charts discussion Artists with the Most Weeks charting on the Billboard 200

[onewillowsilk]

1,000+ weeks:

1. The Beatles — 3,286 weeks

2. Drake — 3,044 weeks

3. Taylor Swift — 2,852 weeks

4. Eminem — 2,337 weeks 

5. Michael Jackson — 2,135 weeks

6. Elton John — 2,076 weeks

7. The Rolling Stones — 2,060 weeks   

8. Elvis Presley — 2,015 weeks 

9. Barbra Streisand — 1,885 weeks  

10. Pink Floyd — 1,678 weeks 

11. George Strait — 1,667 weeks 

12. Journey — 1,600 weeks 

13. Fleetwood Mac — 1,574 weeks

14. Metallica — 1,566 weeks

15. The Beach Boys — 1,527 weeks  

16. Tim McGraw — 1,475 weeks

17. Bob Seger — 1,437 weeks

18. Frank Sinatra — 1,427 weeks 

19. Eagles — 1,415 weeks

20. Led Zeppelin — 1,359 weeks

21. Herb Alpert — 1,359 weeks 

22. Garth Brooks — 1,355 weeks  

23. Alan Jackson — 1,339 weeks  

24. Queen — 1,337 weeks

25. Neil Diamond — 1,326 weeks  

26. Willie Nelson — 1,323 weeks 

27. The Temptations — 1,305 weeks 

28. Rod Stewart — 1,289 weeks

29. U2 — 1,272 weeks   

30. AC/DC — 1,270 weeks

31. The Weeknd — 1,264 weeks

32. Guns N' Roses — 1,253 weeks

33. Kanye West — 1,250 weeks

34. Creedence Clearwater Revival — 1,244 weeks

35. Kendrick Lamar — 1,215 weeks

36. Billy Joel — 1,200 weeks

37. Aerosmith — 1,186 weeks

38. Prince — 1,170 weeks

39. Bob Dylan — 1,169 weeks 

40. Bruno Mars — 1,161 weeks

41. Eric Clapton — 1,156 weeks 

42. Chicago — 1,153 weeks

43. Tom Petty — 1,149 weeks

44. Johnny Cash — 1,149 weeks 

45. Kenny Rogers — 1,145 weeks   

46. Ed Sheeran — 1,137 weeks

47. Blake Shelton — 1,133 weeks 

48. Bob Marley — 1,128 weeks

49. Adele — 1,121 weeks

50. Madonna — 1,119 weeks 

51. Bon Jovi — 1,118 weeks

52. Zac Brown Band — 1,085 weeks 

53. Kenny Chesney — 1,066 weeks 

54. 2Pac — 1,062 weeks

55. Bruce Springsteen — 1,008 weeks

56. Nirvana — 1,001 weeks

57. Johnny Mathis — 1,001 weeks

 

500+ weeks:

