The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post Reply
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

This topic will be about the Billboard Top 10 Singles chart. But before I post about the Top 10, I will start with a little preamble.

The artistic and commercial success of The Beatles is almost unprecedented in the history of music. Their artistic success is beyond doubt. AcclaimedMusic lists them as the number 1 artist overall, as well as the number 1 artist based on albums and based on songs.

Their dominance in the critical space has lasted over 2 to 3 generations to date. I recreated the AcclaimedMusic lists chronologically based on the release dates of every album and song listed. You can find a video showing these results on YouTube. The link is posted here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10340

In the chronological order, the Beatles rise to be the most critical acclaimed artist in 1965 and have effectively retained the position for 57 years until 2022. They have also been the most successful artist for most of that time. The only doubt would be if they have outsold Elvis Presley. I believe this is an established fact. Refer to this link:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271 ... on%20units.

Then the only question would be, when did The Beatles first outsell Elvis Presley. My guess is around 1967, when the sales of Sgt Peppers created a new benchmark for album sales that dwarfed anything experienced by early Rock & Roll.

So The Beatles have been the most Critical and Successful artist for over 50 years.

In my chronological video, the only other artists that can be compared are:

Elvis Presley - most critically acclaimed between 1960-1964 (5 years) and very likely the most commercially successful during this time.

Duke Ellington - most critically acclaimed between 1941-1959 (19 years), but, unlikely to have been more successful than Sinatra or Bing Crosby or Glen Millar Band over most, or all, of this time.

Louis Armstrong - most critically acclaimed between 1929-1940 (12 years) and possibly the most commercially successful during that period.

and finally,

Bill Murray - most critically acclaimed between 1906-1917 (12 years) but unlikely to have been more successful than Enrico Caruso or others for most, or all, of this time.

The Beatles dominance over both these criteria for over 50 years is historical. And might only be matched by a fair appraisal of the greatest classical composers.

Beethoven (1770 – 1827) may well have been the number 1 artist, both critically and popularity, from the time of his 1st Symphony (1800) until the advent of true popular / recorded music. It could be argued that he remained number 1 for 100 years, until true commercial success was achieved by popular music artists.

Mozart (1756 – 1791) was critically admired in his lifetime but never given the respect by the elites to be truly the most popular artist. It can be argued that Handel (1685 – 1759) remained more popular than Mozart for most the period 1750 to 1800.

Bach (1685 – 1750) was virtually unknown both critically and by the elites that mattered for most of his life. But he was critically re-appraised in the 19th century. It therefore can be argued that Bach could well have been regarded critically above Beethoven for a large part of the 19th century.

Therefore Beethoven's dominance will have been for less than 100 years and perhaps closer to 50 or so.

Therefore The Beatles dominance both critically and commercially over the period 1967 to 2020 (53 years) and Beethoven's similar dominance both critically and popularity over the period 1800 to 185X (5X years) are remarkable over the entire history of music.

P.S. All of the above obviously takes a Western Civilization view of the history of music. I still think it is valid though, because Western Civilization represented a substantial % of the world's population between the period of 1500 - 2000. But to remain inclusive, the conclusion above is subject to the potential inclusion of a Chinese or perhaps Indian musician who dominated the music of their society in a similar way. I will leave that discussion for another day and another person.
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

The preamble continues.

But the Beatles are no longer the most commercially successful music artist or all time. That ended in 2021.

It is hard to quantify commercial success. Record sales were never audited correctly during the 20th century and record sales are no longer the relevant statistic in the 21st century.

I put together a video of the most commercially successful artists (in America) based on the Billboard charts from 1963 to 2021. These were the only years I was able to scrape from the internet. But they are a very good proxy for what has been the world's most successful artists over time.

The video can be found on YouTube here:

https://youtu.be/NDPZPw8Wpg8

In 2021, based on the cumulative entries in the Top 200 Albums and the Top 100 Singles over the 59 year period, the Beatles were overtaken as the most successful artist of all time by:

Drake.

