base talk Greatest Artists of All Time on Billboard. Does your fave make it?

[Kalmanta]

Paul McCartney 

The Weeknd is probably top 30 with an updated ranking. 

[PoisonedIvy]

1 hour ago, Batsy Armada said:

Based on their previous lists, I just knew this one would be tragic—but I wasn't expecting this nonsense. Drake is a better artist than Prince? Really? Whomever made this list needs to be slapped.

Reading comprehension. 

[tost1]

Does this take into account Normani's Dopamine release?

[Welovetrouble]

11 hours ago, ben-0_0 said:

Streaming era stats belong in a separate chart. Love Story is the only Taylor Swift song that will be remembered in 20 years and her cultural impact comes nowhere near the Bodyguard soundtrack alone, never mind her being above Whitney in an all-time list

Me when I'm delusional lol 😂, I don't like Taylor Swift's music but please.....

[Kalmanta]

11 hours ago, Robyn. said:

So it's numbers-based and Beyoncé is that low? 

 

Maybe we should ask billboard for a cultural impact chart

The list is from 2019, so it misses around 25 Weeks she spent inside the album charts top 10 and 38 Weeks on the Hot 100. And that's just the weeks she placed an album/song in the top 10.

[Ratviolo]

9 hours ago, EnigmaticAndroid said:

Well, it's settled then! 

According to the 2022 update posted above:

 

49 (+7) Lady Gaga 

63 (-5) Britney Spears

65 (-4) Katy Perry

 

[Batsy Armada]

9 hours ago, PoisonedIvy said:

Reading comprehension. 

A simple clarification is all that's needed. Thank you. I love that we see, though, how meaningless supposed chart points are—so my initial reaction is still warranted. If we're going to talk about the greatest artists of all time, then let's talk about the greatest artists of all time. Not just those with high "chart points."

[PoisonedIvy]

3 minutes ago, Batsy Armada said:

A simple clarification is all that's needed. Thank you. I love that we see, though, how meaningless supposed chart points are—so my initial reaction is still warranted. If we're going to talk about the greatest artists of all time, then let's talk about the greatest artists of all time. Not just those with high "chart points."

The connotation here is they are using "greatest" to mean "highest/largest sum of chart points," because they are an organization that measures consumption and assigns points based on the charts that track that data. It's like being upset that a sportscast calls a player with the highest career point total the "greatest" of all time. 

[Batsy Armada]

6 minutes ago, PoisonedIvy said:

The connotation here is they are using "greatest" to mean "highest/largest sum of chart points," because they are an organization that measures consumption and assigns points based on the charts that track that data. It's like being upset that a sportscast calls a player with the highest career point total the "greatest" of all time. 

That wasn't a good example that you used in an unneeded attempt to be condescending. Sports and musical talent are measured completely differently. A sports player with the highest career point total could more than likely be considered the "greatest," based on their point total over other players. Artistic talent can not be measured in such a way. After all, would you say that Drake is more talented than Prince, or that he just happened to chart higher?

 

If they wanted to make such a list, then it should have been prefaced and title differently—"Highest Charting Artists." I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But to label it under "Greatest Artists of All Time" expecting me to go along with it based on the "connotation" of their flawed charting system is a no-no.

 

I'm so sorry if that offends you, but it ultimately has nothing to do with you. So, I don't even know why you feel the need.

[PoisonedIvy]

58 minutes ago, Batsy Armada said:

That wasn't a good example that you used in an unneeded attempt to be condescending. Sports and musical talent are measured completely differently. A sports player with the highest career point total could more than likely be considered the "greatest," based on their point total over other players. Artistic talent can not be measured in such a way. After all, would you say that Drake is more talented than Prince, or that he just happened to chart higher?

 

If they wanted to make such a list, then it should have been prefaced and title differently—"Highest Charting Artists." I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But to label it under "Greatest Artists of All Time" expecting me to go along with it based on the "connotation" of their flawed charting system is a no-no.

 

I'm so sorry if that offends you, but it ultimately has nothing to do with you. So, I don't even know why you feel the need.

It doesn't offend me, I promise I understand that the quality of art is subjective and can't be quantified or measured numerically. Which is why I also understand there's no definitive "greatest" list of artists, and also why I understand "greatest" has multiple different definitions. You seem to be hyperfixating on "greatest" in the context of quality when the definition being used here is in the context of "highest"/"most." I am not trying to come off as condescending, I apologize if that's the tone of my posts thus far 

[modeblock]

Almost all my faves on the list whew  

 

Talent + Artistry + Beauty = Success  

 

iktr  

[Moonlight Nation]

19 hours ago, Scars said:

Miley! 

