Drake Being Messy On Insta After Ties Michael Jackson #1s Record To His

[Celloo Deng 54,413]

8 hours ago, PartySick said:

Me @ Drake and Taylor's fans

I'm Lupita 

[Pennywise 36,013]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

I just looked and I'm so mad the post that's linked to that wp is gone. I wanted to see it 

To be fair, I'm looking and a lot of these wouldn't even be waffled these days. Maybe we've grown jaded and hate the world too or maybe we just went soft but like...idc if you call Pete Buttigeg a rat

Honestly, it’s like the fall of Rome except slightly less gay and much messier 

 

this just made me remember the Reagan incident where I was like “implying” bad things for him and got pancaked, in PRIDE MONTH. Not even considering that SIS IS ALREADY GONE. Nowadays girlies are like “death to ______!!!!” and anything goes, apparently  @PartySick

[PartySick 153,734]

8 minutes ago, Pennywise said:

Nowadays girlies are like “death to ______!!!!” and anything goes, apparently 

And what about it

[Sneaky Oliver 21,899]

I don’t think he’s comparing himself no MJ in terms of artistry or cultural impact, it just happens they have the same numbers now and it was bound to happen, like Gaga or even Taylor Swift can surpass Madonnas #1s 

[Dancerinthedark95 304]

10 hours ago, Maxine Puth said:

“I don’t listen to him, that must mean no one else does”

I listen to him sometimes but his 'hits' are so forgettable and bland...

[Economy 48,857]

7 hours ago, NATAH said:

cus you need less sales girl  the gap between number 1 and 2 is very small now unless a major artist is dominating

And only 1 person can be at #1 at once...

 

I dont get why u keep trying to use the formula used for charts as an argument when ALL artists your competing with are subject to the ecact same formula as you so the competition is still relative

 

Thats like saying a 2 mile marathon is easier to win in than a 5 mile one... its not... theres still gonna be only 1 winner and everyone else has to do the same as u... so its still relative

[PartySick 153,734]

32 minutes ago, Economy said:

Thats like saying a 2 mile marathon is easier to win in than a 5 mile one... its not... theres still gonna be only 1 winner and everyone else has to do the same as u... so its still relative

Relative yeah but running 2 miles is objectively easier than running 5 so winning a 2 mile race is less of an accomplishment than winning a 5 mile race

I have no idea what y'all are debating about here, I'm just feeling argumentive 

[Lextyr97 19,578]

15 hours ago, PartySick said:

I still maintain the only living artist I would even compare to MJ is Beyoncé. Not even for sales either, just from pure cultural impact.

That's the thing that's most impressive about MJ's legacy. It's freaking EVERYWHERE. His influence is in every pop star doing it today

Bey's the only artist with comparable reach tbh. Still has a long way to go, but she's got the potential to actually do it.

I'm not even a Beyoncé fan either

I don’t think even Beyonce compares though. To be quite honest, I don’t see her impact in like… any artist besides maybe Lizzo. No one has anything that seems even marginally inspired by Beyonce lol same cannot be said for Michael. Obviously she’s made a name for herself, has tremendous talent, and is wildly successful, I just PERSONALLY don’t see her impact. Madonna is the closest to Michael in that regard

[Judas Oyster 1,911]

Solo? Top 1 now making him tie MJ is not solo, its the song with J Cole. Am I missing something?

[nATAH 46,300]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

And only 1 person can be at #1 at once...

 

I dont get why u keep trying to use the formula used for charts as an argument when ALL artists your competing with are subject to the ecact same formula as you so the competition is still relative

 

Thats like saying a 2 mile marathon is easier to win in than a 5 mile one... its not... theres still gonna be only 1 winner and everyone else has to do the same as u... so its still relative

because you need LESS SALES to get a number 1 today than back then which makes it a lot easier in comparison

back then you needed solid popularity and support, today you only need to be viral on social media so the impact of having a number 1 is weaker today

a good example is gayle who had a hit because she went viral but her album totally tanked cus she didn't have a fanbase, just internet fame

[Economy 48,857]

33 minutes ago, NATAH said:

because you need LESS SALES to get a number 1 today than back then which makes it a lot easier in comparison

back then you needed solid popularity and support, today you only need to be viral on social media so the impact of having a number 1 is weaker today

a good example is gayle who had a hit because she went viral but her album totally tanked cus she didn't have a fanbase, just internet fame

Ur still not adressing the core fact... That only 1 person can be #1 at any given time no matter how charts are measured or what the dynamics are or what has changed. U are still competing with other artists that exist in the same environment as you

 

As such, a #1 is still just as difficult to get on a relative basis and not any less impressive

[nATAH 46,300]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Ur still not adressing the core fact... That only 1 person can be #1 at any given time no matter how charts are measured or what the dynamics are or what has changed. U are still competing with other artists that exist in the same environment as you

 

As such, a #1 is still just as difficult to get on a relative basis and not any less impressive

because that doesn't matter

the answer to your question is that the gap between 1 and 2 is smaller than before

it's easier for 2nd to become 1st