*Justin Bieber breaks both The Beatles and Drake chart records

No they're kind of the new Lennon/McCartney especially after they split up and started throwing things at each other.

 

You've chosen to not know who they are. Good for you, I suppose.

Ed

 

Seriously, I never had a clue. They just have a good comedy ring to them, like Ren and Stimpy or something.

 

Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Sales, airplay and streaming are factored into the charts today. It doesn't take much effort to download a song or stream it. Not to mention The Beatles didn't have the benefit of streaming to help their chart numbers/placements.

 

Records are made to be broken.

And I don't mean those vinyl thingies. Unless it's something I really hate.

 

Since you've posted here and it's on your radar, I'm sure you're sampling them now right?

 

No - dismissing Bieber because he first became famous through Youtube is silly, though...

 

This also depends on how you look at it. Personally, I tend to think that most people reference the event as 14 songs on the chart at once, not necessarily physical singles. I can't think of anyone offhand who just automatically assumes that it meant 14 individual physical records, although I'm sure there are some out there. Ultimately, the point of physical singles is kind of moot because, in the long run, the main thing that is usually referenced when talking about the charts are songs, not whether or not they were two-sided hits on one record.

 

Streaming is just modern day radio except today the listener has the choice of what they listen to (Spotify, etc). More people are choosing to listen to him. Back then you listened to what you were told by the radio.

 

Valedictorian of summer school

 

That may be, but it's entirely possible that The Beatles' chart achievements would have been greater over 50 years ago if they had the benefit of streaming. It's debatable if Justin and Drake would have achieved the feat without it.

 

big deal..different times...moot.

 

sure, but as the population & fanbase grows larger...many will break "records" ....

 

I know who they are but, I am aware and not a fan...how can one not know who they are with the media flood all around us.

 

How so? Streaming doesn't seem to have as big a factor on the charts as we'd like to think. Plus the other factors described seem to cancel out any potential benefit from streaming.

Like I said, we seem to be putting too much importance on streaming and thinking of it as a cheap, easy way for someone to rise up the charts when in reality it isn't. So many other factors cancel out the benefits.

 

Streaming has obviously become enough of a factor for Billboard to include it in compiling the charts, so I'd hardly consider it a minor factor. Also, when you take into consideration that more and more people are streaming music rather than actually buying it (physical or digital), it's only bound to become MORE of a factor towards the charts as time goes by.

Not sure what other factors you're referring to. Besides sales, airplay, streaming and maybe YouTube plays, how many other factors are there in compiling the charts?

 

Past is prologue.
And who the hell is Steve Wilson ?

D.D.

 

Riiiiight....
Behold ! The majesty of Rock.



D.D.

 

Hmmm. Looks like the Majesty of Rock hangs to the left...

 

They didn't create anything, they merely express it.
Which is fine.
But I prefer self contained bands and artists, those who do it all. That is where the REAL talent is.
I am a fan of Roger Daltry, but he is a performer and a great singer. But Pete Townsend is the creator of that music.
Him and 3 other guys express it.

 

Not intentionally.

That is the point. It hasn't been smashed. It has been numerically topped. But the feat of the Beatles achieving such world wide fame at that particular time in history is far different than this years flavor of the week reaching a number. Again, considering the population of the world at this time and the technology that allows an exponentially larger amount of people to have access to, it is an accomplishment but not an amazing feat.
It wouldn't even have been an amazing feat in the 80s.
An achievement that will no doubt be attained over and over again.

The bottom line is, we are comparing 45 rpm records that were available to select parts of the world to downloads that are likely available on the moon.
Hell, the space station can probably download them.

 

Frank Sinatra wrote songs, did he not?

 

So I guess a guitarist who plays music someone else has written isn't an artist either. Or a pianist. Just another guy with a hammer and a nail.

 

I'll never look at a pair of Calvin Klein boxer shorts the same way again!

Different generations,population is also considerably bigger in 2015 compared to 1960s. Kids used to buy physical product in the 1960s as well,

Finally Beiber won't be remembered in the same way as the Beatles in 25 years plus!

 

I don't think anyone is saying talented musicians aren't artists, but it's simply logic that those with a broader range of talent (singer/songwriter/musician) are likely to have more enduring legacies.


Cat