Therefore, The Beatles historical reign over the Critical and Commercial charts ran from approx. 1967 to 2020 and has ended.

Of course, it can be argued that America (despite what it thinks) is not the entire world and Drake may not be as successful overseas as he is there. It can also be argued that Billboard ranking algorithms are biased towards today's streaming artists compared to musicians of the 20th century which had to physically move product around the world.

But the key point, I want to make here, is that the undisputed success of The Beatles for 2 to 3 generations can now be challenged based on reasonable data. The assumption that they remain the most successful of all time needs to be reconsidered.
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

So what is the commercial relevance of the Billboard Top 10?

When Drake collected sufficient cumulative entries in the Billboard during 2021 to arguably be more commercial successful than The Beatles, he also manged to achieve an amazing feat on 18 Sept 2021, when he had the Top 5 songs on the Billboard Top 100 Singles chart.

This seemed to prove he had overtaken The Beatles because they held the record of holding the Top 5 songs back on 4 April 1964.

Drake released every song from his new LP and thanks to streaming he achieved a feat that nobody had been able to do since The Beatles in 1964.

But is this 'cheating' or relevant?

Streaming is a very different distribution channel to selling physical records and it is problematic to compare the two. But I take the view that it is a legitimate way to enjoy music and therefore a relevant way to measure the popularity of artists.

If the advent of streaming has created artists like Drake that can dominate the charts in a way that was never available to The Beatles or other artists, then that is a side issue, that does not detract from Drake's achievements.

It is similar to how the advent of recorded music changed the landscape for consumption of music and invented a form of popular music that is enjoyed by the masses in a way that classical music was never meant to be consumed, and therefore could never compete with.

The Billboard Top 10, and Top 200 Albums and Top 100 Singles are relevant and we are witnessing a changing of the guard of what is considered the most commercially popular music of today, and of all time.
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

The reason I wanted to write the above posts, was to comment on the current phenomena of artists releasing the songs from their albums wholesale and dominating the Billboard charts in ways that have never been seen.

Taylor Swift is doing it right now. She has blown away the record shared by Drake and The Beatles.

05 Nov 2022 Taylor had all Top 10 Songs on Billboard
12 Nov 2022 Taylor still has the Top 1 Song on Billboard
19 Nov 2022 Taylor still has the Top 1 Song on Billboard

This is an amazing achievement.

But what is also interesting. Is that if she did not have the Number 1 song on 19 Nov 2022. Then Drake would have had the Top 8 songs on the Billboard 100. Taylor Swift stopped Drake from breaking his own record.

If I ever get around to updating the cumulative Billboard charts to include all the data from 2021 and 2022, then my guess is that Taylor Swift will have risen from 3rd most successful artist of all time to overtake The Beatles (and maybe overtake Drake as well).
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

I promise this is my last post on this subject.

In defence of the successful artists of the 20th century against the onslaught of Drake and Taylor Swift and others, I'd like to make these observations.

The Bee Gees dominated the Billboard Top 10 between Feb-May 1978. Over that time they either released or wrote the following:

04 Feb 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 1 Song on Billboard
11 Feb 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 1 Song on Billboard
18 Feb 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
25 Feb 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
04 Mar 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
11 Mar 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
18 Mar 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 3 Songs on Billboard
25 Mar 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 3 Songs on Billboard
01 Apr 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
08 Apr 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
15 Apr 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
22 Apr 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
29 Apr 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
06 May 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
13 May 1978 Bee Gees were responsible for the Top 1 Song on Billboard

Over a period of four months the Bee Gees held 29 of the Top entries on the Billboard Top 10. This completely dwarfs Taylor Swifts current run of holding the Top 11 entries on the Billboard Top 10 over the past 3 weeks.

I think it gives an interesting perspective on the transient nature of charting songs based on streaming success.

