poll Better Achievement: Teenage Dream’s 5 #1’s vs Midnights occupying the entire top 10?

[By the Water]

4 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

Older albums didn’t even have a chance at that because the rules prevented non-official singles from charting. Streaming made it easier as well. It would have been done many times before. 
 

Katy’s 

No one would have occupied the entire top 10 back then even if non-singles were allowed to chart. And Taylor sent non-singles to the top 10 even before the streaming era. What was stopping the other artists from doing the same?

[unclefloprry]

5 #1s that charted multiple weeks in the top 10 >>> one week peak songs 

[suburbannature]

2 minutes ago, By the Water said:

No one would have occupied the entire top 10 back then even if non-singles were allowed to chart. And Taylor sent non-singles to the top 10 even before the streaming era. What was stopping the other artists from doing the same?

girl that’s so delusional to think this 

[Club classic]

Clearly 5 #1-s, that means the GP was on board and technically Part of Me was #1 too, right? It's very impressive though Taylor achieved that.

[Axelios]

2 minutes ago, sbenci said:

Clearly 5 #1-s, that means the GP was on board and technically Part of Me was #1 too, right? It's very impressive though Taylor achieved that.

The GP listen to Taylor albums in their entirety the day they release. They don't need radio for that.

[kimberly]

Katy's 5 #1 singles (and 69 consecutive weeks charting in the Top 10 — a record that still hasn't been broken).

[John Slayne]

Swifties are misleading us when they say 'it's only been done once'. Yes, that's technically correct, but pretty much until streaming arrived it wasn't possible to flood the top 10 with an album bomb. Katy's achievement is so much more impressive, her 5 number ones were all hit singles, not just frontloaded releases. That isn't to say Taylor's achievement isn't impressive either, but I don't think it's harder than 5 number ones. Someone will eventually match that record, almost definitely by the end of this decade given how frequent album bombs are on the hot 100 nowadays. 

[By the Water]

6 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

girl that’s so delusional to think this 

Maybe some non-singles would have gone top 10 but the entire top 10? 

[Cloröx]

14 minutes ago, swissman said:

True, but the possibility of having 5 #1s on the Hot 100 has existed ever since the Hot 100 debuted in 1958, and the possibility of occupying the Top Ten with songs from a single album has only existed since 1998 when they allowed songs to chart, not singles, and has really only become possible within the streaming era where we see album cuts debut on the Hot 100 routinely.

Even they allow this there would be high chance that songs won't chart that high simply because people will buy the whole album instead of individual songs and I don't think radio will spam all ten songs. Occupying entire Top 10 is harder because the album tracks are competing with songs that receive full single treatment including radio airplay, music video etc.

[John Slayne]

13 minutes ago, By the Water said:

No one would have occupied the entire top 10 back then even if non-singles were allowed to chart. And Taylor sent non-singles to the top 10 even before the streaming era. What was stopping the other artists from doing the same?

Do you think people didn't release big albums before streaming era?  

[sunbathinganimal]

Teenage Dream obviously

[swissman]

22 minutes ago, By the Water said:

No one would have occupied the entire top 10 back then even if non-singles were allowed to chart. And Taylor sent non-singles to the top 10 even before the streaming era. What was stopping the other artists from doing the same?

Prior to the digital era there was no way to consume non-single album tracks unless the label directly promoted/released them in some form.

In the 1990s labels realized singles can take away album sales since popular songs were what drove people to the record store. And if you liked a song, why buy an entire album, necessarily? So, they began releasing music videos for songs, promoting them, sending them to radio, but never releasing as a single so that fans would be required to buy the album. This meant that several hit songs on radio were so big we probably assume they were multi-week #1s but never charted on the Hot 100, until Billboard changed the rule in 1998 to allow any song to chart, not any single.

 

Taylor is undoubtedly the most successful at maximizing what this new era can do for non-singles, but the possibility of charting non-singles that were not otherwise treated as singles (ie. sent to radio, had music videos, etc.) only really began once the digital era was in full swing, and fans could buy album tracks individually.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by swissman

[By the Water]

1 minute ago, John Slayne said:

Do you think people didn't release big albums before streaming era?  

Do you think album sales count towards the Hot 100?

[Cloröx]

1 minute ago, By the Water said:

Do you think album sales count towards the Hot 100?

Ikr, some people are confused tho 

[John Slayne]

5 minutes ago, By the Water said:

Do you think album sales count towards the Hot 100?

