 or so, but being 1 or 3 or 4 it changes close to nothing. 

[jaXXXon 1,538]

8 hours ago, mauvais said:

and I watch baseball  whats your point

Point being that you’re generalizing. Especially something like charts, which is crazy to generalize like that. Many music fans - gay or straight - follow charts. I’m just saying don’t put everyone into one box. 

[jaXXXon 1,538]

8 hours ago, Akiki said:

I feel like it's good to be in the top 10 or so, but being 1 or 3 or 4 it changes close to nothing. 

Ironically, it wasn’t until Shallow was #1 that US pop stations began giving it an actual chance even though it had previously been top 10. 

So I don’t agree about #1s not changing anything. 

[Nikolai Barrow 1,337]

Pretty sure Thriller peaked at #4 so no in the long run it doesn't really matter. But it sure doesn't hurt. :P

[TeenIdle 126,436]

Longevity and impact are more important. For example when you think of Britney hits, you think of Oops I Did It Again and Toxic (both peaked at #9) and not 3 or Hold It Against Me (#1 singles)