Imagine Dragons — 996 weeks

Aretha Franklin — 995 weeks

Toby Keith — 991 weeks 

Post Malone — 990 weeks 

Paul McCartney — 979 weeks  

Andy Williams — 979 weeks  

Future — 968 weeks

Stevie Wonder — 963 weeks  

Whitney Houston — 960 weeks

Mariah Carey — 952 weeks  

Santana — 929 weeks

J. Cole — 919 weeks 

Diana Ross — 917 weeks 

Hall & Oates — 912 weeks

Bee Gees — 912 weeks 

Neil Young — 910 weeks 

Rihanna — 908 weeks

The Supremes — 901 weeks 

Juice WRLD — 889 weeks

Lynyrd Skynyrd — 888 weeks 

Beyoncè — 885 weeks

Celine Dion — 870 weeks

Jason Aldean — 868 weeks

Reba McEntire — 866 weeks 

Linda Ronstadt — 861 weeks   

David Bowie — 856 weeks 

John Denver — 848 weeks  

Red Hot Chili Peppers — 846 weeks

Luke Bryan — 838 weeks 

Linkin Park — 834 weeks 

Van Morrison — 834 weeks  

Phil Collins — 823 weeks  

Nickelback — 819 weeks

Chris Stapleton — 805 weeks 

Lady Gaga — 793 weeks

James Taylor — 789 weeks  

Rascal Flatts — 786 weeks

Van Halen — 777 weeks  

Lil Wayne — 775 weeks 

Lana Del Rey — 769 weeks

Justin Bieber — 762 weeks 

Luke Combs — 760 weeks 

Maroon 5 — 759 weeks

Dave Matthews Band — 753 weeks  

Lil Uzi Vert — 751 weeks

Carrie Underwood — 740 weeks

Lil Baby — 731 weeks

John Mellencamp — 730 weeks

Kenny G — 729 weeks

YoungBoy Never Broke Again — 727 weeks

Simon & Garfunkel — 725 weeks

The Moody Blues — 715 weeks 

Chris Brown — 710 weeks 

Def Leppard — 702 weeks 

Foo Fighters — 689 weeks

Travis Scott — 688 weeks

Bad Bunny — 688 weeks 

P!nk — 684 weeks

Ariana Grande — 677 weeks 

XXXTentacion — 674 weeks

Keith Urban — 674 weeks 

Michael Bublé — 672 weeks

Billie Eilish — 671 weeks

Jay-Z — 652 weeks  

The Who — 650 weeks  

Ozzy Osbourne — 646 weeks 

Doobie Brothers — 643 weeks  

Earth, Wind & Fire — 639 weeks

Pearl Jam — 633 weeks 

Paul, Peter & Mary — 631 weeks

Lionel Richie — 614 weeks

Bonnie Raitt — 613 weeks

ABBA — 611 weeks

Michael Bolton — 611 weeks 

Motley Crue — 609 weeks

Gloria Estefan — 609 weeks  

Rod Wave — 605 weeks

Cher — 605 weeks 

Kid Rock — 601 weeks

Twenty One Pilots — 600 weeks 

R. Kelly — 590 weeks 

Five Finger Death Punch — 587 weeks 

The Notorious B.I.G. — 594 weeks

Katy Perry — 593 weeks

Foreigner — 583 weeks 

Green Day — 582 weeks 

Tyler, the Creator — 579 weeks 

Janet Jackson — 578 weeks

Miley Cyrus — 576 weeks

Jethro Tull — 573 weeks

Enya — 570 weeks   

Frank Ocean — 560 weeks 

Coldplay — 548 weeks 

Josh Groban — 534 weeks

Heart — 532 weeks 

Metro Boomin - 508 weeks

The Monkees — 507 weeks 

 

Edited May 21 by onewillowsilk

[AlexStexaul]

2 minutes ago, onewillowsilk said:

Lady Gaga — 672 weeks

legend 

[sasashite]

6 minutes ago, onewillowsilk said:

9. Taylor Swift — 1,826 weeks

Soon top 3

[GoodGuyGoneGhetto]

8 minutes ago, onewillowsilk said:

25. Willie Nelson — 1,323 weeks

This man has only had four top ten albums, despite releasing 72 studio albums and 25 collaborative albums, in his 50+ year career.

 

The definition of a U.S Country Legend.

 

 

8 minutes ago, onewillowsilk said:

47. Bob Marley — 1,010 weeks

Almost 800 weeks of this total comes from one album alone - the “Legend” compilation. 
 

Iconic.
 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by GoodGuyGoneGhetto

[makeme]

Jay Z is the artists with the second most #1 albums of all time but he is that low? King of quick little albums I guess

 

 

 

 

[UMS125]

Only 4 women in top 50 

[onewillowsilk]

4 minutes ago, GoodGuyGoneGhetto said:

This man has only had four top ten albums, despite releasing 72 studio albums and 25 collaborative albums, in his 50+ year career.

 

The definition of a U.S Country Legend.

 

 

Almost 800 weeks of this total comes from one album alone - the “Legend” compilation. 
 

Iconic.
 

 

 

Pink Floyd — 1,649 weeks (962 weeks from the "The Dark Side of the Moon" album). 

Journey — 1,491 weeks (699 weeks from the "Journey's Greatest Hits" album). 