Exactly, they don't, so why are you so confident assuming that nobody in the past was able to generate enough interest in their album to occupy the top 10? It's silly, artists have released bigger albums than Midnights but before streaming couldn't really attempt this record. Your assumptions that nobody would be able to do it in the past even if streaming was around is based on absolutely nothing but your bias because you stan Taylor.

Edited October 11, 2023 by John Slayne

[Year of Shadow]

The odds of someone getting 5 #1s in one album these days is practically zero. 

Whereas I expect Taylor to fill all of the top 10 with 1989 TV. 

 

So I voted Katy. 

[Maroonx]

They each have their own merit I'd say. Congrats to both Katy and Taylor x

[Asscatchem]

a quick lil frontloaded streaming burst =/= 5 classics spanning the year

 

[By the Water]

2 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Exactly, they don't, so why are you so confident assuming that nobody in the past was able to generate enough interest in their album to occupy the top 10? It's silly, artists have released bigger albums than Midnights but before streaming couldn't really attempt this record. Your assumptions that nobody would be able to do it in the past even if streaming was around is based on absolutely nothing but your bias because you stan Taylor.

Where did I say any of that?  I said that Billboard not allowing non-singles to chart isn't what stopped artists from occupying the entire top 10

 

9 minutes ago, swissman said:

Prior to the digital era there was no way to consume non-single album tracks unless the label directly promoted/released them in some form.

In the 1990s labels realized singles can take away album sales since popular songs were what drove people to the record store. And if you liked a song, why buy an entire album, necessarily? So, they began releasing music videos for songs, promoting them, sending them to radio, but never releasing as a single so that fans would be required to buy the album. This meant that several hit songs on radio were so big we probably assume they were multi-week #1s but never charted on the Hot 100, until Billboard changed the rule in 1998 to allow any song to chart, not any single.

 

Taylor is undoubtedly the most successful at maximizing what this new era can do for non-singles, but the possibility of charting non-singles that were not otherwise treated as singles (ie. sent to radio, had music videos, etc.) only really began once the digital era was in full swing, and fans could buy album tracks individually.

 

 

The digital era and the streaming era are two different things. And like you said, it was already possible to send non-singles to the top 10 in the digital era except most artists couldn't do it but Taylor did. But thank you for once again explaining that with the way music consumption worked back in the day no one would have occupied the entire top 10 even if Billboard allowed non-singles to chart

[Aaron]

32 minutes ago, By the Water said:

No one would have occupied the entire top 10 back then even if non-singles were allowed to chart

yes, they absolutely would have  

[Aaron]

30 minutes ago, sbenci said:

Clearly 5 #1-s, that means the GP was on board and technically Part of Me was #1 too, right? It's very impressive though Taylor achieved that.

Yes. Katy broke the record, I never understood why Billboard cared so much about MJ’s legacy to scramble and change the rules the week PoM went #1.  Disturbia and Take a Bow were seen as #1s from GGGB just a couple years prior and no one said anything. It was bizarre. 

[John Slayne]

1 minute ago, By the Water said:

Where did I say any of that?  I said that Billboard not allowing non-singles to chart isn't what stopped artists from occupying the entire top 10

That makes no sense because that is literally the case. What else do you think stopped artists from breaking this record if not the way charts and music consumption worked?

 

And the digital argument is invalid as well, in the digital era nobody would buy 10 songs individually, it was clearly cheaper to just get the album at that point. That is why Taylor couldn't break this record with 1989, even though it was definitely a bigger era than Midnights. In any other era of consumption (i.e. digital, vinyl, cassette, CD) Midnights would have never had this record. 

[Sergiov]

Only the swifties will remember 9/10 songs on that Top 10 in 2 years

[Treason]

Katy's

[Axelios]

13 minutes ago, swissman said:

Prior to the digital era there was no way to consume non-single album tracks unless the label directly promoted/released them in some form.

In the 1990s labels realized singles can take away album sales since popular songs were what drove people to the record store. And if you liked a song, why buy an entire album, necessarily? So, they began releasing music videos for songs, promoting them, sending them to radio, but never releasing as a single so that fans would be required to buy the album. This meant that several hit songs on radio were so big we probably assume they were multi-week #1s but never charted on the Hot 100, until Billboard changed the rule in 1998 to allow any song to chart, not any single.

 

Taylor is undoubtedly the most successful at maximizing what this new era can do for non-singles, but the possibility of charting non-singles that were not otherwise treated as singles (ie. sent to radio, had music videos, etc.) only really began once the digital era was in full swing, and fans could buy album tracks individually.

 

 

But Taylor was debuting album tracks in the H100 as far back as Fearless and Speak Now when noone else was doing it as far as I know.