-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Billboard: Top 100 Greatest Artists of All Time
- Thread starter CDX
- Start date
- Status
FeenixRising
Banned
Even if we're not talking charts, I'll put Janet over Michael in general.
Fight me.
Fight me.
CD's? nah, records and tapes, prolly.
DiscoNaldo
Member
ITT: People don't understand what Billboard actually does and are super butthurt by lists.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Trent Reznor belongs in the list. I don't see Pink Floyd as well.
That said, based McCartney showing up twice in the list.
That said, based McCartney showing up twice in the list.
But reading is haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!!
That's SoundScan, IIRC. Billboard is just about charting, not sales.
torre_avenue
Banned
Title should be "Top 100 Greatest Selling Artists of all Time" since this is purely based on sales instead of influence, impact on music as a whole, cultural relevance, etc.
But, thanks for the list. I needed a laugh.
But, thanks for the list. I needed a laugh.
This is probably the rub:
They weighted based on general turnover rate; the public has become increasingly ADD over the years so it's likely that newer artists got "more points" for their time on the charts than older artists.
It's like comparing early 1900's to current day pitchers by factoring in that pitchers now take way more days off than they used to.
The list is based on the amount of time someone spent on the charts; one could argue that's not a bad way to measure who influenced pop culture the most. Anything based on data can have anomolies though; either way it's incredibly strange people are getting angry over this.
No opinion went into making these lists. You guys are yelling at data analysis.
Well, that's sorta Billboard's whole thing. As far as I know, they don't do any music critique, so they can't really rank musicians based on quality. And by one measure of greatness (performance on the Billboard charts), these are technically the greatest.
Regarding the list, a bunch of it is rather surprising to me. I never would have expected MJ to be so relatively low. Not that I know anything about the charts, anyway.
Coded Heroin
Banned
Where's Eminem?
Prototype Viktor
Member
They already fucked up on #1
And no The Purple One in the top 10
And no The Purple One in the top 10
Jazzy Network
Member
Dont care what their criteria is. The criteria is flawed as fuck.
Wouldn't that be the best way to tell since what is considered good music is subjective?
lol no
The Hot 100 chart is BOTH single sales and radio play together.
Britney Spears is right behind Elvis on the Billboard 200 chart
Katy Perry doesn't even make the that list
http://www.billboard.com/charts/greatest-billboard-200-artists
As for the difference in criteria
^ The Billboard 100 is what the list in the OP is based on.
AND Here is the Top 15 for the Billboard 200
1 THE BEATLES
2 THE ROLLING STONES
3 BARBRA STREISAND
4 GARTH BROOKS
5 ELTON JOHN
6 MARIAH CAREY
7 HERB ALPERT
8 TAYLOR SWIFT
9 CHICAGO
10 MICHAEL JACKSON
11 LED ZEPPELIN
12 BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN
13 ROD STEWART
14 EMINEM
15 WHITNEY HOUSTON
Touché.
Or......
PopGAF: Britney Spears is on the Billboard 200 list, but Rihanna isn't.
Have at it! =p
Zantetsuken
Member
I guess Billboard needed to get some views for their site.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
The Greatest of All-time Billboard 200 list is more what I expected, as an example from rock and metal music:
#34 Van Halen
#46 Guns N' Roses
#54 Metallica
#55 Def Leppard (...I like their early stuff)
All of these don't make the Hot 100 cut, and though all of them had Top 10 singles and 3 of them had #1's. That's not nearly enough for the Hot 100 list. These were album bands. Anyone more interested in rock groups would be better looking at this because it's based off the albums chart.
But all the same as someone mentioned earlier, popularity does not equal talent so don't take any of this stuff seriously.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
Looks about right.
FeenixRising
Banned
You won't touch me as long as I have your waifu in my avi.
bless this person
SecretMoblin
Member
Rihanna's power is immense.
Not surprised some would recoil at the very thought of it.
Not surprised some would recoil at the very thought of it.
torre_avenue
Banned
True, one could say that. I'd actually argue that sales doesn't necessarily equate to cultural impact and might actually be the worst metric when it comes to determining the best artists, but I'm way too tired to come up with a coherent argument for that.
Data is a callous mistress. And when it comes to something as subjective as music, you can't apply objective methodology to it and expect a reasonable reaction. Every one on this board has a different greatest artist, and we're really just yelling that our fave wasn't represented in the spot we believe they should be. It's a forum. We can do that. I also sincerely doubt anyone is getting worked up about this.
Also, I'm going to be that guy and say Kanye at #88 is too low. The man practically gave life to the careers of Drake, Kid Cudi, Travis Scott, J. Cole, etc.
uncelestial
Member
Janet above Michael?
Paul above John?
This is lunacy.
Edit: Oh, society is to blame, not some rando list-maker.
I mean, not that Janet and Paul aren't talented, but you wouldn't have heard of either without Michael Jackson and John Lennon.
Paul above John?
This is lunacy.
Edit: Oh, society is to blame, not some rando list-maker.
I mean, not that Janet and Paul aren't talented, but you wouldn't have heard of either without Michael Jackson and John Lennon.
Janet had two big albums. Two! I think Paul outsold John so at least that makes some sense. But yeah there is no level where Janet is bigger then Michael.
Yes but as others have pointed out these aren't just sales charts; the Hot 100 measures radio play and for almost a decade now have also examined digital streaming services.
And the fact it's time based also makes it more interesting; it raises the standing of people who have had long relevant careers versus those with brief explosive careers.
Best and worst are certainly subjective and can't be measured; the word "Greatest" is certainly misleading. Cleverly (whether on purpose or not) it also sort of works as these artists represent the highest (greatest) ranking within the qualification they created.
uncelestial
Member
Yeah Paul makes sense; and, tragically, he had more time to rack up chart occupation than John.
But Janet? MJ's run from Off the Wall through Dangerous was pretty damn legendary; kinda shocked. He musta really dropped off after those allegations came out in '93 while Janet kept going. Only thing I can figure, although even then I feel like plenty of other stars did more than her?
Edit: That weird "weighting by era" fuzzy math that Billboard is doing might have distorted things a bit.
It makes no sense at all. Even from a sales standpoint which is what Billboard is about, it makes no sense.
Yeah you do have to wonder about how they weighted the eras.
Michael had as many Top 10 songs on the hot 100 as Janet has total songs that charted.
http://www.billboard.com/artist/304191/janet-jackson/chart?sort=position&f=379
http://www.billboard.com/artist/310778/michael-jackson/chart?sort=position&f=379
Let alone his album sales... Janet must have really gotten a boost from all those 90's #1's.
As I pointed out earlier:
- Status