I don't know what you mean by that.

Previously you said "People are really biased and and have that "creab mentalitity" hating others because they are successful."

What does that have to do with crabs

I doubt many people "hate" others because they are successful. People may dislike others because they don't think they are very good, or they may disapprove of their behaviour, or think they have a bad influence.

Ok I'm outta this thread, your to strange for me.

that is what crab mentality exactly meant...

hating others, pulling other people down, beacause of their success, in our country, it's like an idiomatic expression.

Does your name suggest maybe you're being slightly disingenuous?

4 number 1s for rihanna at present

She's had more than that. She's had 8.

Umbrella
Take a Bow
Run This Town
Only Girl in the World
What's My Name
We Found Love
Diamonds
The Monster

"Artist" is clearly a word with a very broad definition, as does what constitutes a number one single.

The original post left the parameters of this discussion wide open to interpretation so it isn't clear what the criteria are. Do Elvis's re-releases count..? Does a song that had a week at the top of the Estonian Indie Chart count..? Did Westlife make anything that shouldn't be restricted to play in elevators only..?

It's all very woolly, isn't it?

I for one don't really care if this generation or that generation had performers (as distinct from artists, which is a subtle but important distinction in my humble opinion) with the most number ones. It's all rather moot.

If you consider how many singles a performer had to sell in, say, the 1960's, when there was fierce competition for chart places from a number of very high quality bands, with today where the dearth of quality musicians is depressing, then to actually get a number one at that time was much more difficult. Also, there was only one chart at that time, not the plethora we have now. The Indie Chart, The Drum n Bass Chart, the R&B Chart, The Tesco Saver Chart. There are so many charts it's almost impossible NOT to have a number one single somewhere along the line. Any chimp can have one.

And for another thing, while I'm about it.... Before the advent of downloading, in order to own a record, a person had to actually get up off their backside and go out to physically buy the item from a record shop (we had them back in the dinosaur days. Wonderful places.... an Aladdin's Cave of music. Magic). And even then, that purchase only formed a part of the chart if the record was bought from a shop that was one of the returning outlets. Not all record shops were a part of the chart compiling system.

So..... as interesting and discussion provoking a thread as this is, making comparisons between say, Westlife and The Beatles is quite futile. The two simply don't compare in any way.

Also, as far as aesthetics go, a number one single is not necessarily a benchmark of quality. The St Winifrid's School Choir had a number one single. Honest..... they really did..!!

As did Rolf Harris with a number called "Two Little Boys".
Last edited by Corkhead. : 21-07-2014 at 04:57

agree, as with takr that, you cannot comapre them to the beatles, in any way too

Queen have had 6 UK No.1 Singles:,

Bohemian Rhapsody - 9 Weeks - (1975/1976)
Under Pressure (With David Bowie) - 2 Weeks - (1981)
Innuendo - 1 Week - (1991)
Bohemian Rhapsody//These Are The Days Of Our Lives - 5 Weeks - (1991/1992)
Five Live EP (With George Michael & Lisa Stansfield) - 3 Weeks - (1993)
We Will Rock You (Five & Queen) - 1 Week - (2000)

Another way to look at Westlife's 14 UK No.1 Singles is to compare them to
Slade's 6 UK No.1 Singles. Slade's 6 spent 20 Weeks at No.1. Westlife needed
14 No.1's to get the same Total of No.1 Weeks. (And Westlife had 7 No.1 Albums
and all only spent 1 Week at No.1).

a lot of interesting points made.

one thing to point out however that whilst back a few years ago you had to sell considerably more records to get in the top 10, artists today in charts are still operating on a like for like basis. record sales have dropped considerably for everyone, so the chart is simply reflecting what sells the most within the rules of that chart. in the days of the beatles and stones in the charts, people bought records instead of downloading and copying them. there was a lot less choice of music, and a lot less other things to spend money on. now we have 40 more years of music to pick from, plus movies and video games for example, and the internet to let you watch and listen to stuff without paying for it. we don't have the days of saving lunch money to buy a record at the end of the week, kids get much more money and can just download the songs they want for free instead, and spend the money on a computer game if they haven't downloaded that. in the days of the beatles and stones there wasn't anything like the amount of competition for teenagers cash, and that's one of the reasons why record sales were higher, in addition to not being able to tape/copy/download like today. even the days of taping the charts from the radio and trying to cut out the dj talking are a world away from now

In the USA Jay-Z has surpassed Elvis record of most number one albums by a solo artist. (13)

You've read way too much into my choice of the word "artist." I went with that because the two examples I chose, McFly and Eminem, are completely different and that seemed to fit best. I couldn't use singer or band, so went with artist.

