Drake Beats Beatles Record - has 7 singles in Top 10?

[jobeterob]

https://www.billboard.com/articles/c...-what-scorpion

[Guy]

I can only think of one or two songs by Drake. That he has more Top 10 hits than Michael Jackson or Stevie Wonder is just further proof of how artistry and musicianship are no longer part of popular music.

[marybrewster]

I understand what this article is trying to say, however one might argue that the Beatles didn't have the advantage of streaming/downloads. That EVERY SONG from Drake's new album is in the Top 100 is proof of that. The Beatles only charted singles and perhaps B sides. I don't see how records can be broken if the playing field isn't the same.

[jobeterob]

It’s like the Grammys

In 1964, there was best rock and roll record or some such catch all category

Now there is an award for everything - like primary school

[midnightman]

Ironically, one of his current top ten hits features Michael.

[sansradio]

Ironically, one of his current top ten hits features Michael.

Yep. And so far, only Rebbie’s son has registered his displeasure [[the song belongs to Paul Anka’s publishing company and not the MJ estate).

[jobeterob]

We can’t deny - he’s a major star

Canadian like Bieber too I think

[soulster]

I can't believe this no-talent hack Drake beat The Beatles record! The only reason he got as far as he has is because the females like his looks.

[jobeterob]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/enter...ord/index.html

[marv2]

I can't believe this no-talent hack Drake beat The Beatles record! The only reason he got as far as he has is because the females like his looks.

Ah HA HA ! LOL!!!!

[bradsupremes]

I understand what this article is trying to say, however one might argue that the Beatles didn't have the advantage of streaming/downloads. That EVERY SONG from Drake's new album is in the Top 100 is proof of that. The Beatles only charted singles and perhaps B sides. I don't see how records can be broken if the playing field isn't the same.

Exactly and it isn't the same playing field. Why can't they include what the Beatles sell in digital and streaming and then compare.

Just like how they claim Nicki Minaj beat Aretha Franklin's record for most song chartings on Billboard by a female. Minaj makes a lot of appearances on other people's songs, yet they include those into the count even though they are not her songs. They should really only count songs accredited to her only.

[marv2]

Exactly and it isn't the same playing field. Why can't they include what the Beatles sell in digital and streaming and then compare.

Just like how they claim Nicki Minaj beat Aretha Franklin's record for most song chartings on Billboard by a female. Minaj makes a lot of appearances on other people's songs, yet they include those into the count even though they are not her songs. They should really only count songs accredited to her only.

In the old days, a successful, number one single sold in the area of a million hard copies. Today, I think you can chart in the Top 40 with just 150,000 units sold. This does not include digital downloads, streaming or bootlegs I don't believe.

[marv2]

If all of these newer artist were being so wildly successful, then why are the recording companies constantly bitching and moaning about how far the industry has dropped and how they make much less revenue now than in the past?

[jobeterob]

Exactly and it isn't the same playing field. Why can't they include what the Beatles sell in digital and streaming and then compare.

Just like how they claim Nicki Minaj beat Aretha Franklin's record for most song chartings on Billboard by a female. Minaj makes a lot of appearances on other people's songs, yet they include those into the count even though they are not her songs. They should really only count songs accredited to her only.

The Billboard rule is if you are named as a feature artist you get credit - hence no artists got credit for USA for Africa; Diana Ross got solo credit for NumBer 1 on Love Child and Someday We’ll Be Together because she was named.

Nicki Minaj would get credit if a record said featuring Nicki Minaj and 4 others.

Lots of unfairness in the world of streaming compared to selling 45s and in the world of Grammys today compared to 1964

[milven]

If all of these newer artist were being so wildly successful, then why are the recording companies constantly bitching and moaning about how far the industry has dropped and how they make much less revenue now than in the past?

You may have answered your own question below. Today, you only have to sell a few copies and have some streams to make it to the top. Reaching the top today is good for the ego, but does not help the pocketbook of the artist or company as much as it did in the “olden days”

In the old days, a successful, number one single sold in the area of a million hard copies. Today, I think you can chart in the Top 40 with just 150,000 units sold. This does not include digital downloads, streaming or bootlegs I don't believe.

[copley]

How can a record be broken when the rules are totally different! Makes no sense whatsoever.

[marv2]

How can a record be broken when the rules are totally different! Makes no sense whatsoever.

They are grasping. Billboard itself is struggling to remain relevant in a time where even Millenials could care less about chart placings. Radio stations are corporate owned and the music buyer market is completely fractured compare to say even the 90s.

People no longer go out to stores, search for, purchase and bring home hard copies of music that they enjoy. During the heyday of Motown, the Beatles, etc,etc. the American consumer were purchasing records in the millions monthly. That is not the same as downloading, streaming, file sharing, or whatever. You can hear whatever you want now and never spend a dime to own it! That is the major difference, so trying to compare accomplishments of today's music artists with classic music artists is pointless. None of today's artists have fans purchasing to own their music in the millions.

[marv2]

Here is an excellent documentary on music industry from the 70s that gives great information about just how huge it was back in those days:

[detmotownguy]

Thanks Marv!

[jobeterob]

You may have answered your own question below. Today, you only have to sell a few copies and have some streams to make it to the top. Reaching the top today is good for the ego, but does not help the pocketbook of the artist or company as much as it did in the “olden days”

I think the numbers are much lower-you can get in the Top 30 selling 15000 copies at times