Billboard releases top ten artists of all time list

[Professor Emeritus]

You are being naive.

Majority of people look at the list and what is their impression? That they are providing their list of greatest performers.

I was aware actually aware of how they graded things when I made my post. I saw the posts in this thread. I stand by my view that they're trying to rewrite history.

It isn't difficult to avoid misleading people.

I have a hard time seeing how they're trying to "rewrite history" when Billboard has been around for 65 years and it's always been based on radioplay and sales. What about history are they changing with the list?

I get that but Billboard has tons of boards with varying metrics. Hot 100, Album 200 etc. What the fukk kinda arbitrary nonsense is this based on? I usually can't be too bothered with arguing over lists and shyt but they messed up with that MJ ranking. By no measure of the imagination should he be placed where he is.

But it's not "arbitrary", its always been based on their top-100 songs list. Each song gets a specific # of points each week depending on how highly it's ranked. They can't just arbitrarily make MJ's ranking higher just because they know he's better than Janet, the charts are what the charts are. Every time they've pushed this top-ranking artists list it's based on the chart performance, not on their own subjective choices.

Here's their explanation from back in 2018 for why Janet ranks ahead of Michael:

Why Janet Jackson Outranks Michael Among the Top 100 Artists of All Time

Why Janet Jackson Outranks Michael Among the Top 100 Artists of All Time

The Hot 100's Top Artists of All Time


As part of Billboard's celebration of the 60th anniversary of our Hot 100 chart this week, we're taking a deeper look at some of the biggest artists and singles in the chart's history. Here, we revisit Janet Jackson, who finished at No. 7 in our all-time Hot 100 artist ranking.

Michael Jackson got a head start -- so why does Janet narrowly outrank him on the list of the top-performing artists in Hot 100 history? (She’s No. 7; he’s No. 8.) Michael boasts 13 No. 1s among his 30 top 10s, both higher sums than Janet’s respective totals of 10 and 27. (Michael’s numbers reflect only his solo career, not the four No. 1s, among 11 top 10s, that he earned as a member of The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons.)

But the more weeks an artist spends in the chart’s upper echelons, the better his or her all-time tally, and Janet has racked up 219 weeks in the top 10 compared with Michael’s 183. Between the two, Janet has also spent the most time at No. 1 with any single: “That’s the Way Love Goes” ruled for eight weeks in 1993, topping the career-best seven-week reigns of Michael’s “Billie Jean” in 1983 and “Black or White” in 1991 and 1992.

This article originally appeared in the Aug 4 issue of Billboard.


Michael's songs spent less time high on the Billboard charts than Janet's songs did. That might be stupid, but blame the people who buy singles and the people who spin the records in the radio stations, not Billboard for reporting it.

 

[mastermind]

I think this is based on charting which makes sense for rhianna to be on it

If it’s based on charting, and not sales then it is probably right. And I saw that they did a list in 2019 and Mariah Carey was higher than Madonna.

People saying why no Prince in the top 10 probably don’t remember that Prince intentionally eschewed the charts from like ‘94 until his death and was never really a high charting artist outside of the mid 80s.

James Brown’s highest performing single was Living In America from the Rocky IV soundtrack.

His last top 40 hit was from The Gold Experience (Eye Hate U).

 

[Hey_zeus]

We really in here 'n for shyt music lists? nikkas acting like before soundscan record stores weren't reporting any sales they wanted to for white artists. Now we're in the era of stream farms. It's always a catch.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

How was this list generated because it makes no sense. If it’s based on sales, they may actually be right.

Each week's Billboard top-100 songs chart is based on a combination of radio spins, streaming plays, and singles sales.

Artists get points each week depending on how high their song ranked. 1 point for #100, 2 points for #99, 3 points for #98, and so on up to 100 points for #1.

At the end of the year, they add up all the points accumulated by all the artist's songs and that's their ranking for the year.

Their career ranking is based on the accumulated points for all years.

We really in here 'n for shyt music lists? nikkas acting like before soundscan record stores weren't reporting any sales they wanted to for white artists. Now we're in the era of stream farms. It's always a catch.

If you don't like Billboard lists, that's fine. I think Billboard lists are stupid. There's all sorts of ways a song can get higher radioplay, including pay-for-play, and most of them don't have shyt to do with how good the music is.

Some of my favorite artists ever (TV on the Radio, Shad) didn't do shyt for radioplay or Billboard lists and I really don't care at all the way a lot of folk here do.

But people talking like Billboard orchestrated a conspiracy to rank certain artists ahead of others are simply talking ignorant. The list is based on the actual performance on the Billboard charts. It's not someone's subjective decision, there are real, objective criteria behind it. Whether you like those criteria or not is up to you but 1000s of posters stay posting Billboard #'s on this site as if they clearly care.

You don't have to be making a value judgment every time you report reality. Sometimes you just might be reporting reality..