Metallica — 1,449 weeks (646 weeks from the "Metallica" album). 

Creedence Clearwater Revival — 1,125 weeks (576 weeks from the "Chronicle: The 20 Greatest Hits" album). 

[onewillowsilk]

17 minutes ago, makeme said:

Jay Z is the artists with the second most #1 albums of all time but he is that low? King of quick little albums I guess

 

 

 

 

He has charted 23 releases on the Billboard 200, 16 of which reached the top 10 and the longest any of his albums has ever charted is 69 weeks. 

[Tusk]

12 minutes ago, UMS125 said:

Only 4 women in top 50 

Nope

 

 

You’re missing Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie

[doonerr]

Mariah Carey has that 1k in the bag with Merry Christmas

[tshwark]

31 minutes ago, makeme said:

Jay Z is the artists with the second most #1 albums of all time but he is that low? King of quick little albums I guess

 

 

 

 

Propaganda, just a narrative around him.

[The Music Industry]

Barbra you're in danger girl 

[Brando]

Taylor will do a +5 by the end of the year 

[swissman]

Well, this really shows just how much easier men have had it in this industry, how men benefit from a lack of misogyny which allows them to have easy, proud fans of both genders that can then contribute to their sales, drum up acclaim, create legacy through numbers.

 

It's also quite telling that most of the artists in the 1,000+ category are white, and that the every female artist to have over 1,000 weeks are white [blonde] women.

 

The industry/America/society really has issues with appreciating women/women of colour.

Edited February 18, 2022 by swissman

[Literature]

1 hour ago, swissman said:

Well, this really shows just how much easier men have had it in this industry, how men benefit from a lack of misogyny which allows them to have easy, proud fans of both genders that can then contribute to their sales, drum up acclaim, create legacy through numbers.

 

It's also quite telling that most of the artists in the 1,000+ category are white, and that the every female artist to have over 1,000 weeks are white [blonde] women.

 

The industry/America/society really has issues with appreciating women/women of colour.

Is this based on legit research, or your personal conjecture?

[swissman]

17 minutes ago, Literature said:

Is this based on legit research, or your personal conjecture?

This is an observation from having looked through the list of artists who have achieved 1,000+ weeks on the Billboard 200 as listed in the OP.

Do you not think misogyny and racism exist in this world, and if they exist, that they have no affect on music artists?

And do you have any other explanations for why only 6% of the artists who has achieved that are women, and 94% are men? Are women naturally worse, less appealing artists or something? And is this not misogyny of some sort?

 

 

THE WOMEN ON THE LIST:

(who are all white)

8. Barbra Streisand — 1,884 weeks
9. Taylor Swift — 1,826 weeks
42. Madonna — 1,119 weeks

THE MEN ON THE LIST:

(6 of which are not white)

 

1. The Beatles — 3,153 weeks
2. Drake — 2,159 weeks
3. Eminem — 2,105 weeks
4. The Rolling Stones — 1,987 weeks
5. Elton John — 1,943 weeks
6. Michael Jackson — 1,924 weeks
7. Elvis Presley — 1,891 weeks
10. Pink Floyd — 1,649 weeks
11. George Strait — 1,568 weeks
12. Journey — 1,491 weeks
13. The Beach Boys — 1,465 weeks
14. Frank Sinatra — 1,450 weeks
15. Metallica — 1,449 weeks
16. Tim McGraw — 1,409 weeks
17. Fleetwood Mac — 1,371 weeks
18. Herb Alpert — 1,359 weeks
19. Led Zeppelin — 1,357 weeks
20. Garth Brooks — 1,355 weeks
21. Alan Jackson — 1,339 weeks
22. Bob Seger — 1,329 weeks
23. Neil Diamond — 1,326 weeks
24. Eagles — 1,324 weeks
25. Willie Nelson — 1,323 weeks
26. The Temptations — 1,305 weeks
27. Rod Stewart — 1,289 weeks
28. U2 — 1,271 weeks
29. Queen — 1,226 weeks
30. Bob Dylan — 1,169 weeks
31. AC/DC — 1,166 weeks
32. Prince — 1,161 weeks
33. Eric Clapton — 1,156 weeks
34. Chicago — 1,153 weeks
35. Johnny Cash — 1,149 weeks
36. Kenny Rogers — 1,145 weeks
37. Aerosmith — 1,140 weeks
38. Billy Joel — 1,137 weeks
39. Guns N' Roses — 1,135 weeks
40. Blake Shelton — 1,133 weeks
41. Creedence Clearwater Revival — 1,125 weeks
43. Kenny Chesney — 1,066 weeks
44. Tom Petty — 1,037 weeks
45. Zac Brown Band — 1,026 weeks
46. Bon Jovi — 1,013 weeks
47. Bob Marley — 1,010 weeks
48. Bruce Springsteen — 1,002 weeks
49. Johnny Mathis — 1,001 weeks
 