But between Jan-May 1964, The Beatles did better:

01 Feb 1964 The Beatles held the Top 1 Song on Billboard
08 Feb 1964 The Beatles held the Top 1 Song on Billboard
15 Feb 1964 The Beatles held the Top 1 Song on Billboard
22 Feb 1964 The Beatles held the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
29 Feb 1964 The Beatles held the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
07 Mar 1964 The Beatles held the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
14 Mar 1964 The Beatles held the Top 3 Songs on Billboard
21 Mar 1964 The Beatles held the Top 3 Songs on Billboard
28 Mar 1964 The Beatles held the Top 4 Songs on Billboard
04 Apr 1964 The Beatles held the Top 5 Songs on Billboard
11 Apr 1964 The Beatles held the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
18 Apr 1964 The Beatles held the Top 2 Songs on Billboard
25 Apr 1964 The Beatles held the Top 3 Songs on Billboard
02 May 1964 The Beatles held the Top 1 Song on Billboard

Over a period of five months The Beatles held 32 of the Top entries on the Billboard Top 10. This record remains unbroken to date, but my guess is it might be broken in the next year or so, and will be more proof that The Beatles are no longer the most successful artist of all time.
User avatar
prosecutorgodot
Keep On Movin'
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:53 am
Location: SF Bay Area, California

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by prosecutorgodot »

Interesting stuff, b1mb0w. Thank you for sharing.
Jirin
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:12 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by Jirin »

I'm curious by what metric Drake passed the Beatles. If it's pure revenue, was it adjusted for inflation? Or is it by some hidden score Billboard uses that takes all data into account?
jamieW
Keep On Movin'
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by jamieW »

Jirin wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:43 am I'm curious by what metric Drake passed the Beatles. If it's pure revenue, was it adjusted for inflation? Or is it by some hidden score Billboard uses that takes all data into account?
The main metric in which Drake has passed The Beatles is number of chart singles (including top 10s). However, as a lifelong chart addict, I can safely say there's no comparing the era of The Beatles with the current era. Back when The Beatles were charting, to hit the Billboard Hot 100 you needed to release the song as a 45 rpm single. (It's why Beatles classics like "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" never charted; and this remained a Billboard "rule" up until the end of the nineties, when airplay only songs finally became eligible due to fewer popular songs being released as commercial singles.) Now, all songs are eligible and streaming is the largest component, so whenever a popular artist like Drake or Taylor releases a new album, EVERY song from the album debuts on the chart that week, most in the top 40 and many in the top 10 (as the past couple of weeks have shown). If The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and other hugely popular artists from the past had had the benefit of streaming, nearly every song they ever released would've charted, as well. Obviously, facts are facts, and Drake indeed has the most chart hits in history, but it's like comparing apples to spaceships.
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

jamieW wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 1:28 am Back when The Beatles were charting, to hit the Billboard Hot 100 you needed to release the song as a 45 rpm single. (It's why Beatles classics like "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" never charted; and this remained a Billboard "rule" up until the end of the nineties,
You have a point, but the singles chart is not the biggest factor in Drake's success. It depends on how you rate Album chart success vs. Single chart success, but I analysed all the charts from 1963 to 2021 using a reasonable split and the biggest difference was the longevity of Albums by todays artists on the Album charts.

Drakes entire album catalog has been on the charts for most of the decade. The Beatles never experienced this type of longevity. In fact the most successful Beatles album on the Billboard Top 200 has been their 1's compilation release in the 2010's.
jamieW
Keep On Movin'
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by jamieW »

b1mb0w wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:01 am
jamieW wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 1:28 am Back when The Beatles were charting, to hit the Billboard Hot 100 you needed to release the song as a 45 rpm single. (It's why Beatles classics like "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" never charted; and this remained a Billboard "rule" up until the end of the nineties,
You have a point, but the singles chart is not the biggest factor in Drake's success. It depends on how you rate Album chart success vs. Single chart success, but I analysed all the charts from 1963 to 2021 using a reasonable split and the biggest difference was the longevity of Albums by todays artists on the Album charts.