And no, a number one in Estonia wouldn't count as the OP started this thread about the number of UK number ones will.i.am has had. The discussion is about UK number ones.

If you don't care, what was the point in opening a thread about the most numbers ones?

This thread is about number ones on one chart - the UK Official Top 40. And regardless of whether you rate performers from now as worse than performers from years gone by, they still have to sell more than their rivals to chart higher than them, which is what performers had to do in the sixties.

You may rate The Beatles, someone else might rate Westlife more. It's all subjective.

I can't speak for others, but I don't think having more number ones makes you better. I think will.i.am is a pile of turd, but there he is, sitting with ten number ones under his belt.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...54&postcount=1

thread title - "What singers / groups have had more than 10 number 1 singles "



no mention of the UK there, nor any chart specifically. so if someone has 10 number ones in the Greenland rnb charts they would be on topic for discussion

and perhaps it would be interesting to hear about some people who have had 10 number one hits from around the world that may be surprising to some. maybe shaking stevens is a bit hit in Kazakhstan for example

^But those ten number ones are UK number ones, so I responded with regards to UK number ones. I don't think it was wrong of me to assume that the OP was talking about UK number ones. Had it been that will.i.am had had ten US Billboard Top 200 number ones, I'd have responded with regards to US Billboard Top 200 number ones.

Thank you for clearing up the criteria on which this thread is based. I take it then, that the comment made by Mialicious regarding Jay Z performance in the US charts will also be deemed irrelevant.

In response to another of your comments, I opened the thread because I wanted to. I'm a curious soul by nature and thought it might be interesting, It is. Sort of. But I felt it was rather meandering and could do with a bit of a stir-up..... in a constructive way, of course.

I'm sorry you're confused. If you'd read the comment in my post thoroughly, you'd see that what I actually said was: (quote: I for one don't really care if this generation or that generation had performers.................with the most number ones. It's all rather moot (end of quote). What this meant was that I'm not particularly bothered if the greatest quantity of number ones comes from this generation or a previous one. I hope that de-confuses you.

I agree with you over the subjective nature of people's choices. Fandom can have a habit of putting blinkers on some individuals and they can become very intolerant of any opinion that doesn't heap unconditional praise on their heroes. Personally, I very much enjoy listening to Pink Floyd. Not everybody's cup of tea, but I enjoy them. They tended to release singles only very rarely, but still managed to have two UK number ones. So you can see that my personal preferences don't affect my feelings over who has umpteen number ones or not. I'm just chipping in with the discussion..... which, call me Mr Pedantic if you will, is the whole point of joining discussion forum site.

As for William, well, to be honest, I wouldn't recognise him if he fell on me from a fourth storey window. I don't think I've ever heard any of his songs and if I have, then I probably forgot them immediately afterwards. I think I've heard his name mentioned in connection with some TV programme he made with Tom Jones last winter.

I'm sure he's very good, really.

I remember reading that one of the reasons UK chose Englebert Humperdinck for their Eurovision entry in 2012, Held in Azerbaijan, was that he is very popular there and a positive reception from the Azerbaijani public might help UK to a Eurovision victory..

A cunning plan that failed dismally.

You make a number of reasonable points yourself and I accept what you say.

As a matter of interest, I did a quick calculation of what a single purchased in 1962 for five shillings (25 pence to you youngsters) would cost today and it comes out at £4.66. I wonder if young people today would be somewhat more selective if a download were to cost that?