Even looking at the 500+ range:

 

THE WOMEN:

Aretha Franklin — 995 weeks

Adele — 969 weeks

Mariah Carey — 935 weeks

Diana Ross — 917 weeks

The Supremes — 901 weeks

Celine Dion — 869 weeks
Linda Ronstadt — 861 weeks

Whitney Houston — 851 weeks

Beyoncè — 786 weeks

Rihanna — 728 weeks

Carrie Underwood — 727 weeks

Carole King — 678 weeks

P!nk — 675 weeks

Lady Gaga — 672 weeks

Ariana Grande — 614 weeks

Bonnie Raitt — 613 weeks

Gloria Estefan — 609 weeks

Cher — 605 weeks

Lana Del Rey — 604 weeks

Janet Jackson — 578 weeks

Enya — 570 weeks

 

THE MEN:
Paul McCartney — 971 weeks
Toby Keith — 968 weeks
Andy Williams — 966 weeks
Stevie Wonder — 954 weeks
Bruno Mars — 952 weeks
2Pac — 950 weeks
Santana — 929 weeks
Bee Gees — 910 weeks
Neil Young — 910 weeks
The Weeknd — 908 weeks
Ed Sheeran — 903 weeks
Kendrick Lamar — 886 weeks
Kanye West — 884 weeks
Nirvana — 881 weeks
Jason Aldean — 859 weeks
John Denver — 848 weeks
Imagine Dragons — 842 weeks
Luke Bryan — 838 weeks
Van Morrison — 834 weeks
Red Hot Chili Peppers — 825 weeks
Phil Collins — 823 weeks
Hall & Oates — 821 weeks
Lynyrd Skynyrd — 789 weeks
James Taylor — 789 weeks
Rascal Flatts — 786 weeks
Van Halen — 777 weeks
Maroon 5 — 759 weeks
Dave Matthews Band — 753 weeks
Future — 752 weeks
J. Cole — 743 weeks
John Mellencamp — 729 weeks
Kenny G — 729 weeks
Simon & Garfunkel — 725 weeks
Linkin Park — 724 weeks
The Moody Blues — 715 weeks
Nickelback — 706 weeks
Def Leppard — 702 weeks
Justin Bieber — 682 weeks
Keith Urban — 674 weeks
Michael Bublé — 653 weeks
Jay-Z — 651 weeks
The Who — 650 weeks
Lil Wayne — 646 weeks
Doobie Brothers — 643 weeks
Ozzy Osbourne — 642 weeks
Pearl Jam — 631 weeks
Paul, Peter & Mary — 631 weeks
Earth, Wind & Fire — 629 weeks
Lionel Richie — 614 weeks
Michael Bolton — 611 weeks
Motley Crue — 607 weeks
Kid Rock — 599 weeks
Chris Brown — 591 weeks
R. Kelly — 590 weeks
Twenty One Pilots — 589 weeks
Post Malone — 595 weeks
Five Finger Death Punch — 585 weeks
Foreigner — 583 weeks
Jethro Tull — 573 weeks
Foo Fighters — 571 weeks
Green Day — 569 weeks
Coldplay — 548 weeks
Chris Stapleton — 545 weeks
Lil Uzi Vert — 532 weeks
Josh Groban — 532 weeks
Heart — 532 weeks
YoungBoy Never Broke Again — 526 weeks
Travis Scott — 507 weeks
The Monkees — 507 weeks

[swissman]

Well hopefully some Aretha albums can chart just 5 more weeks and she can push onto the 1,000+ list and be the only Black woman to do it, because honestly it's so pitiful the way American music has been largely and almost entirely formed by black musicians and innovations yet just over 12% of the acts in that 1000+ group are Black.

