i'm gonna go ahead and tell you you've probably heard a lot of her music if you listen to the radio, you just don't realize it
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Ariana Grande ties The Beatles Hot 100 record
- Thread starter woman
- Start date
i'm gonna go ahead and tell you you've probably heard a lot of her music if you listen to the radio, you just don't realize it
yep. who would've thought a pop-era poster would have zero musical history context.
Most likely haha, I've been hearing the same 10 songs over and over again without knowing who I'm listening too.
So Arena Grandy couldn't even beat The Beatles at their own game?
Last edited:
The Beatles/Elvis/Michael Jackson have so many records that it seems like every so often a Katy Perry/Ariana Grande/Justin Bieber/Rhihanna whoever will match one. And apparently the Beatles record is 5 ... which is well above what Grande has.
Well, it was much easier to chart #1 in 1964. The Beatles were basically a garage band back then.
I believe you mean the beetles.
Ariana has a great voice but man giving these songs a first listen I do not find them catchy.
Well, 7 rings is but that doesnt really count.
Well, 7 rings is but that doesnt really count.
This is proving my point. There are almost as many 1+ million selling digital singles from the 2000s as there are physical singles over many decades
Then how to do you feel about the fact that she did not in fact tie The Beatles record?
I suppose you should write to billboard and ask them how they feel about their reporting that she did
The whining and handwringing whenever a female pop artist achieves something is so...
proving your point that it's far easier to buy/stream music from a phone than it is to travel to a record shop and buy a 45 of your favorite song?
Their reporting is more accurate then your thread title.
They said she became the first artist since The Beatles, which is true.
You said she tied The Beatles record, which is false.
It is indeed an impressive feat, indeed, but it's not what your thread title is stating it is.
It is easier to stream then buy physical records but again; the majority of people consumed music via radio in the 60s. Streaming > radio in terms of end consumer demand.
"Ariana meets The Beatles: Grande is only the second act in the Hot 100's history to rank at Nos. 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously and the first in nearly 55 years. The Beatles achieved the feat for five weeks in 1964, that March 14, 21 and 28 and April 4 and 25; on April 4, 1964, the group claimed the entire top five. "
No posts in minutes since Billboard's own tweet was posted btw. They're not slick
Vulture: Ariana Grande Just Tied the Beatles's Insane Chart Record
https://www.vulture.com/2019/02/ariana-grande-songs-billboard-chart-beatles-record.html
And their title is as inaccurate as yours. You can go digging for more sources that support your incorrect title, but it's still incorrect.
To go #1 because radio played your songs? As opposed to people making the decision to stream them? I'm not saying radio play is irrelevant but streaming is more impressive imo
the list i posted was "best selling", it was based on sales of the singles, be it 45s or cassingles or CD singles. It wasn't based on radio airplay, for example note the lack of "Stairway to Heaven" on that list, one of the most played songs in radio history, because it was never released as a single.
Does it really tie the Beatles record? Because the Beatles had the top 5 simultaneously before.
No I understand, but the hot 100 considered radio play and single sales in their formula. Even though a single sale weighed more, the #1 consumption form of music was radio.
Contrast that to today where the #1 format is on demand streaming.
it is kinda sus that a bunch of people (well, haha... men) who don't even like her are brigading the thread with their "well, actually" takes
it's an incredible feat and it's hard to deny her phenomenon
besides, the diabeetles never made something that slaps as hard as NASA
it's an incredible feat and it's hard to deny her phenomenon
besides, the diabeetles never made something that slaps as hard as NASA
People still unironically bringing up Popera as if that community hasn't been completely dead for years lmao
Sales had much more weight than radio plays though. The Beatles didn't get their record due to radio plays, it's because a shitton of people bought their singles.
Remember, they were so huge that people back then were publishing academic journals to try to explain how this small band from Liverpool managed to be this popular in the USA. Hell, they even invented a term to describe their popularity (Beatlemania). They've released documentaries about the US tour of The Beatles and the band members have gone on record to say that they couldn't even hear their instruments over the sound of the fans when playing live.
They were really fucking popular.
Look, I like Ariana too, and this is a really impressive thing she's done, but why you gotta downplay The Beatles like this?
I have no problem with her music. As far as pop, it's really enjoyable. My issue was with the inaccuracy of the title. It's one hell of an accomplishment, but it does not tie their record.
Also, diabeetles? Really?
I'm not. I was responding to someone whose first impulse was to say Ariana's record wasn't as impressive as theirs
And thank goodness for that . Someone typing out "diabeetles" is easily the saddest thing I'll see all day, these threads are always just bizarre
Is objectively isn't, unless 5 and 3 now mean the same.
LeBron ties MJ's championship record!*
*The record of getting 3 before then getting 3 more.**
**Not actually a record.
That chorus alone, whew. My most played song of the year easily <3