I'm a little less in agreement with your point that there was less competition for teenage spending. We were the first generation of young people to have disposable income we wanted to spend it. I agree we didn't have computer games, but such things as a pocket transistor radio were highly sought after. Clothes, going to football matches (football was a working class sport back then), and buying a motor bike were the sorts of things we wanted to do. It all cost money, so there was competition for young people's spending.

Perhaps the real reason why spending on records was higher was because the concept of a music chart, prompted by the airplay given to singles by the pirate radio stations that were springing up all over the North Sea gave it impetus. British music was coming out of the American stranglehold of the Rock and Roll era and our bands were starting to assert themselves and gain popularity.

I could go on, but I feel there is too much "thread drift" here. Perhaps we should start a discussion on the evolution of popular music in Britainand the perspectives we all have on that in a dedicated thread.

Are you up for that..?

I'll stop rambling now.

That made me laugh. Would be even funnier if it had been "number twos".

cd singles were hitting around the £3.99 to £4.49 mark in the 90s, but of course there were also many discounted singles at 99p for the first week or two so they would enter the charts at a high number

now you can buy one track for 99p on iTunes for example, which is peanuts


your transistor radio is effectively todays iphone, or yesterdays ipod. but generally you buy these once or not very often. in fact today kids tend to replace electronic items more regularly to upgrade, whereas you would buy an item and keep it for a while so you didn't have to buy another for a long time

clothing is still currently popular today with kids. I haven't seen any naked children running about the streets in a while. I'm not into sport but I believe matches still take place and they have a big cup the shape of the world or something. also motor bikes are still available and an option to buy, likewise cars

so all the things you had back then to spend money on are still relevant today, either directly or with modern counter parts. but in addition to these, kids have a lot more to spend on such as gadgets, computers, games consoles and the games, flat screen tvs in bedrooms, ipads/tables, ipods, mobile phones, etc. there's considerably more competition for kids money today than even in the 80s, and certainly further back in the 70s and beforehand. it's also the same with adults, there are more things competing for our money


I think there is an element of it being a relatively new phase, but with less things competing for peoples money, and piracy/home taping not being an issue like in later years, it's really a number of things. if kids could just copy the music without buying it, I'm sure sales wouldn't have been the same back then either

In the UK she has had 4

http://www.everyhit.com/searchsec.php

Just type her name in the search box

Their info is out of date then , all those singles the other poster mentioned all made number one she has had 8

Of course with the download distribution model you can buy album tracks now without buying the album which you would expect to have an effect on album sales and probably singles sales as well.

Your source hasn't been updated in over 3 and a half years.

What you like, your personal taste in music, is of course entirely subjective. I'm as guilty as anyone else in making disparaging comments about artists on this forum I don't like, partly because I simply find it hard to figure out *why* people like stuff that sounds like crud to my ears, but I guess I have to accept that everyone's taste is different.

What cannot be disputed, though, is any comparison between, say, Westlife and the Beatles in terms of their overall contribution to pop music and popular culture as a whole. You can't dispute Westlife's popularity - it's right there in the chart statistics - but what they contributed to music and culture...pretty much nothing I would say.

And you're right in saying that having no.1 songs doesn't really mean anything in terms of quality - Bob the Builder, Mr Blobby and Crazy Frog all had no.1s !!

While I agree with you, I also liker to point out that can be said by any other boyband out there. The thing is, boyband market is huge and there are millions of people who love boybands, but none of them contributed anything special to the music - like I said, every boyband has maybe 1 or 2 songs that are remembered, nothing more. I love Westlife, but I wouldn't dream of comparing them to The Beatles or Elvis - I am well aware of who they are and I don't think any other Westlife fan thinks they are legends. They are a boyband who has achieved a lot for what they are, breaking many records and selling 45 millions singles/albums. Whether someone loves them or loathes them, it can't be denied that is impressive (again, for 1 boyband).

And like I said, having no. 1 just means someone liked your music and bought, it mentioning Bob the Builder and Crazy frog are great examples. That is I why I find ridiculous that many people think it is tragic and disgrace that Westlife had so many no. 1 - people need to get over themselves, it just means their huge fanbase supported them for many years.