base talk Is Britney is the biggest "vibes" artist of the century.

[MattieB]

1 hour ago, Fitzswiftie said:

Who is then? Nobody else in that top ten had a bigger decline when it comes actual facts and data. 
 

#6 - #34.

 

Ouch.

 

And as we were repeating told when #1 was announced, it's only facts, numbers and data that matters. Not legacy or impact.

Hmmm i wonder what happened for that to happen?

[MattieB]

This woman hasn't given af about her career since 2008, unlike 100% of the list. IDK why yall make these lame threads

[poki]

They have no idea the woman they curse is one of those who helped pave the road they walk on. Sad. 

[ToMmY]

Britney has the rest of the world unlike several of the people above her on that chart by local Billboard.

Edited Wednesday at 10:53 PM by ToMmY

[Scandalous]

2 hours ago, RideOrDie said:

it's abysmal and sad tbh, i think most of her singles weren't released as CDs (which was main consumption for singles) and radio just refused to play her, even with all the mismanagement (and her fans can elaborate even more) her songs were massive hits, everyone was listening when she dropped, certainly bigger than some of her peers even though they may have had better chart positions for a short amount of time... 

as a britney stan since BOMT when i got older and started paying attention to charts (around blackout era) i was so shocked at how low so many of her singles charted on the Hot 100. all of her singles, even the floppiest ones, were played on radio all the time (plus her videos always smashed on TRL) so I assumed they were all massive hits  

 

we throw around how much harder it was in that era to get a #1 single and Britney is the prime example of that. she was THE most famous popstar for years yet even she struggled to get top 10 hits even though those songs felt ubiquitous and are very well remembered by pop fans

 

Oops and ITZ eras only having one (barely) top 10 single, Britney era's biggest hit peaking #27 and only having 2 charting songs overall while those were her prime eras…yet HIAM and 3 were #1 hits  

Edited Wednesday at 11:04 PM by Scandalous

[kataraqueen]

young people do your research it's embarrassing and xtincta trolls i guess youd happy the trolling is finally paying off bcs some ppl r truly out here believing it

2 hours ago, YourHonesty said:

I think that's OP's point. Her presence feels much bigger than her metrics suggest. Idk if "vibes" is the right word though.

her metrics are nothing short of legendary and if you don't know that then you didn't look in the right places 

[Rabbit]

Sure why not? 

 

I dont use Billboard's random chart formula to determine my faves success. I like to look at actual album units, certifications and GLOBAL charts 

[TeeJay]

18 minutes ago, Scandalous said:

as a britney stan since BOMT when i got older and started paying attention to charts (around blackout era) i was so shocked at how low so many of her singles charted on the Hot 100. all of her singles, even the floppiest ones, were played on radio all the time (plus her videos always smashed on TRL) so I assumed they were all massive hits  

 

we throw around how much harder it was in that era to get a #1 single and Britney is the prime example of that. she was THE most famous popstar for years yet even she struggled to get top 10 hits even though those songs felt ubiquitous and are very well remembered by pop fans

 

Oops and ITZ eras only having one (barely) top 10 single, Britney era's biggest hit peaking #27 and only having 2 charting songs overall while those were her prime eras…yet HIAM and 3 were #1 hits  

This is exactly why you can't use billboards nonsense list as evidence or fact that these newer artist are bigger or more successful that someone like britney. Britney's singles may not have charted high, on purpose, because her labels focus was always on album sales, but most of her singles ARE massive hits with the public. Most of britney's singles are more known and iconic than 99% of these other artists songs who reach the top 10 or #1.

[Rogue_Redux]

2 hours ago, Breathe On Moi said:

wtf are you even saying

 

[NEX]

Well yes because Britney was a huge part of the pop culture. Her iconic performance and personal life is not something that could be measured on a Billboard chart. They were using very different metrics for those lists. 

[Sheep]

10 years since she last released an album, nearly 20 since she was active and in control of her music career, and you're still discussing her. The vibes I'm getting are that she's an undisputed legend. 

[Rico Shameless v2]

4 hours ago, RideOrDie said:

it's abysmal and sad tbh, i think most of her singles weren't released as CDs (which was main consumption for singles) and radio just refused to play her, even with all the mismanagement (and her fans can elaborate even more) her songs were massive hits, everyone was listening when she dropped, certainly bigger than some of her peers even though they may have had better chart positions for a short amount of time... 

Correct.

 

Baby…

From the Bottom of My Broken Heart

Stronger

Me Against the Music

 

These were the only singles that received physical releases in the US. Radio did ignore her during 'Britney' due to the whole tour sponsorship drama.

 

Beginning with Toxic, Jive started dropping digital downloads/EPs but of course they weren't included until 2005. Toxic was #1 digitally, Everytime T10 digital. Do Somethin' managed to hit the Hot 100 at #100 due to strong downloads but it wasn't a US release at all so no radio adds. My Prerogative also suffered and it was a digital hit.

 

Let's not even get into the stats of her streaming on AOL/Yahoo/MTV and none of that was included.

 

We also have where radio was heavily R&B/hip-hop during the 2000s. So most of those songs were not only receiving points from Urban & Rhythmic formats but Top 40 being massive audience sent them to heights out of reach for any strictly Pop singles and artists from competing (unless you had an adult contemporary / rock smash) and settling for lower peaks. "I'm a Slave 4 U" actually managed to chart on R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay & Rhythmic Songs charts, so had the debacle with ClearChannel hadn't happened at Top 40, it would have been a pretty impressive crossover hit for her. Same for "I'm Not a Girl.." doing decently on Hot AC but CC owned all of that so.