Drakes entire album catalog has been on the charts for most of the decade. The Beatles never experienced this type of longevity. In fact the most successful Beatles album on the Billboard Top 200 has been their 1's compilation release in the 2010's.
Except it's the same concept. In the days of The Beatles, record stores reported album sales. Someone would buy the album and that was that. Here is how Billboard describes its calculations for the Top 200 Albums chart nowadays:

The week’s most popular albums as compiled by Luminate, based on multi-metric consumption (blending traditional album sales, track equivalent albums, and streaming equivalent albums).

In other words, streaming still plays a large part in the chart action of these albums. In the days of The Beatles, there was no way of monitoring people continuously playing the album at home after they purchased it. Now, with streaming, these albums stick around forever, as people tend to listen to their favorites over and over. Before streaming, no song was ever on the Hot 100 for over a year. Now, it happens quite frequently with "Blinding Lights," "Levitating", "Heat Waves", etc. As with my song comparison, if The Beatles albums were streamed back in the day, the longevity would've been the same as what we see now. Conversely, if Drake had been around in the sixties, his record label would've released a few songs off an album, and it then would've dropped off the chart not long after the hit singles stopped. (With rare exceptions like Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon".) He's just been the biggest beneficiary of a massive change in music-listening technology, paired with the fact that he tends to pump out songs and albums (including features) at a more prolific pace.
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

jamieW wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:04 am Before streaming, no song was ever on the Hot 100 for over a year. Now, it happens quite frequently with "Blinding Lights," "Levitating", "Heat Waves", etc.
Yes and Yes. I mostly agree with you.

BUT

Every artist today has the same advantage as Drake or Taylor Swift. Every artist COULD have their songs in the charts effectively forever thanks to streaming.

So why does Drake, Taylor Swift and others consistently beat out 200 other artists and dominate in the charts.

For example, why don't The Beatles albums hang around in the charts year in and year out while they continue to be streamed today.

One major reason is that today's public prefers to stream Drake albums more than Beatles albums.
jamieW
Keep On Movin'
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by jamieW »

b1mb0w wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:12 am
jamieW wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:04 am Before streaming, no song was ever on the Hot 100 for over a year. Now, it happens quite frequently with "Blinding Lights," "Levitating", "Heat Waves", etc.
Yes and Yes. I mostly agree with you.

BUT

Every artist today has the same advantage as Drake or Taylor Swift. Every artist COULD have their songs in the charts effectively forever thanks to streaming.

So why does Drake, Taylor Swift and others consistently beat out 200 other artists and dominate in the charts.

For example, why don't The Beatles albums hang around in the charts year in and year out while they continue to be streamed today.

One major reason is that today's public prefers to stream Drake albums more than Beatles albums.
Because it is fair to compare Drake and Taylor Swift to their contemporaries and, on that basis, they are the most popular artists today. The Beatles are not going to be able to compete with them in streaming because Beatles albums are 60 years old and most younger listeners are not going to listen to The Beatles. If we could fast-forward sixty years, I'm quite sure Drake and Taylor Swift won't be doing as well as artists from that era in whatever music-listening method is popular in 2082. (Of course, I'll never live long enough to see it, but I'd certainly bet on it if I could.)
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

jamieW wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:31 am The Beatles are not going to be able to compete with them in streaming because Beatles albums are 60 years old and most younger listeners are not going to listen to The Beatles.
The Beatles still make the Billboard 200 charts. The special edition of Revolver is back in the charts this week. It has now clocked up 88 weeks.

But, Fleetwood Mac Rumours is only 11 years younger than Revolver and it is continuously in the Billboard 200. It has just clocked up 503 weeks.

