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

[lonnie]

8 hours ago, KKCuteCat said:

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. 

 

 

That's not true though. Just because an album can't sell what albums did 20 years ago doesn't make them moderately successful. They're successful for their time which is the whole point of Billboard, it tracks consumption and not just individual physical sales. Consumption over the years has changed: vinyls, cds, digital copies, streams are all ways consumers get to music. Arguments can be made as to which form is more superior than the other but Billboard is simply doing it's job by tracking which albums and songs were most consumed in a certain time period. Just in the way acts from the 80s to 2000s benefitted from higher physicals, acts before and after that didn't, that doesn't mean the non 80s-2000s acts weren't successful. Billboard tries to integrate different measures of success in the U.S.

[Cruel Summer]

12 hours ago, jamiko1230 said:

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. 

She's almost certainly already #2 on the all-time list at this point, especially after TTPD racked up a boatload of weeks at #1 and enough Hot 100 chart points (with the help of Cruel Summer) to make her the #1 Hot 100 artist of 2024. At this point, as you note, it's just up to whether she cares to keep releasing at a relatively rapid pace - and given how she usually speaks about how much she loves her career, I think her taking the Billboard all-time slot from The Beatles is more a "when" than an "if."

[KKCuteCat]

2 hours ago, lonnie said:

That's not true though. Just because an album can't sell what albums did 20 years ago doesn't make them moderately successful. They're successful for their time which is the whole point of Billboard, it tracks consumption and not just individual physical sales. Consumption over the years has changed: vinyls, cds, digital copies, streams are all ways consumers get to music. Arguments can be made as to which form is more superior than the other but Billboard is simply doing it's job by tracking which albums and songs were most consumed in a certain time period. Just in the way acts from the 80s to 2000s benefitted from higher physicals, acts before and after that didn't, that doesn't mean the non 80s-2000s acts weren't successful. Billboard tries to integrate different measures of success in the U.S.

You completely bended what i was trying to say. 

 

I didn't say that all the album now are moderate success because it sells less than 20 years ago, but streaming does make an album/singe stay on the charts much longer than before, which gives them (albums, tracks, artists) the advantages for a chart like this. That's my point.

 

And no people with a right mind could think Selena Gomez has more successful career than Norah Jones whose success was completely standout in 2000s. Selena, on the other hand, is average and only has 1 moderately smash era. 

 

And again, i never said the physical sales are better metrics to measure success. My point is different era, different metrics, can't compare. Get it?

Edited January 11 by KKCuteCat

[KKCuteCat]

Duplicate

Edited January 11 by KKCuteCat

[descg]

On 1/8/2025 at 5:00 PM, umich said:

This list is about the most selling people (in Billboard i don't know if all the charts, only the Hot 100 or the Hot 100 and the Billboard 200) not a list of a critic about "the best".

[lonnie]

3 hours ago, KKCuteCat said:

You completely bended what i was trying to say. 

 

I didn't say that all the album now are moderate success because it sells less than 20 years ago, but streaming does make an album/singe stay on the charts much longer than before, which gives them (albums, tracks, artists) the advantages for a chart like this. That's my point.

 

And no people with a right mind could think Selena Gomez has more successful career than Norah Jones whose success was completely standout in 2000s. Selena, on the other hand, is average and only has 1 moderately smash era. 

 

And again, i never said the physical sales are better metrics to measure success. My point is different era, different metrics, can't compare. Get it?

I think what I don't get is being disgruntled by this list when you seem to understand that it's not about sales. The whole point of this list is to measure the success of artists who have been active this century (so these last 24 years or so), were they supposed to completely exclude artists who were active and had success during that period simply because they sold lots of physical copies? While I understand what you mean and streaming helps albums stay on the charts a lot more than they would have pre-streaming, there really was nothing else to do but include all acts as they are. A person who looks at this list is meant to understand that Selena was more popular on the charts in the 21st century than Norah Jones (which she is despite Norah outselling all her album sales combined with one album). Norah Jones is very successful, an anomaly in jazz and anyone can and should recognize that. But sales are not what counts here, the points accumulated on the charts does. I would understand if the list said "best selling" but that's not what this list is about at all. 

[KKCuteCat]

3 hours ago, lonnie said:

I think what I don't get is being disgruntled by this list when you seem to understand that it's not about sales. The whole point of this list is to measure the success of artists who have been active this century (so these last 24 years or so), were they supposed to completely exclude artists who were active and had success during that period simply because they sold lots of physical copies? While I understand what you mean and streaming helps albums stay on the charts a lot more than they would have pre-streaming, there really was nothing else to do but include all acts as they are. A person who looks at this list is meant to understand that Selena was more popular on the charts in the 21st century than Norah Jones (which she is despite Norah outselling all her album sales combined with one album). Norah Jones is very successful, an anomaly in jazz and anyone can and should recognize that. But sales are not what counts here, the points accumulated on the charts does. I would understand if the list said "best selling" but that's not what this list is about at all. 

tbh, i never support a chart like this. It's annoying and want some attentions from the fans. It causes debate like this. What is the point of making a list when it doesn't 100% accurately reflect anything?

 

And it's not true that Selena is more popular on the charts than Norah Jones. Yes, Selena is more popular than Norah as a celebrity, but not music wise. Norah has much bigger musical career. The only reason why she's higher on a chart like this is because her peak was during late digital/streaming era, which makes the albums/tracks stay longer on charts than they used to. Norah's success during her first two eras was absolutely extraordinary and close to Adele's level of success in terms of album success (while Selena's most successful era is Revival which wasn't even the most successful album of the year). But her peak was during the time where single's success (other than hip hop singles) was neglected. Most artists care about album sales at the time. Hence, she only had one single charted on HOH. Had she debuted during digital/streaming era like Adele, thing would be very different. 

 

Again, i didn't minimize the success of artists in streaming era. The point is you can't compare the success of an artist in early 2000s to that of an artist in early 2020s. Not even in terms of popularity on BB200 and HOH cause artists in 90s and early 2000s had very different strategies to their success. 

Edited January 11 by KKCuteCat

[umich]

4 hours ago, descg said:

This list is about the most selling people (in Billboard i don't know if all the charts, only the Hot 100 or the Hot 100 and the Billboard 200) not a list of a critic about "the best".

I am fully aware of that.  

[KKCuteCat]

And there are no Evanescense, Shakira and Lana Del Ray. You know i'm not even their fans but that feel so wrong. I mean, act like Evanescense felt so huge during their prime. 

[Yes, AND]

Taylor

Rihanna

Beyonce

Adele

Katy Perry

 

Simply the biggest five females of the 21st century. 

[Onyxmage]

Britney under Nelly. this list is a joke