[Literature]

4 hours ago, swissman said:

This is an observation from having looked through the list of artists who have achieved 1,000+ weeks on the Billboard 200 as listed in the OP.

Do you not think misogyny and racism exist in this world, and if they exist, that they have no affect on music artists?

And do you have any other explanations for why only 6% of the artists who has achieved that are women, and 94% are men? Are women naturally worse, less appealing artists or something? And is this not misogyny of some sort?

 

 

My guess is that people probably just like listening to male artists more. I don't think preferences are misogyny. It would be interesting to see actual in depth research done on this topic instead of reading our own narratives into the data

[swissman]

40 minutes ago, Literature said:

My guess is that people probably just like listening to male artists more. I don't think preferences are misogyny. It would be interesting to see actual in depth research done on this topic instead of reading our own narratives into the data

There has been a lot of research into misogyny. It's well documented and I can cite sources if you don't believe me. It may not be centred around the music industry, but it's well proven that misogyny affects so many aspects of society. So why would the music industry be exempt? Furthermore, there are so many metrics we could look at that show the presence of misogyny in the music industry. Looking at the best-selling artists of all time shows it too. Looking at the amount of female AOTY winners at the Grammys shows it. Looking at the list of best selling singles shows it. It goes on and on...

 

Here, I don't think I've drawn my own conclusions. If 94% of all acts that have charted over 1000 weeks on the Billboard 200 are men, that's a pretty clear figure that shows gender bias. It can't be a coincidence if the number is that high. If it was even 70% or something, sure, let's question it, but nearly 100%? Come on. It's almost willful ignorance to see this and claim there's a lack of bias in the listening/buying public.

 

Preferences exist, but are not created in vaccuums. It's not a coincidence that in a society set up to focus on/value/support men, most people "prefer" a male politician. It's a preference at least partially informed by societal conditioning. I mean do you think those who live in matriarchal societies would share the same supposed "natural" preference?

 

If people like listening to male artists more, there must be reasons. What are they? Are they emphatically better singers or artists? No. Does what they say have more value? No. But people might think that way. Have men had more access and more leeway and more control and more trust than female artists in the industry? Yes. We could even just look at the type of male artists who succeed vs. the types of female artists that succeed. Few major, successful female artists are not objectified in some way, or revered for their beauty as well as their artistry. Most of the men on this list are not regarded for their beauty. And I'm not calling them unattractive. I'm saying that few of them are noted for their appearance.

 

Simply put. If women make up ~50% of the population, but 6% of the most successful albums (as per weeks charting), there is a big discrepancy. This isn't a stat like "6% of the most successful albums have no title on the cover", it's literally an entire gender not able to compete with the other in this metric, and why? Outright or internalized, it is misogyny.

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by swissman

[Literature]

6 hours ago, swissman said:

There has been a lot of research into misogyny. It's well documented and I can cite sources if you don't believe me. It may not be centred around the music industry, but it's well proven that misogyny affects so many aspects of society. So why would the music industry be exempt? Furthermore, there are so many metrics we could look at that show the presence of misogyny in the music industry. Looking at the best-selling artists of all time shows it too. Looking at the amount of female AOTY winners at the Grammys shows it. Looking at the list of best selling singles shows it. It goes on and on...

 

Here, I don't think I've drawn my own conclusions. If 94% of all acts that have charted over 1000 weeks on the Billboard 200 are men, that's a pretty clear figure that shows gender bias. It can't be a coincidence if the number is that high. If it was even 70% or something, sure, let's question it, but nearly 100%? Come on. It's almost willful ignorance to see this and claim there's a lack of bias in the listening/buying public.