 

People underestimate her career so much.

And to think this ranking was before "Flowers" ' success, meaning she'll be even higher on the next update 

 

13 hours ago, Kalmanta said:

Paul McCartney 

The Weeknd is probably top 30 with an updated ranking. 

According to the projections shared by @Kitboga on the previous page, by July 2022 The Weeknd would be debuting at #36. Since then, we had the smashery of "Die For You" and "Creepin", so he's probably even higher now. 

[Batsy Armada]

5 hours ago, PoisonedIvy said:

It doesn't offend me, I promise I understand that the quality of art is subjective and can't be quantified or measured numerically. Which is why I also understand there's no definitive "greatest" list of artists, and also why I understand "greatest" has multiple different definitions. You seem to be hyperfixating on "greatest" in the context of quality when the definition being used here is in the context of "highest"/"most." I am not trying to come off as condescending, I apologize if that's the tone of my posts thus far 

Now I'm hyperfixating? I just have to be the problem, don't I? What does the word "Greatest" mean? The title, "Greatest Artists of All Time." Like I said in my previous post, if that was the case, the article being titled "Highest Charting Artists of All Time" would have been much more appropriate. At that point, it would have been solely based on statistical data and I, most likely, wouldn't have commented at all because I don't care about charts. Don't use a word then try to change the meaning of it, when it carries an entirely different meaning than what it's suggested to mean instead. The idea here is that charting higher than another artist makes them "greater," which isn't the case. Within a culture where people give way too much to chart positions, I don't feel out of line for calling that out with the way it's being presented to me.

 

And I don't believe that you weren't trying to be condescending when your very first response to me in this thread was, "Reading comprehension." Which, my reading comprehension is just fine because there was nothing to indicate this list was based solely on chart position that was readily identifiable.

 

 

[Comedor]

8- Taylor Swift

18- Rihanna 

61- Katy Perry

85- Kelly Clarkson

 

Don't let all time know about this list.

 

[PoisonedIvy]

1 minute ago, Batsy Armada said:

Now I'm hyperfixating? I just have to be the problem, don't I? What does the word "Greatest" mean? The title, "Greatest Artists of All Time." Like I said in my previous post, if that was the case, the article being titled "Highest Charting Artists of All Time" would have been much more appropriate. At that point, it would have been solely based on statistical data and I, most likely, wouldn't have commented at all because I don't care about charts. Don't use a word then try to change the meaning of it, when it carries an entirely different meaning than what it's suggested to mean instead. The idea here is that charting higher than another artist makes them "greater," which isn't the case. Within a culture where people give way too much to chart positions, I don't feel out of line for calling that out with the way it's being presented to me.

 

And I don't believe that you weren't trying to be condescending when your very first response to me in this thread was, "Reading comprehension." Which, my reading comprehension is just fine because there was nothing to indicate this list was based solely on chart position that was readily identifiable.

 

 

The definition Billboard is using:

- of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.

 

vs the definition it seems you might be stuck on:

- of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.

 

I promise I'm just trying to explain that "greatest" doesn't only mean "best quality." Billboard is a chart/data based reporter. A fundamental aspect of reading comprehension includes inferring implied connotation. I apologize for only replying with "reading comprehension" instead of elaborating, I was probably just tired and wanted to nudge you towards a better understanding.

 

It's not a "problem," I am not trying to paint it as one. I genuinely think some people don't know that "greatest" of all time lists can be based on objective data when statistic reporting is involved. As opposed to "greatest" of all time lists that are based on artistic merit and subjective perspectives in other publications that do -not- track data. 
 

TLDR — Greatest doesn't only mean "best." Billboard is data-driven, so their version of "greatest" will be curated based on numbers. They don't have to spell that out for it to be understood, the onus is on the readers to understand and infer implied context based on the type of publication Billboard is. 

[Batsy Armada]

3 hours ago, PoisonedIvy said:

The definition Billboard is using:

- of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.

 

vs the definition it seems you might be stuck on:

- of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.

 

I promise I'm just trying to explain that "greatest" doesn't only mean "best quality." Billboard is a chart/data based reporter. A fundamental aspect of reading comprehension includes inferring implied connotation. I apologize for only replying with "reading comprehension" instead of elaborating, I was probably just tired and wanted to nudge you towards a better understanding.

 

It's not a "problem," I am not trying to paint it as one. I genuinely think some people don't know that "greatest" of all time lists can be based on objective data when statistic reporting is involved. As opposed to "greatest" of all time lists that are based on artistic merit and subjective perspectives in other publications that do -not- track data. 
 

