#1 Singles - Quantity or Longevity?

Which is more impressive to you: a large number of #1 singles that tend to drop out of the top spots after a short amount of time (one-two weeks) or fewer hit singles that remain at the top for four+ weeks? Beyonce and Christina Aguilera are known for having fewer singles than Rihanna, for instance, but their hit singles tend to have more longevity at the top. Is being able to say 'I have twenty hit singles' better than saying 'I have three' even though those three were at the top for weeks on end?

I've kinda haven't believed in either - a ton of great music goes under the radar. But, if I had to choose one it'd have to be longevity. I find a bit more impressive when a song is in the #1 chart for 4 months than 4 #1 singles in 4 months.

Yeah, I don't really hold stock with either, but each is kind of impressive in its own way. If you're the artist responsible for 20 hits (meaning you wrote the music and lyrics and didn't have a team do all that) then that's pretty wow even if they don't last. If you've got 3 or 4 that last for a month that's, well, less impressive since you might just have landed during a dry spell.

Esper said:

Yeah, I don't really hold stock with either, but each is kind of impressive in its own way. If you're the artist responsible for 20 hits (meaning you wrote the music and lyrics and didn't have a team do all that) then that's pretty wow even if they don't last. If you've got 3 or 4 that last for a month that's, well, less impressive since you might just have landed during a dry spell.

Click to expand...

What if the artist co-wrote the songs with a team? Is that any less impressive? What if the artist didn't write at all? Isn't 20 singles still pretty impressive?

I think it's pretty impressive to have more singles than fewer, because longevity doesn't mean the song is any better than other, it just means that it's what the world's idea of trendy is at the time. For instance, people weren't looking for the kind of song Blurred Lines was in 2013, it just made it big because people realized it was the kind of song they wanted to listen to... over and over and over and over. As for having more hit singles, that means your songs are consistently popular, even if not for a long time, because people transition into and out of interest, so.

Honestly, I'm not impressed by neither. The EDM hits on the radio today are absolutely dreadful. Artists like Rihanna bloom in the charts and the reason for that is the people and the people who buy and request her music on the radio are people I don't think have very great taste in music.

Even when it comes to the EDM artists that I do like (really, these days, it's only Lady Gaga), her music is fun and all but nothing I think is all that impressive.

Longevity is more memorable. But most #1 singles suck anyways. I'm waiting for the day this dance-pop/electropop/EDM mainstream scene dies like disco.

Singles that remain at the top are my favorite. Classics that have been at the top for long amounts of time should get more praise than a burst a short lived classics.