 

Preferences exist, but are not created in vaccuums. It's not a coincidence that in a society set up to focus on/value/support men, most people "prefer" a male politician. It's a preference at least partially informed by societal conditioning. I mean do you think those who live in matriarchal societies would share the same supposed "natural" preference?

 

If people like listening to male artists more, there must be reasons. What are they? Are they emphatically better singers or artists? No. Does what they say have more value? No. But people might think that way. Have men had more access and more leeway and more control and more trust than female artists in the industry? Yes. We could even just look at the type of male artists who succeed vs. the types of female artists that succeed. Few major, successful female artists are not objectified in some way, or revered for their beauty as well as their artistry. Most of the men on this list are not regarded for their beauty. And I'm not calling them unattractive. I'm saying that few of them are noted for their appearance.

 

Simply put. If women make up ~50% of the population, but 6% of the most successful albums (as per weeks charting), there is a big discrepancy. This isn't a stat like "6% of the most successful albums have no title on the cover", it's literally an entire gender not able to compete with the other in this metric, and why? Outright or internalized, it is misogyny.

 

All of this can still easily be boiled down to a matter of preference. Men sold more albums? Matter of audience preference. Men are listened to more? Matter of audience preference. You are assuming the only reason there are differences between the consumption for men and women is misogyny; why is your assumption always the most nefarious possibility? Why can't it just be true that most people like listening to men? That isn't a problem, because that reflects the preferences of society. People have the same access to both men and women on Spotify. The data shows they often prefer listening to men. You trying to make that a 50 - 50 balance is actually harmful, it shows you do not care at all about what people want but instead want to force a specific ratio onto them to satisfy your imaginary quota. What we want is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The most egalitarian societies (Netherland, Sweden, etc.) reflect this same trend but to an even greater extreme. Nature is just being nature. 

[onewillowsilk]

2 hours ago, Literature said:

All of this can still easily be boiled down to a matter of preference. Men sold more albums? Matter of audience preference. Men are listened to more? Matter of audience preference. You are assuming the only reason there are differences between the consumption for men and women is misogyny; why is your assumption always the most nefarious possibility? Why can't it just be true that most people like listening to men? That isn't a problem, because that reflects the preferences of society. People have the same access to both men and women on Spotify. The data shows they often prefer listening to men. You trying to make that a 50 - 50 balance is actually harmful, it shows you do not care at all about what people want but instead want to force a specific ratio onto them to satisfy your imaginary quota. What we want is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The most egalitarian societies (Netherland, Sweden, etc.) reflect this same trend but to an even greater extreme. Nature is just being nature. 

 

8 hours ago, swissman said:

There has been a lot of research into misogyny. It's well documented and I can cite sources if you don't believe me. It may not be centred around the music industry, but it's well proven that misogyny affects so many aspects of society. So why would the music industry be exempt? Furthermore, there are so many metrics we could look at that show the presence of misogyny in the music industry. Looking at the best-selling artists of all time shows it too. Looking at the amount of female AOTY winners at the Grammys shows it. Looking at the list of best selling singles shows it. It goes on and on...

 

Here, I don't think I've drawn my own conclusions. If 94% of all acts that have charted over 1000 weeks on the Billboard 200 are men, that's a pretty clear figure that shows gender bias. It can't be a coincidence if the number is that high. If it was even 70% or something, sure, let's question it, but nearly 100%? Come on. It's almost willful ignorance to see this and claim there's a lack of bias in the listening/buying public.

 

Preferences exist, but are not created in vaccuums. It's not a coincidence that in a society set up to focus on/value/support men, most people "prefer" a male politician. It's a preference at least partially informed by societal conditioning. I mean do you think those who live in matriarchal societies would share the same supposed "natural" preference?

 

If people like listening to male artists more, there must be reasons. What are they? Are they emphatically better singers or artists? No. Does what they say have more value? No. But people might think that way. Have men had more access and more leeway and more control and more trust than female artists in the industry? Yes. We could even just look at the type of male artists who succeed vs. the types of female artists that succeed. Few major, successful female artists are not objectified in some way, or revered for their beauty as well as their artistry. Most of the men on this list are not regarded for their beauty. And I'm not calling them unattractive. I'm saying that few of them are noted for their appearance.

