brazil Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Toxic peaked at #9 in BB hot 100. Yet today it's always topping the list as of the songs with the most recurrent streams from the 2000s. For comparisson, Twista - Slow Jamz peaked at #1 in 2004 (same year Toxic was released as a single). Today, Slow Jamz has 18M views in YouTube and 87M in Spotify vs. Toxic's 545M and 695M. So does this means ATRL and the everyone should stop caring so much about BB Hot 100 or was Britney's low peak a result of still being affected by the radio ban from the "Britney era" and releasing a pop masterpiece in a year dominated by hip hop and RnB??? Discuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Volcano Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) No. The only reason it didnt peak higher was Britney's label not releasing enough physical copies since they preffered shifting the sales to the album. They did that with some of her other singles aswell like Sometimes which was a big hit but the peak was only #21. Edited January 22, 2022 by Hot Volcano Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.M.F Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Peaks do matter. Toxic wasn’t a hit according to the BB YE charts no matter what any stan says. Streaming payola won’t change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaria Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Toxic, Bad Romance, Hung Up, Halo, Beautiful, Oops, and TONS of other classics didn't peak at #1. It doesn't define a song being a classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brazil Posted January 22, 2022 Author Share Posted January 22, 2022 Just now, D.M.F said: Peaks do matter. Toxic wasn’t a hit according to the BB YE charts no matter what any stan says. Streaming payola won’t change that. The song feels like a hit though, I went out last night and heard it in both parties I went, meanwhile no songs from a certain screaming chanteuse was played And payola? She literally fired and accused her entire management of abusing her 3 years ago, you think they paying payola for her streams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Yes. In the US alone, it's done 5.6M SPS units and will hit 6M this year while it's almost at 2x Platinum in the UK too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProudLBS Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Yes. Another example: Hold It Against Me vs What the Hell (released on the same day) Hold It Against Me sales: 1.6M YouTube: 146M Spotify: 60M peak: #1 What the Hell sales: 2.1M YouTube: 388M Spotify: 243M peak: #11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naval23 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Yes, Black Eyed Peas "Pump It" peaked at #18 on the Hot 100 but is outstreaming 12 week #1 "Boom Boom Pow" YouTube: BBP - 420M Pump It - 683M Spotify: BBP - 248M Pump It - 379M Pump It: #18 Peak BBP: #1 x 12 weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armani? Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Some songs outlast their peaks & become classics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnanimousBB16 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Peaks do matter, since it helps the artists success at the time, and shows what people listen to at the time. Whether that initial popularity translates over the years is a different story, hence why some hits are forgotten, and some not hits become classics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy V.! Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 44 minutes ago, Hot Volcano said: No. The only reason it didnt peak higher was Britney's label not releasing enough physical copies since they preffered shifting the sales to the album. They did that with some of her other singles aswell like Sometimes which was a big hit but the peak was only #21. You're basically agreeing with OP. The Hot100 doesn't reflect popularity, as her songs were extremely popular but didn't chart well due to release strategy. I'd say it's not black and white, but charts aren't as important as actual stats (aka total units) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Volcano Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 1 minute ago, Katy V.! said: You're basically agreeing with OP. The Hot100 doesn't reflect popularity, as her songs were extremely popular but didn't chart well due to release strategy. I'd say it's not black and white, but charts aren't as important as actual stats (aka total units) But in this case it would've definitely peaked higher, its not Billboard's fault that her label wanted more profit with the album sales, so the OP is not correct. For example Xtina had four top 3 singles in her debut era cuz her label fully released them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rihannabiggestfan Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Sure, but I feel like the absolute BEST proof of this is Ms. Perri's #31-peaking A Thousand Years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropez Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 51 minutes ago, Hot Volcano said: No. The only reason it didnt peak higher was Britney's label not releasing enough physical copies since they preffered shifting the sales to the album. They did that with some of her other singles aswell like Sometimes which was a big hit but the peak was only #21. This is not true in 2003. By this point physical sales were extremely low. This was the start of the digital age. The issue was Billboard didn’t count digital sales into the Hot 100. So air play was still king. Pop music was not the main air play magnet. So r&b and hip hop songs were far more popular. In 2004. Toxic and Piece of Me by Ashley Simpson were the two biggest pop songs and they both went top 10. Just a different moment in music has nothing to do with release strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy V.! Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 7 minutes ago, Hot Volcano said: But in this case it would've definitely peaked higher, its not Billboard's fault that her label wanted more profit with the album sales, so the OP is not correct. For example Xtina had four top 3 singles in her debut era cuz her label fully released them. It is Billboard's fault because they're the ones setting up those parameters, and if they don't reflect actual popularity then they're flawed. It is kind of an impossible task and that's why charts can't be a definitive answer about whether a song is/was a hit or no but they're fairly good indicators. This happens to singers in every genre at different times so it's part of the industry changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 1 hour ago, Hot Volcano said: No. The only reason it didnt peak higher was Britney's label not releasing enough physical copies since they preffered shifting the sales to the album. They did that with some of her other singles aswell like Sometimes which was a big hit but the peak was only #21. Physical singles were dead in 2004. Between 2002-2004 the Hot 100 was 100% radio based except for the American Idol songs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 By the way Toxic was the 8th best selling digital track of 2004 but Billboard didn't count digital singles for the Hot 100 at that time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney Is Fierce Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 18 minutes ago, Tropez said: This is not true in 2003. By this point physical sales were extremely low. This was the start of the digital age. The issue was Billboard didn’t count digital sales into the Hot 100. So air play was still king. Pop music was not the main air play magnet. So r&b and hip hop songs were far more popular. In 2004. Toxic and Piece of Me by Ashley Simpson were the two biggest pop songs and they both went top 10. Just a different moment in music has nothing to do with release strategy. 5 minutes ago, Green said: Physical singles were dead in 2004. Between 2002-2004 the Hot 100 was 100% radio based except for the American Idol songs 2 minutes ago, Green said: By the way Toxic was the 8th best selling digital track of 2004 but Billboard didn't count digital singles for the Hot 100 at that time All of this. Had Toxic been released a year later, it definitely would've peaked higher since Billboard introduced digital sales in their formula in February 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruel Summer Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 The Hot 100 is good for telling what songs are popular according to the very specific criteria defined by its secret and proprietary formula for points calculation - and pretty much nothing else. There’s no way to tell the overall long term impact a song will have just by looking at Billboard, and there are cases throughout the chart’s history that demonstrate this. There are songs like Toxic, which are widely known and significant pop culture moments, and then there are ten-week number one hits that virtually nobody will ever hear again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brando Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Chart positions heavily depend on the metric used. Digital sales are a completely irrelevant metric of popularity at the moment but bb still allows them to account for a large number of points on their chart. If digital sales weren't counted Butter wouldn't even get 1 week at #1, instead it spent 10 weeks at #1. Same is true for a lot of other fraudulent #1s of the past few years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spree Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 1 hour ago, D.M.F said: Toxic wasn’t a hit ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
family.guy123 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 it's a weekly chart. are they supposed to retroactively adjust old chart runs based on current data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev8 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 We been knew that Charts aren't something to look at when looking at success especially with the formulas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poker Face Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 i mean look at bad romance. #1s are nice, but they don't always mean ~impact~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsmoker Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 56 minutes ago, family.guy123 said: it's a weekly chart. are they supposed to retroactively adjust old chart runs based on current data? This. It’s supposed to reflect the most popular songs at the time. Not what will and won’t be classics twenty years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.5c069777b1ab1d704a32825806767213.png)
.thumb.jpeg.9a664deb63a64dcea08aa9748a53bfa8.jpeg)
Recommended Posts