official chart Billboard's Top 100 Artists Of The 21st Century - Taylor #1

[Into The Void]

91 Shawn Mendes

 

glad he made the list

[Erreur2 La Nature]

I love reading Billboard's lists, they always make the weirdest lists, it's hilarious

[swissman]

yet another fact-based list that makes it clear it's that much harder for women to succeed in the industry.

[Calvin]

5 hours ago, cuteboyzay said:

if it weren't for Midnights and her TV's she'd probably be a little lower. Like that's kinda slay ngl lmao!

Taylor was #8 on all time charts they released in 2015. #1 artist of the century.

I really wanna see the points gap between #1 and the rest. 

Edited January 9 by Calvin

[Armani.]

On 1/8/2025 at 10:52 AM, satellites.™ said:

Cause this list makes no sense lol.

 

People with diamond certified albums are lower than Post Malone.

 

This literally includes the biggest albums sales eras and it seems to hold no weight.

His first few albums probably sold like 7M each, so it's not surprising 

 

But this is probably just based on their weekly point system, not units since it includes Hot 100

[Disconnect]

WHERE 

THE ****

IS

SHAKIRA?!!!

 

Not even top 100?

 

ARE YOU ******* KIDDING ME?!

 

This list is a piece of **** lol.

[elincomprendid]

11 hours ago, Eternium said:

but it is literally on its way to being his biggest era,

Now that the albums list is out 

 

#7 Hollywoods Bleeding

#12 Beerbongs & Bentleys

#24 Stoney

OUT — The Diamond Collection

 

 

[longjohn9898]

16 hours ago, KingBeyonce. said:

Some of the switfies comments in here and on twitter are frying me. They've been fuming about a list since November lmfao. Mad enough to still bring it up here instead of being happy for their favorite artist. Mind you, the list that they're mad about was supposed to include subjective factors. That's like being mad at a critic's year end list because of a mid selling album being above a top seller. But what can I expect from stans of someone that is not widely praised for singing, dancing, or performing - and singing is the main thing that singers are expected to be good at. When you don't have that, stats are gonna be the main thing that validates you and that you feel compelled to defend even if it means being completely irrational and for some - just absolutely bigoted  

--

Ashanti being on here shows how much she dominated with those first couple of albums lol

Nothing else needs to be said here

[MrPeanut]

Never noticed how Adele's kinda screwed over with the inverse point system.

[byzantium]

1 hour ago, MrPeanut said:

Never noticed how Adele's kinda screwed over with the inverse point system.

She heavily benefits though from the long chart runs of 19 and 21.  So it evens out a little.  

[swissman]

On 1/8/2025 at 10:34 AM, DevilsRollTheDice said:

No shade to any artist whose position moves but see when your achievements are based on actual impact and consumption and not vibes?

Funny that anyone was putting so much weight into a completely subjective list that would've looked completely different with a different set of authors. 

But this "objective" list would also look different if created by a different author too. This list is focused on "objective" facts..."objective" facts as deemed through the tracking methodology and ever-changing rules of one set of authors: Billboard.

This list isn't perfect, as it's hard to call something objective when it compares artists from multiple different eras of the industry. For example, now an album can stay on the Billboard 200 based on the success of one hit song alone. Never mind that no one is buying the album or not even streaming its other songs, the success of one song is a success for the entire album. Albums from 2000-2014 did not benefit from the extra Billboard 200 boost they'd have received from hit singles, meaning anyone whose success was predominantly from that time period is going to be at somewhat at a disdvantage in that metric against artists who's main success was 2014-2024.

 

But I also don't think it's "funny" to put weight into a subjective list authored by the industry's leading journal with access to just about as many stats and figures as they can get, when in actuality all that remains of a legacy is subjective opinion. No one cares, really, about popularity metrics. Who sold more is an asterisk past a certain point, it's trivia.

 

 

Edited January 9 by swissman

[DevilsRollTheDice]

15 minutes ago, swissman said:

But this "objective" list would also look different if created by a different author too. This list is focused on "objective" facts..."objective" facts as deemed through the tracking methodology and ever-changing rules of one set of authors: Billboard.