Michael Jackson Thriller is only 16 years younger than Revolver and it is continuously in the Billboard 200. It has clocked up 548 weeks.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that The Beatles are less commercially successful than someone like Drake. I am just saying that the evidence that The Beatles are the most commercially successful artist in popular music, can now be challenged based on some good criteria.
Jirin
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:12 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by Jirin »

jamieW wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 1:28 am
Jirin wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:43 am I'm curious by what metric Drake passed the Beatles. If it's pure revenue, was it adjusted for inflation? Or is it by some hidden score Billboard uses that takes all data into account?
The main metric in which Drake has passed The Beatles is number of chart singles (including top 10s).
So it's kind of like LeBron passing Jordan on the all time scoring list. Yeah, it's impressive, but Jordan retired younger.
jamieW
Keep On Movin'
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by jamieW »

Jirin wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 6:39 pm
jamieW wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 1:28 am
Jirin wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:43 am I'm curious by what metric Drake passed the Beatles. If it's pure revenue, was it adjusted for inflation? Or is it by some hidden score Billboard uses that takes all data into account?
The main metric in which Drake has passed The Beatles is number of chart singles (including top 10s).
So it's kind of like LeBron passing Jordan on the all time scoring list. Yeah, it's impressive, but Jordan retired younger.
Exactly. Drake has the luxury of having all of his new songs available to the chart instantly via the highly popular streaming option, while The Beatles were dependent upon their record company releasing commercial singles. (And they weren't going to release them all at once, since they would've just cannibalized each other competing for record sales and airplay.) As for the album popularity argument, we'll just have to see how well Drake's still doing on the album streaming charts (or whatever new technology comes about) in 60 years to make a fair comparison.
panam
Full of Fire
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:21 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by panam »

The new metrics don't show Drake is more popular than Beatles, show now it's easier to have top 10 hit songs when there's no more restrictions of physical sales as before.
stone37
Different Class
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:39 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by stone37 »

If I may chime in, as other posters have noted, based on the incredible changes in how music is consumed and how charts are tabulated, it is hard to make an "apple to apple" comparison between streaming era artists and physical media era artists. As others have noted, the Beatles could only chart physical singles and their albums had to continue to sell in stores in large quantities to remain on the LP charts. On the other hand, if I said that the criteria that matters the most for determining LP success is number of weeks at No. 1 and total physical sales, Drake, Swift, and more recent artists, would have no chance of competing with the likes of the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Garth Brooks.
b1mb0w
Wannabe
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:06 am

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by b1mb0w »

b1mb0w wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:34 am If I ever get around to updating the cumulative Billboard charts to include all the data from 2021 and 2022, then my guess is that Taylor Swift will have risen from 3rd most successful artist of all time to overtake The Beatles (and maybe overtake Drake as well).
I have updated the stats for the Billboard Charts (Top 200 Albums and Top 100 Songs) to include 60 years of data. From Jan 1963 to Dec 2022.

The results are available at this Topic Thread ... viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12684
User avatar
VanillaFire1000
Let's Get It On
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:27 am
Location: Taichung, Taiwan

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by VanillaFire1000 »

b1mb0w wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:12 am
So why does Drake, Taylor Swift and others consistently beat out 200 other artists and dominate in the charts.

For example, why don't The Beatles albums hang around in the charts year in and year out while they continue to be streamed today.

One major reason is that today's public prefers to stream Drake albums more than Beatles albums.

Partially that is due to demographics - the people who listen to beatles songs more often may not be using streaming services.

There was an article from The Ringer (or some other pop culture website) when Running up that Hill, a 37 year old song, became the song of the summer.

https://www.theringer.com/music/2022/6/ ... ard-charts

The Beatles is one of the few legacy artists that still complete in these charts - You would see Beatles songs somewhere on these lists, and you're alot less likely to see some of their contemporaries like the Stones, Who, or even Dylan.
henrydotson
Debut
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2024 3:02 pm

Re: The Commercial Relevance of the Billboard Top 10

Post by henrydotson »

It's interesting how certain songs from past decades resurface and become popular again, sometimes even more so than contemporary tracks. The Beatles definitely have that timeless appeal that continues to resonate with new generations. Thanks for sharing the article link! It's fascinating to see how music evolves over time.
If you find yourself in need of quick financial assistance in Houston, payday loans can be a viable option. Websites like https://paydaysay.com/payday-loan-houston/ provide insights into loan options and terms. Make sure to explore your choices and understand the terms before making any financial decisions. Stay in tune with both your musical preferences and financial well-being!
Post Reply

Return to “Music, Music, Music...”