 

[southpawstyle]

 

[Low End Derrick]

Did they include MJ Jackson 5 hits?

Yes, but they're classified as a different act.

They're #39 on the list.

Where prince the fu k?

#18

No Bobby Brown??

No Bobby, but Chris (#45) and James (#83) are on it.

 

[Umoja]

I have a hard time seeing how they're trying to "rewrite history" when Billboard has been around for 65 years and it's always been based on radioplay and sales. What about history are they changing with the list?

Michael Jackson exists within our life time. If someone presents a list where he is beneath the likes of his sister, we have the knowledge to question it which will lead us to the metric for their assessment.

However this approach will change with each generation.

The Billboard has been around for 65 years. They're seen as an authority within the music industry.

When they present an article ranking the greatest artists of all time, certain people will be inclined to run with the title of the article. If they decide to call bullshyt on the list, their reputation will remain in tact because they will fallback on it being limited to sales.

With time, less people will question their metric. People from the generation after the next will be less familiar with his overall impact so they will take things at face value, an authority providing a list of the greatest artists of all time.

It is a simple question in my opinion. Would it have been challenging for them to remove ambiguity by making it clear that it was based on sales? The answer is no, it would not have been difficult for them to remove ambiguity. The next question is then, why didn't they remove ambiguity? My view is that the purpose is to mislead.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Michael Jackson exists within our life time. If someone presents a list where he is beneath the likes of his sister, we have the knowledge to question it which will lead us to the metric for their assessment.

However this approach will change with each generation.

The Billboard has been around for 65 years. They're seen as an authority within the music industry.

When they present an article ranking the greatest artists of all time, certain people will be inclined to run with the title of the article. If they decide to call bullshyt on the list, their reputation will remain in tact because they will fallback on it being limited to sales.

With time, less people will question their metric. People from the generation after the next will be less familiar with his overall impact so they will take things at face value, an authority providing a list of the greatest artists of all time.

It is a simple question in my opinion. Would it have been challenging for them to remove ambiguity by making it clear that it was based on sales? The answer is no, it would not have been difficult for them to remove ambiguity. The next question is then, why didn't they remove ambiguity? My view is that the purpose is to mislead.

Option #1: Billboard ranks artists based on airplay/sales because that's literally all Billboard has done for its entire existence. They are well aware that their top-100 artists list has literally zero impact and that everyone has already forgotten the previous list by the time the next one comes out, as has already been proven in this thread.

Option #2: Billboard ranks artists based on airplay/sales because of a devious conspiracy to trick people into thinking that Janet Jackson was a greater artist than Michael Jackson. Even though the list has virtually zero societal impact, somehow they believe decades from now people will base their opinion of Michael Jackson not on his unprecedented global popularity, but rather on some obscure list that hardly anyone pays attention to. If all goes to plan, then in the year 2055 the public will actually believe that Janet was greater than Michael, at which point the dead or dying people who published the list 40 years earlier will enjoy an evil chuckle.



Your conspiracy requires the assumption that Billboard must run a disclaimer explaining what a Billboard chart is literally every time they post a Billboard list, because you think everyone will otherwise forget what Billboard is, which is actually their true goal because they think a meaningless Billboard list will one future day drive the entire public narrative on an artist's worth despite the fact that this thread proves for a fact that people have never ranked artists solely based on what Billboard says.

 

[Sccit]

THIS IS SAD

MJ NOT 1

NO PRINCE

YES RIHANNA

JANET > MICHAEL

ALL CACS TOP 5



THEY GOTTA BE TROLLIN

 

[Malik1time]

That list lost all credibility when they had MJ not number 1 or 2

 

[OnFleekTing]

salty white people mad black artists are way more relavent that their favorites
No way should elton john even be ranked above prince let alone MJ
Also lol at Janet getting ranked higher than MJ
You can tell billboard is some salty white people the way they try to invalidate MJ so much

Whitney Houston being in the top 10 but not Beyonce
Rihanna at number 10 don't care about her sales her music is basically flash in the pan trash none of her songs are timeless

 

[Devil Plisken…CMS]

Rihanna at number 10 don't care about her sales her music is basically flash in the pan trash none of her songs are timeless

 

[You Win Perfect]

Michael and Stevie should be higher, Elvis, Madonna and Elton should be lower. And people never realized just how popular Rihanna was because they were Beyonce stans.

its an "im white and I say so" list

 

[You Win Perfect]

salty white people mad black artists are way more relavent that their favorites
No way should elton john even be ranked above prince let alone MJ
Also lol at Janet getting ranked higher than MJ
You can tell billboard is some salty white people the way they try to invalidate MJ so much

Whitney Houston being in the top 10 but not Beyonce
Rihanna at number 10 don't care about her sales her music is basically flash in the pan trash none of her songs are timeless

you're wrong about Rihanna. just cuz you weren't listening to her doesn't mean the rest of the world wasn't

 

[Tribal Outkast]

Get Elvis out of here