This list isn't perfect, as it's hard to call something objective when it compares artists from multiple different eras of the industry. For example, now an album can stay on the Billboard 200 based on the success of one hit song alone. Never mind that no one is buying the album or not even streaming its other songs, the success of one song is a success for the entire album. Albums from 2000-2014 did not benefit from the extra Billboard 200 boost they'd have received from hit singles, meaning anyone whose success was predominantly from that time period is going to be at somewhat at a disdvantage in that metric against artists who's main success was 2014-2024.

 

But I also don't think it's "funny" to put weight into a subjective list authored by the industry's leading journal with access to just about as many stats and figures as they can get, when in actuality all that remains of a legacy is subjective opinion. No one cares, really, about popularity metrics. Who sold more is an asterisk past a certain point, it's trivia.

 

 

This definitely isn't untrue, but Billboard frequently acknowledges that it's actually harder to achieve longterm success and rack up units now than it used to be, not the reverse. Both because of industry changes and for things like the loss of monoculture and society's much shorter attention spans.

 

You're right that no comparison will ever be perfect, but you'd have to be pretty delusional to not recognize that Taylor is a distant number 1 for biggest 21st century artist okay when it comes to charting, touring, streaming, sales, and any measurable stat. You're also comparing relatively comparable artists on this chart as it just encompasses the last 25 years. Taylor didn't even debut until 1/5 of the way into this charting period. Adjusting for industry changes would likely only increase the scale of her domination. 
 

 

Edited January 9 by DevilsRollTheDice

[swissman]

6 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

This definitely isn't untrue, but Billboard frequently acknowledges that it's actually harder to achieve longterm success and rack up units now than it used to be, not the reverse. Both because of industry changes and for things like the loss of monoculture and society's much shorter attention spans.

 

You're right that no comparison will ever be perfect, but you'd have to be pretty delusional to not recognize that Taylor is a distant number 1 for biggest 21st century artist okay when it comes to charting, touring, streaming, sales, and any measurable stat. You're also comparing relatively comparable artists on this chart as it just encompasses the last 25 years. Taylor didn't even debut until 1/5 of the way into this charting period. Adjusting for industry changes would likely only increase the scale of her domination. 
 

 

I didn't mention Taylor at all, so there's no room to suggest I implied Taylor isn't the statistically biggest artist of the 21st century. I'm sure you were just staking that claim relative to the purpose of your initial comment but I want to make that clear.

 

I'm merely pointing out how this list (as "objective" as it may seem or as objective as it can be) is also subject to factors that don't fully take into account the comparison of artists subject to different rules at different times. Taylor would probably stay at the top no matter what rule changes were made, but surely if Billboard had a different way of tabulating song streams into album sales (as just one example), the placement would be different for other artists with less of a lead against their peers.

 

As for your introductory statement, I don't think it matters at all if Billboard acknowledges that its harder to rack up units than it used to be if what they're basing this list on is not units but chart positions.

[HappierJealousy]

5 hours ago, swissman said:

I didn't mention Taylor at all, so there's no room to suggest I implied Taylor isn't the statistically biggest artist of the 21st century. I'm sure you were just staking that claim relative to the purpose of your initial comment but I want to make that clear.

 

I'm merely pointing out how this list (as "objective" as it may seem or as objective as it can be) is also subject to factors that don't fully take into account the comparison of artists subject to different rules at different times. Taylor would probably stay at the top no matter what rule changes were made, but surely if Billboard had a different way of tabulating song streams into album sales (as just one example), the placement would be different for other artists with less of a lead against their peers.

 

As for your introductory statement, I don't think it matters at all if Billboard acknowledges that its harder to rack up units than it used to be if what they're basing this list on is not units but chart positions.

Based on chartrun is a way more accurate method than the actual sales. In the 90s there were like 2-3 diamond album each year but Morgan's album is the only one to reach that milestone in the last 10 years. Yes, the streaming era gives the album/single more longevity so Billboard adjust the points of the album/single every year to make sure the all-time list is equally distributed. I mean they are still not 100% accurate but what is the standard of accuracy when it comes to something like this? Or can you provide a more "objective" system?
 

According to what you've said, there will be nothing "objective" in this world at all, even the Billboard weekly chart is not "objective" since it's a point system considering sales, streamings and radio. But it's still the official chart that everybody cares about and artists are celebrating their #1. Just because your favs didn't rank as high as you thought doesn't mean this system is not objective or not accurate, and it's not something need to be arguing or complain about.