 

Simply put. If women make up ~50% of the population, but 6% of the most successful albums (as per weeks charting), there is a big discrepancy. This isn't a stat like "6% of the most successful albums have no title on the cover", it's literally an entire gender not able to compete with the other in this metric, and why? Outright or internalized, it is misogyny.

 

While I do agree that there's misogyny in the music industry and that affects female musicians in various ways, I don't think it's fair to blame listener preferences on misogyny. Most women listen to more male artists than female artists, not because there's a shortage of female artists to listen to or because they're forced to listen to male artists - they choose to do so. You can't blame that on misogyny. 

 

I will agree on (some) female acts having to be sexualized in some way to be successful but we also know that historically, there are several female artists who have seen massive success in music without needing to be overly sexual in their music and the women who are overly sexual in their music today do so because they want to and they find it empowering owning their sexuality and expressing that in their art. No one is demanding they do so. They're choosing to. The thing with any artist being successful in music all boils down to your music connecting with many people. Once that happens, it doesn't matter whether you're sexualized in your music or not or whether you're being massively marketed or not, it'll show in the numbers. 

 

Interestingly enough, female acts most definitely get more visibility and are marketed a lot harder than male acts. In today's world, you see female artists cover more magazines, perform at more award/late night TV shows and generally get more visible looks granting them exposure to the masses than you'll do with male artists so it's not a problem of visibility. The most visible artists in music today are women. If the masses are still going out of their way to engage with and support the music of male artists more even with that then you can't blame it on misogyny or the industry trying to hold women back in some way. That's just people choosing to do what they want to do. 

[Johnny Jacobs]

Drake at number 2

 

 

[swissman]

11 hours ago, Literature said:

All of this can still easily be boiled down to a matter of preference. Men sold more albums? Matter of audience preference. Men are listened to more? Matter of audience preference. You are assuming the only reason there are differences between the consumption for men and women is misogyny; why is your assumption always the most nefarious possibility? Why can't it just be true that most people like listening to men? That isn't a problem, because that reflects the preferences of society. People have the same access to both men and women on Spotify. The data shows they often prefer listening to men. You trying to make that a 50 - 50 balance is actually harmful, it shows you do not care at all about what people want but instead want to force a specific ratio onto them to satisfy your imaginary quota. What we want is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The most egalitarian societies (Netherland, Sweden, etc.) reflect this same trend but to an even greater extreme. Nature is just being nature. 

I really don't think we can just call it preference and leave it at that.

 

To have a stat like 94% of the most successful charting artists on the Billboard 200 are men and then shrug it as just innocuous preference and not yet another CLEAR example of bias of men over women is really odd. This seems to want to uphold the system of misogyny we KNOW is present in the world, and which continues to be problem because people are unwilling to question it and even see it for what it is.

 

In 2020 the UN did a study that found about 90% of people exhibited gender bias. The number was slightly lower in women, but only slightly. That pretty much matches the stat we have here regarding the percentage of artists in the 1000+ weeks category.

 

I am not asking for a 50/50 split. As I said, even if it was 70/30 then okay, we can question if it's just how the numbers played out or a real bias. But the number is 94%...that's an emphatic preference for male artists over women. And even if we don't see this as the "evil" misogyny that is being claimed it is not, it is emphatically evidence of a bias for male artists over female. You cannot argue against that. And in fact you are not. You're just using the word "preference" over "bias".

 

Misogyny need not be some viciously cruel, wholly evil thing. It is present even in simple stuff like word choices, etiquette, etc.

if you think that it's just "natural" that men should have more success on charts, that sounds like misogyny but okay, fine but this disregards the many ways misogyny affects us: from simply thinking women are not as good at doing things than men, that what they have to say is not important, that any man who is "feminine" is gay/wrong/shameful, etc. etc. etc. Do these things NOT exist in society? And if they do, why is the music industry and people's buying "preferences" exempt from them?

 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by swissman

[Ribs]

Yeah 94 percent is TOO much 

[Ribs]

Taylor coming for +5 this year