well im a late 20s male and have his album
however i still stand by the fact i dont think he really has the top 3, as i just do not think streaming should be included, and should have its own separate chart, im just not buying the idea that its good for the chart, look at twitter, teenage girls automatically streaming songs over and over and over trying to influence the chart, for free! its been happening in america for ages, as they even include youtube

Precisely. Had Elvis, The Beatles or even Take That released every single track from an Album at the same time, and also had the benefit of streaming then no doubt they would also have taken the top three positions of the chart.

The Beatles had the TOP FIVE positions in the American chart in 1964 without the benefit of streaming. Of course, that was back in the time when the singles chart actually meant something.

Surely it's about time the charts are now scrapped, they really have absolutely no relevance anymore.

Both impressive and annoying. Not sure which more.

He's not lying either...

Billboard Hot 100 Week of April 4 1964
1. The Beatles - Can't Buy Me Love
2. The Beatles - Twist and Shout
3. The Beatles - She Loves You
4. The Beatles - I Want to Hold your Hand
5. The Beatles - Please Please Me

Justin must surely be the most popular and talented artist in the world. Regardless of what format the charts take, or who buys music, legends like Whitney Houston, The Beatles, ACDC, Metallica, Amy Winehouse, Led Zeplin, Paul Mcartney, Adele, Spice Girls, Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Shania Twain, Micheal Jackson, Elvis, etc... have never achieved such a feat.

And people buy less music now than then.

Game, Set and Match to Justin Beiber then.

Funny only a few weeks ago, we were hearing the same about Adele!

I'm not sure what you guys are quibbling with? Streaming is simply a new method of distribution for music, the artefact remains the song not the medium it is delivered on.

This seems to be more of an issue about fan bases.

If streaming services were available in the days that the aforementioned artists achieved mainstream success I would suggest that they would also have similar success to Beiber, wouldn't you?

Before streaming actually counted for anything, probably in the 10 years beforehand, you could stream a song on youtube without actually buying it, and it wouldn't count for anything. Certain labels clamped down and got the song removed but there would be 20 other videos, either fan made, tribute or otherwise that would be overlooked by the labels and you'd just listen to that instead.

You could then download the song from youtube using readily available software.

What kind of incetive did that give to anyone to actually buy the song?

I think if Adele released her album on Spotify she would have done this too but she didn't, Justin did and achieved a new record. Good for him and his fans.

What a load of rubbish! The Beatles achieved an even greater feat 52 years ago (see above). When Justin Bieber also has the TOP FIVE in the singles chart then I may start lauding his achievement, although the greater likelihood is that I won't.

I'm not convinced she would... Adele appeals more to an older audience than Justin Bieber does so I suspect the percentage of her fans who would buy a CD rather than stream music is greater for her. Its impossible to prove either way of course.

I don't think what Justin has achieved makes him in any way comparable to The Beatles, Elvis etc. BUT I do still think it is impressive! It remains to be seen whether things like this become more commonplace, I suspect they probably won't to this extent. I can't help but think that if a female pop singer like Katy Perry had done this, people on here would be enthusing over it and "Katy SLAYS the singles chart" would be a thing. Its just not cool to like Bieber!

BIB is just not true.

The WAY in which people buy and listen to music has changed so drastically from the way things were even ten years ago makes it totally incomparable.

Particularly in terms of albums vs. singles - the divide between who buys what has never been greater. Many of the bands you mentioned couldn't get a No. 1 single if their lives depended on it; this does not prevent them selling out global stadium tours and getting one of the top selling albums of the year.

I'll give Bieber credit where it's due - it's an impressive achievement in an increasingly disposable, 'flavour of the month' music chart. But in the grand scheme of chart history, it means very little.

I know I'm becoming like a broken record here, but Adele clearly appeals to absolutely ALL ages and if you look at how quickly her Hello video is going to get to 1 billion YT views (she's on course to beat the previous record holder Gangnam Style by at least 2 months!) then I would argue she actually has as many young fans as Bieber but crucially also loads more older fans (literally no other explanation as to how much than her 'competitors' she's selling). So her not putting '25' on Spotify has definitely helped Bieber shine. And good luck to him, if only for his success prompting such hilarious outrage from the usual music snobs on here.

Exactly probably in 1967 the top 10 could easily have been made up of most of the Tracks of Sgt Pepper. With Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields picking up places as well.

So many bitter people on this thread. Love him or hate him, this is an amazing achievement.

No it isn't as has already been explained. I've not read any bitter posts either, just factual ones.

edit; If One Direction released ALL their tracks from any one of their numerous albums at the same time, they would also have claimed the top three chart positions at the very least.

You know we keep seeing accusations of bitterness and snobbery when most of the posts I have seen are criticism of the farce that is the so called singles chart we now have not attacks against Bieber personally. Even if it was an artist I liked I would not think it great that every song off their album was simultaneously in the singles chart.

i don't do streaming so don't really understand. But measuring how often people play a song rather than buy is opening the whole thing up to all sorts of abuse. The charts is now on the same level as fans voting for acts to win Brit awards via twitter.

At least in the UK we don't yet include radio play into the mix like they do in the states, that's a complete farce of an idea, but streaming is half way there

According to an earlier post he's #1 and #2 based on sales, it's only the #3 placing that's been achieved due to streaming. If true, there's been a lot of seriously unecessary twisting of undergarments in here...

ah well fair enough, the boys done good. He'll be able to buy himself a pair of trousers that fit now

Still not THAT great an achievement when you release all 13 tracks from your album at the same time.

That represented a high point in chart history but it was a unique circumstance. Single were leased on different labels to try and break The Beatles in America, when it happened it was realised just what kind of a goldmine they were and the unprecedented rush of Beatlemania pushed all these singles at the same time. Afterwards it was down to the usual more measured single releases (like the vast majority of pre download chart history).

Personally I think there are two very distinct eras we are talking about here, if this was pre digital Bieber would only have one single in the charts at once because that was the standard. Technology is defining a different world and personally I think chart feats and records should have a line drawn in the sand between the old and the new. It is just not the same thing.

What does that have to do with two of the songs being at the top two positions? Surely that's been happening since downloads blew up anyway?