 

5 hours ago, swissman said:

But I also don't think it's "funny" to put weight into a subjective list authored by the industry's leading journal with access to just about as many stats and figures as they can get, when in actuality all that remains of a legacy is subjective opinion. No one cares, really, about popularity metrics. Who sold more is an asterisk past a certain point, it's trivia.

And this is also not true. The reason why The Beatles became The Beatles is they are the best selling artists of all time, it has been like 60 years but they are still very popular on both Spotify and pure sales. As a pop artist, you need to have commercial power before you have anything. Their popular discography is their biggest legacy and they don't need the acclaim from any subjective opinion. And you're right, no one cares about popularity when it pasts a certain point, but I'm pretty sure right before that certain point no one also cares about random articles created by like 15 editors talking about their subjective opinions

Edited January 10 by HappierJealousy

[rac7d]

Ariana gave the weekend his first hit yet she is so low ?

[KKCuteCat]

This is more reasonable than the other chart. But Kelly is above Britney is quite questionable, and Chris Brown is top 20?  

 

Not Norah Jones is #94. 

 

WTF BB  

[KKCuteCat]

When you think about the fact that an act with moderate musical success is above artists like Norah Jones whose success was enormous  . This is so wrong

[Seeyuh]

billboard is discrediting their own charts

[lonnie]

43 minutes ago, KKCuteCat said:

When you think about the fact that an act with moderate musical success is above artists like Norah Jones whose success was enormous  . This is so wrong

Not really this is just one metric of success, not right or wrong, just a different way of quantifying commercial success in music. Which is why it's always hilarious when stans get bent out of shape when these lists come out. Based on points (how long and in which position) songs and albums accrued on the U.S. charts is but one measure of success. Norah Jones having an album that is diamond in the U.S. and sold over 20 million copies worldwide is a different measure of success than the weeks it spent on the BB 200 (which is what determines this list). Not the amount sold. A song and album that charted for longer (preferably in the top 10 or 50 or 100) is going to do better than an album that debuted with a million copies but lasted 40 weeks on the charts for example. Of course it's near impossible to be high on the overall list and not be successful because you need to earn lots of points (aka have songs and albums chart cumulatively in number and for long) but acts that shifted lots of physicals are obviously not going to do as well as acts that had their peaks in the digital and streaming eras. 

[jamiko1230]

Long as Taylor basically doesn't really let up she's coming for The Beatles (as in easily passing Mariah). Only 35. When not if. Within the next top 5-8 max all time lists. 

[swissman]

13 hours ago, HappierJealousy said:

Based on chartrun is a way more accurate method than the actual sales.

In some ways, yes. It speaks to the success an album had relative to its direct competition, but comparing the chart run of an album that spent multiple weeks at #1 selling 100K, to an album who a few weeks later spent multiple weeks at #1 selling 300K, this method would claim that both albums' success was of the same size, when really there's more to it than that.

 

I also was not suggesting this list should be based on sales, by the way.

 

13 hours ago, HappierJealousy said:

I mean they are still not 100% accurate but what is the standard of accuracy when it comes to something like this? Or can you provide a more "objective" system?

My point was never that there is a more objective system, nor that we need one, but that in response to the original post I was quoting, even "objective" lists are subject to the rules and methodology of those compiling the data. The post was deriding a subjective list posted by the same publication who owns what are praised as "objective stats". To me, this was silly, as clearly Billboard, as both a chart data journal and an examiner of the music industry at large, is perhaps more than any other "subjective" author, best poised to declare greatness even as it is a subjective term.

 

 

13 hours ago, HappierJealousy said:

According to what you've said, there will be nothing "objective" in this world at all, even the Billboard weekly chart is not "objective" since it's a point system considering sales, streamings and radio. But it's still the official chart that everybody cares about and artists are celebrating their #1. Just because your favs didn't rank as high as you thought doesn't mean this system is not objective or not accurate, and it's not something need to be arguing or complain about.

Yes. Billboard's weekly charts are not entirely objective. And that's okay. I'm not admonishing them for it, I'm saying not to look down on something just because there's an element of subjectivity to it, big or small.

You're also misinterpreting what I've said. And "Just because your favs didn't rank as high as you thought..." is kind of the reason why certain people were mad at the "subjective" list. I'm actually surprised Beyoncé was as high as #7 on the "objective" list one considering how much of the last decade she spent self-sabotaging her singles and albums. So no, my statement has nothing to do with her ranking here, but much to do with admonishing the other list for the inverse reason.

