charts discussion Is Toxic proof that BB Hot 100 doesn't really matter?

[brazil]

2 hours 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. 

 

1 hour ago, Cruel Summer said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Brando said:

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 

Lots of interesting points here  as well some other replies 

[hector.adriel]

3 hours ago, D.M.F said:

 Toxic wasn’t a hit

Omg  I stopped reading here. Sis, Toxic is literally bigger than literally ANY Xtina solo song… if it wasn’t a hit then your fave is a literal flop  

[Harry]

are you saying what the BoTS are doing totally useless and doesn’t hold any merits?

[Erreur2 La Nature]

This website has to be the only place in the world where people know Toxic was not a #1 song and pretend "It's not a hit" 

 

To answer the thread, Toxic and many other songs and albums prove that BB's charts don't make any sense and are not a reliable representation of what it successful and has an impact in real life.

[Dula Peep]

Peaks do matter but longevity matters more 
 

which is why Levitating will win in the end and will outlast Fraudboard   

[brazil]

29 minutes ago, Erreur2 La Nature said:

This website has to be the only place in the world where people know Toxic was not a #1 song and pretend "It's not a hit" 

 

To answer the thread, Toxic and many other songs and albums prove that BB's charts don't make any sense and are not a reliable representation of what it successful and has an impact in real life.

It's but that's just DMF trolling from his mother's basement lol 

[FAN]

5 hours ago, 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.

You’d have to be a completely blind to think Toxic wasn’t a hit.

[Bey_Rihstan]

4 hours ago, rihannabiggestfan said:

Sure, but I feel like the absolute BEST proof of this is Ms. Perri's #31-peaking A Thousand Years

 

 

Jar of Harts & Human are both way bigger than their peaks of #17 & #31 as well

 

Queen of sleeper hits 

[Isaiah]

I think charts matter when looking at a specific week in history, but don't hold up when it comes to determining a songs legacy/how remembered it'll be.

 

plenty of songs were actually huge when they went #1, but have since been forgotten, and vice versa 

[CrimsonX]

I'm old and I remember Toxic was huge but hip-hop was dominating at the time. It definitely did not feel like a number 9 peak. It won a grammy and the song is a classic so there's that.

[LesFleur]

6 hours 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)

Not neccessarily.

 

A song can be a contemporary hit but a lesser hit at the same time can have bigger cultural impact over the years.

 

Marlena Shaw's cover of California Soul wasn't a charting hit in the 60s like the hit single  cover by the 5th Dimension (originally by The Messengers) but everyone knows Marlena's version due to sync use in adverts, films and samples.

 

5th Dimension - US #25

 

Marlena Shaw - didn't chart - but is a world-renowned classic

[Dingdong123]

6 hours ago, 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.

Toxic is a classic. Stay pressed

[Virtual_Insanity]

8 hours ago, brazil said:

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 

 

 

Toxic is heavily playlisted so that is where its streams are coming from. 

I doubt Twista benefits from such playlisting. 

[Virtual_Insanity]

1 hour ago, Isaiah said:

I think charts matter when looking at a specific week in history, but don't hold up when it comes to determining a songs legacy/how remembered it'll be.

 

plenty of songs were actually huge when they went #1, but have since been forgotten, and vice versa 

Some people here really struggle with the difference between "peak" and "longevity". 

Like I see people trying to claim Always remember us this way as a hit, I mean it wasnt a hit because it had a low peak but it accumulated decent streams over time. So it had good longevity or continued interest, probably from the movie, but it still wasnt a hit.  Theres a clear difference in both things. 

[brazil]

11 minutes ago, Virtual_Insanity said:

Toxic is heavily playlisted so that is where its streams are coming from. 

I doubt Twista benefits from such playlisting. 

Clearly you're ignoring that the discrepancies between the songs are much larger in YouTube than Spotify and Britney has the least spotify playlist reach out of all MPG.

[rp662]

8 hours ago, brazil said:

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 

 

 

Comparing stats is not really truthful without context. For example, I don’t know who Twista is. For all i know he and his song may have been local to the US as opposed to Britney who has global success. As a result, her streams will of course be greater than Twistas and not fit the BBH100 narrative comparison…

[Virtual_Insanity]

3 minutes ago, brazil said:

Clearly you're ignoring that the discrepancies between the songs are much larger in YouTube than Spotify and Britney has the least spotify playlist reach out of all MPG.