 

These lists don't really matter when there's so much nuance, shifts in what's trending for T40 and Billboard being slow to include rising metrics at the time.

[Gorjesspazze9]

What's a vibe artist? 
Britney is one of the biggest pop stars of all time. 

[Green]

That would be BTS

 

Greatest Pop Stars: #19 

 

Top 100 Artists: N/A

 

[babyforlife]

Im not a brit fan but that list is such a nonsense... 

[Green]

3 hours ago, Mariano said:

BB have the worst charts and someone spending a lot of weeks on their charts doesn't mean they also sold a lot. 

Easy example is that Britney has an album that sold 1M in 1 week, there's other albums that sell 1M in 100 or even 200 weeks.  Theoretically they sold equal amount, but the Britney album would have only 1 chart point and the other album will have 100 or even more chart points. Just to show how flawed their charts "all time" lists are. 

 

This.

 

I remember they ranked Adele's 25 at #19 in their decade end chart, lower than albums that sold half of what 25 sold, just because those albums charted for like 5456546551223 weeks while 25 sold 8 million in less than 2 months   

 

This is the perfect example of their decade end / all time charts flaws  

 

3. Ed Sheeran - Divide (certified 5x Platinum in 2021)

 

19. Adele - 25  certified 11x Platinum in 2017  (eligible for 13x Platinum)

 

 

 

https://www.billboard.com/charts/decade-end/billboard-200/

 

[brazil]

4 hours ago, CandleGuy said:

It's not rocket science. Billboard Hot 100 was not calculated based on actual consumption in the pre-digital era when Britney peaked. It was mostly based on radio airplay, which who gives a ****.

 

Hold It Against Me is a Billboard #1 (digital era). Toxic and Oops are not (pre-digital). Every single Britney released from 98-05 would have gone #1 if iTunes or Spotify existed back then.

 

That's before you even talk about all the album tracks that would have charted in the streaming era, now that the biggest artists basically have their entire albums chart.

Exactly and having a #1 single won't necessarily mean much in the long run. Outkast's The Way You Move went #1 in 2004, while Toxic peaked at #9. 

 

Today's stats on spotify:

The Way you Move - 216M 

Toxic - 1B490M

[Zendayababes]

6 hours ago, Fitzswiftie said:

Whilst others in the top 25 had larger gaps, she was the only artist in the top 10 to have a 20+ place difference

 

 

Anyway we all know her hot 100 performance was bad and she was bigger worldwide. 

[J-esper]

I think a lot of people forget or are too young to have experienced that music consumption used to be hella different.

 

Beside radio, do people really pretend that Britney and other artists deemed 'vibes' weren't big during the height of digitally pirating music? 

 

Like I burned CDs religiously. I was still a kid/teen and didn't had the coins to buy every album I loved. My first music player, wasn't an iPod, it was a cheap mp3 device that could only play certain file types.

 

I 'consumed' music for free. Milions of people did that in one way or an other. A lot of songs from 2000 - 2010 may not have been top 10 hits, may not have a succesful album but are still remembered and part of acts' overall legacy and impact.

[holyground13]

[BnPac]

3 hours ago, Green said:

 

This.

 

I remember they ranked Adele's 25 at #19 in their decade end chart, lower than albums that sold half of what 25 sold, just because those albums charted for like 5456546551223 weeks while 25 sold 8 million in less than 2 months   

 

This is the perfect example of their decade end / all time charts flaws  

 

3. Ed Sheeran - Divide (certified 5x Platinum in 2021)

 

19. Adele - 25  certified 11x Platinum in 2017  (eligible for 13x Platinum)

 

 

 

https://www.billboard.com/charts/decade-end/billboard-200/

 

Yes, their methodology is so very singles' and placement oriented. 

As such Adele being #1 on the BB200 with 3M has as much points as anyone being #1 with 50k.

 

And now because BB 200 is basically a Hot 100 chart, the artists with big singles' success have their albums spend so long in the BB200 when that would not have happened in the digital or physical era. 

[Mariano]

5 hours ago, Green said:

 

This.

 

I remember they ranked Adele's 25 at #19 in their decade end chart, lower than albums that sold half of what 25 sold, just because those albums charted for like 5456546551223 weeks while 25 sold 8 million in less than 2 months   

 

This is the perfect example of their decade end / all time charts flaws  

 

3. Ed Sheeran - Divide (certified 5x Platinum in 2021)

 

19. Adele - 25  certified 11x Platinum in 2017  (eligible for 13x Platinum)

 

 

 

https://www.billboard.com/charts/decade-end/billboard-200/

 

As a big Adele fan (especially 25 which is

my fav album of her) I either missed this or just forgot about it/my brain blocked it from memory   How ridiculous of them lmfaooo. 

[Blackout2006]

This list is based on the Billboard chart performances and she's never been a Billboard darling as her numbers were reduced by the lack of radio airplay she received or her singles not being sold exclusively. 

A gentle reminder, she is the only female artist among her peers to have two 20+ million sellers. Hope this helps <3 

[itshyolee]

10 hours ago, heckinglovato said:

No, Beyoncé is 

 

Edit: because to be number ONE then end up at #7 is actually crazier 

How is that crazy when both lists went by different rules? Regardless she's still in the top 10 while Demi will always be below Selena Gomez.

[Ger]

Please, the question is actually disrespectful.