ARTV: #1 hits have lost all meaning

[BUtterfield 8 41,385]

 

[Luke78619 23,315]

He didn’t lie, look at Trollz as a great example. It went number one and then plummeted, and only chatted that high because of fan power, and not because it was the most popular track that week 

[Archduchess 2]

yeah I don't know 99% of the current #1s

 

[joannesrats 26]

We need to stop counting streams

[Red Velvet 10,988]

I think the only actual hits this year who in extent had atleast the impact of a hit in 2010-2016 were Watermelon Sugar, Rockstar, Rain On Me, Don't Start Now and Blinding Lights. I'd add WAP but I would need to make it grow first. 

As much as I love Taylor, cardigan could've had the same success of atleast Delicate but after all, she is an album artist. *sips tea in 6 weeks at #1*

[Chromatica 7,031]

I think #1s mean more than they ever have. Streaming has reduced the extent to which people buy music and has made it more about the music that people are actually listening to. The music that the most people are listening to or the music that get the most plays should be the music at the top of the chart, regardless of whether or not a large segment of the population has ever heard of the song. Arbitrary concepts like cultural impact should not be taken into consideration. 

[rumours 45,521]

I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, I certainly agree that a #1 peak on the Billboard Hot 100 is not really an indication that a song is a "hit". However, I'm not sure that framing the current system as "worse" - or that the chart system "had meaning" in the past - is really fair at all. For example, would we really consider calling parts of the 20th century where direct payola was rampant to be more fair than the current system? I'm not sure if I would. While I detest the streaming parties and gimmicks stans will participate in to get a song to go #1, at least that collusion is coming from the people rather than large corporations (even if it is a subsection of people like stan armies, etc.). Moreover, simply looking at a song's peak as an indication of cultural impact is pretty silly. There's a reason why Billboard provides stats like "duration on chart" in order to provide a more holistic outlook on how the song has performed overall.

[FentyGa 14,340]

true, real hits are rare

the only ones this year as far as #1s go tbh were blinding lights, the box, wap, say so, and savage

that said, i don’t get why a #1 is valued so much. i mean, im always happy when my faves get #1s, but it doesn’t make or break a song for me

[The Clown 539]

9 minutes ago, joannesrats said:

We need to stop counting streams

That makes no sense, gurl. Streams are the music industry at this point in time. Some of the most successful songs in recent memory aren't even Platinum if you only include pure sales.

In fact, pure sales in general are almost out. They are only relevant for first week sales of some digital era giants that stuck around, like Gaga or Taylor. Even then, they're not half of what they used to be.

 

O.T.: At this point in time, I think it's safe to say that the formula Billboard uses is kind of outdated and doesn't reflect what's really popular. I mean, Billie Eilish was the moment a year ago, yet she only ever got 1 big hit by "traditional" Hot 100 standards.

Really, it begs the question wether they can even get it right, ever again? With streaming, people can just listen to what they like and thus it'll be way rarer that a monster hit that everybody knows appears. As radio audiences keep plummeting, that will reign even more true.

It's kind of crazy, but it's possible that Gaga's 2008-2011 peak might have been the last veritable "It-Girl" moment in American pop culture.

[LateToCult 40,896]

So has a platinum certification. Even both of the youtuber Pauls have one. A multi-platinum certification still remains impressive though. Imo of course.

Edit: corrected myself because apparently both of the Paul brothers have one to their name. 

[androiduser 7,438]

26 minutes ago, BLACKPINK said:

I think the only actual hits this year who in extent had atleast the impact of a hit in 2010-2016 were Watermelon Sugar, Rockstar, Rain On Me, Don't Start Now and Blinding Lights. I'd add WAP but I would need to make it grow first. 

 

Rain On Me had the least logevity out of these songs, it really sticks out like a sore thumb on your list

[GagaEnigma 1,474]

28 minutes ago, joannesrats said:

We need to stop counting streams

We need to stop caring that much about the charts in general imo. Tracking and updating about the current album/single positions is absolutely ok, but having constant meltdowns over some numbers is kinda shallow and unnecessary tbh.

[Luke78619 23,315]

1 minute ago, androiduser said:

Rain On Me had the least logevity out of these songs, it really sticks out like a sore thumb on your list

I would agree for the US but it’s been doing far better in a lot of other big markets 

[androiduser 7,438]

8 minutes ago, Luke78619 said:

I would agree for the US but it’s been doing far better in a lot of other big markets 

this topic is about the Billboard #1s in the US

[Luke78619 23,315]

10 minutes ago, androiduser said:

this topic is about the Billboard #1s in the US

But it works all around the world as well, sure BBH100 is the most messed up but the UK has number 1 debuts often as well for the same reasons listed in the video