We are talking about TOXIC which curently has a playlist reach of 55 million. 

Now compare that, quickly, to other songs from 2003. 

[brazil]

10 minutes ago, rp662 said:

Comparing stats is not really truthful without context. For example, I don’t know who Twista is. For all i know he and his song may have been local to the US as opposed to Britney who has global success. As a result, her streams will of course be greater than Twistas and not fit the BBH100 narrative comparison…

True, but I'm sure comparing the songs US stats will still show the same story.

 

6 minutes ago, Virtual_Insanity said:

We are talking about TOXIC which curently has a playlist reach of 55 million. 

Now compare that, quickly, to other songs from 2003. 

Again, you're ignoring the YouTube stats. And Toxic having such a great playlist reach is also indicative of the songs success considering it has only been added in playlists organically by regular people, rather than by paid for by her team.

Edited January 23, 2022 by brazil

[Katy V.!]

1 hour ago, LesFleur said:

Not neccessarily.

 

A song can be a contemporary hit but a lesser hit at the same time can have bigger cultural impact over the years.

 

Marlena Shaw's cover of California Soul wasn't a charting hit in the 60s like the hit single  cover by the 5th Dimension (originally by The Messengers) but everyone knows Marlena's version due to sync use in adverts, films and samples.

 

5th Dimension - US #25

 

Marlena Shaw - didn't chart - but is a world-renowned classic

I really hope you're not trying to argue that Toxic wasn't a huge hit back when it was released and that it was actually a Telepatia-sized hit  (#48 on 2004 YEC vs #49 on 2021 YEC).

 

I understand the longevity argument but yall will not try to pass Toxic as some kind of obscure cult classic that people discovered 15 years later

[Virtual_Insanity]

18 minutes ago, rp662 said:

Comparing stats is not really truthful without context. For example, I don’t know who Twista is. For all i know he and his song may have been local to the US as opposed to Britney who has global success. As a result, her streams will of course be greater than Twistas and not fit the BBH100 narrative comparison…

Excellent point. 

[frankru2010]

You are fixated on music from 15 years ago. Why?? 

[Virtual_Insanity]

11 minutes ago, brazil said:

True, but I'm sure comparing the songs US stats will still show the same story.

 

Again, you're ignoring the YouTube stats. And Toxic having such a great playlist reach is also indicative of the songs success considering it has only been added in playlists organically by regular people, rather than by paid for by her team.

The delusion. Toxic is on a load of very big "paid" playlists like All out 2000s, songs to sing in the shower, guilty pleasures etc etc. 

That is where all its streams are coming from not regular playlists with 10 followers. 

[brazil]

38 minutes ago, Virtual_Insanity said:

The delusion. Toxic is on a load of very big "paid" playlists like All out 2000s, songs to sing in the shower, guilty pleasures etc etc. 

That is where all its streams are coming from not regular playlists with 10 followers. 

I've just checked those playlistsand Toxic is not even in one of them lmfaooooo

 

You're trying to argue that Slow Manz is as big as Toxic, seek professional help please!

Edited January 23, 2022 by brazil

[LesFleur]

18 hours ago, Katy V.! said:

I really hope you're not trying to argue that Toxic wasn't a huge hit back when it was released and that it was actually a Telepatia-sized hit  (#48 on 2004 YEC vs #49 on 2021 YEC).

 

I understand the longevity argument but yall will not try to pass Toxic as some kind of obscure cult classic that people discovered 15 years later

I didn't even mention Toxic. Toxic is one of the first Britney songs that come to mind if I had to name her hits. It was a smash in the UK...and has also been covered a lot.

 

I was simply highlighting the point that chart peaks don't always correlate with cultural impact, popularity and longevity.

 

 

[Rabbit]

 

19 hours ago, Virtual_Insanity said:

The delusion. Toxic is on a load of very big "paid" playlists like All out 2000s, songs to sing in the shower, guilty pleasures etc etc. 

That is where all its streams are coming from not regular playlists with 10 followers. 

 

And it's massive streams on Youtube and other music platforms are because of what?   The cherry picking and fumes