TLDR — Greatest doesn't only mean "best." Billboard is data-driven, so their version of "greatest" will be curated based on numbers. They don't have to spell that out for it to be understood, the onus is on the readers to understand and infer implied context based on the type of publication Billboard is. 

Bruh...

[Mandalay]

Mariah Carey and Billboard belong together.

[suburbannature]

8 hours ago, Batsy Armada said:

Now I'm hyperfixating? I just have to be the problem, don't I? What does the word "Greatest" mean? The title, "Greatest Artists of All Time." Like I said in my previous post, if that was the case, the article being titled "Highest Charting Artists of All Time" would have been much more appropriate. At that point, it would have been solely based on statistical data and I, most likely, wouldn't have commented at all because I don't care about charts. Don't use a word then try to change the meaning of it, when it carries an entirely different meaning than what it's suggested to mean instead. The idea here is that charting higher than another artist makes them "greater," which isn't the case. Within a culture where people give way too much to chart positions, I don't feel out of line for calling that out with the way it's being presented to me.

 

And I don't believe that you weren't trying to be condescending when your very first response to me in this thread was, "Reading comprehension." Which, my reading comprehension is just fine because there was nothing to indicate this list was based solely on chart position that was readily identifiable.

 

 

Doing all this because you didn't take the time to read 😭

[Punky Rooster]

With the list not being updated since Covid, it's probably one of the last times a list like this would be relatively accurate - without all the 30+ chart "hits" that chart for a week when someone releases an album these days and when dozens of album variants are released to boost numbers that's come into vogue over the past 2-3 years.

[Batsy Armada]

10 hours ago, suburbannature said:

Doing all this because you didn't take the time to read 😭

Nothing showed up when I clicked the link, just the actual list. There was no preface or context added. And, still, I see nothing that talks about it being based on chart positions—besides what has been mentioned in this thread, which I've addressed. I know you all like to gaslight people, though, so thanks for commenting, I guess.

[PoisonedIvy]

1 hour ago, Batsy Armada said:

Nothing showed up when I clicked the link, just the actual list. There was no preface or context added. And, still, I see nothing that talks about it being based on chart positions—besides what has been mentioned in this thread, which I've addressed. I know you all like to gaslight people, though, so thanks for commenting, I guess.

Look sorry, some of us have seen the Billboard "Greatest" of all Time Lists before and we were previously familiar with the fact that their list is based on the consumption data that they track for their charts. If you weren't familiar with it initially that's fine but now you know for next time

[Feanor]

On 7/5/2024 at 2:46 AM, Kitboga said:

 

anyhow this is the July 2022 update of this chart. 
 

After 2 minutes of researching, I have gathered that TS has since then notched:

 

24 weeks of number 1 in the albums 200s chart

 

15 weeks of #1 on the hot100 chart 

 

80+ weeks at top2-10 of the hot100 chart (equivalent to another ~30 weeks at #1) 

 

and never left the top 10 of the album 200 chart. 
 

Geez I wonder if she overtook The Rolling Stones or not 

Taylor estimated to be #4 already, even without 'Midnights', 'TTPD' and her whole catalog slayage since 2022…

Billboard will probably recalibrate the methodology and weigh down chart points from the 2020s the next time they update this list, but there's no doubt that she's inevitably headed towards at least the #2 slot.

[Batsy Armada]

1 hour ago, PoisonedIvy said:

Look sorry, some of us have seen the Billboard "Greatest" of all Time Lists before and we were previously familiar with the fact that their list is based on the consumption data that they track for their charts. If you weren't familiar with it initially that's fine but now you know for next time

And that's all that, literally, needed to be said in the very first place. No hard feelings; no love lost.

 

Thank you.

[Kitboga]

1 hour ago, Feanor said:

Taylor estimated to be #4 already, even without 'Midnights', 'TTPD' and her whole catalog slayage since 2022…

Billboard will probably recalibrate the methodology and weigh down chart points from the 2020s the next time they update this list, but there's no doubt that she's inevitably headed towards at least the #2 slot.

Billboard surely will do that, no doubt. But i don't see how that'll stop her from reaching #1 at some point. Like I pointed, she has so many freakin weeks at top 10s the last 2 years that it's bound to happen. 

Edited July 7 by Kitboga

[Genius1111]

Kelly at #85 (2019), #87 (2022) 

 

She's probably somewhere in the 90s now, and probably out of the top 100 by the start of the next decade, unless Underneath The Tree gains a hell lot more momentum.

Edited July 7 by Genius1111