 

 

13 hours ago, HappierJealousy said:

And this is also not true. The reason why The Beatles became The Beatles is they are the best selling artists of all time, it has been like 60 years but they are still very popular on both Spotify and pure sales. As a pop artist, you need to have commercial power before you have anything. Their popular discography is their biggest legacy and they don't need the acclaim from any subjective opinion. And you're right, no one cares about popularity when it pasts a certain point, but I'm pretty sure right before that certain point no one also cares about random articles created by like 15 editors talking about their subjective opinions

Are you aware that Bing Crosby had more far #1 hits in his era than the Beatles had in their's, though? And that he had about 200 Top Ten hits? Does that matter? Is Bing Crosby as well-regarded as the Beatles either numerically or artistically?

 

What you quoted is me saying that whether an artist is #1 or #100 in a "biggest" list, how they are remembered in the future will have less to do with their chart positions and how much they sold and more to do with the public perception of their work. And their success factors into that as the more you hear of someone, the more you may think of them, but really it's their artistry. If The Beatles music sucked to modern listeners, it wouldn't matter that they have previously sold more than anyone, people would not hold them in such high regard. And people will also not be quoting "greatest" lists in the future, but those lists are expressly about the perception of an artist based on examining both their work, its success but also their artistry. A hit song, a hit album, a hit career has never emphatically meant greatness. Great music and great musicians, aren't great because of chart positions and sales figures, which is probably why Billboard chose to precede these lists with their statement on greatness that goes beyond charts to examine the actual material of the artists, not their commercial power.

 

 

 

Edited January 10 by swissman

[KKCuteCat]

3 hours ago, lonnie said:

Not really this is just one metric of success, not right or wrong, just a different way of quantifying commercial success in music. Which is why it's always hilarious when stans get bent out of shape when these lists come out. Based on points (how long and in which position) songs and albums accrued on the U.S. charts is but one measure of success. Norah Jones having an album that is diamond in the U.S. and sold over 20 million copies worldwide is a different measure of success than the weeks it spent on the BB 200 (which is what determines this list). Not the amount sold. A song and album that charted for longer (preferably in the top 10 or 50 or 100) is going to do better than an album that debuted with a million copies but lasted 40 weeks on the charts for example. Of course it's near impossible to be high on the overall list and not be successful because you need to earn lots of points (aka have songs and albums chart cumulatively in number and for long) but acts that shifted lots of physicals are obviously not going to do as well as acts that had their peaks in the digital and streaming eras. 

that's what my point. It's super unfair to artists whose peaks were during physical eras. Moderate success album now can spent like 50 weeks on BB200 while only successful album can do so back to 2000s. 

 

 

[KKCuteCat]

21 hours ago, swissman said:

I didn't mention Taylor at all, so there's no room to suggest I implied Taylor isn't the statistically biggest artist of the 21st century. I'm sure you were just staking that claim relative to the purpose of your initial comment but I want to make that clear.

 

I'm merely pointing out how this list (as "objective" as it may seem or as objective as it can be) is also subject to factors that don't fully take into account the comparison of artists subject to different rules at different times. Taylor would probably stay at the top no matter what rule changes were made, but surely if Billboard had a different way of tabulating song streams into album sales (as just one example), the placement would be different for other artists with less of a lead against their peers.

 

As for your introductory statement, I don't think it matters at all if Billboard acknowledges that its harder to rack up units than it used to be if what they're basing this list on is not units but chart positions.

100% agree with you. Their all time charts are always trash. Different eras have different metrics of success. And it's obviously an artist of streaming eras would have much more advantages on a chart like this. 

[ImsoLOUD]

I meant to say this days ago but Forehead still stomping in the top 3 on both lists despite no album for 9 years …. 

 

like it's actually ridiculous watch y'all tone when you speak on her 

[Stuart]

On 1/9/2025 at 3:00 AM, A-V-XYZ said:

The way Taylor stomps on Beyoncé when only stats and not vibes come to play's insane! Beyoncé will never catch up to Taylor. NEVER!

Funny how in all your posts, you constantly talk about Britney or feel the need to compare Britney to Xtina, but not this time.

 

I wonder why...