Britney Spears becomes just the second artist in the Billboard Hot 100's 52-year history to debut multiple songs at No. 1, as "Hold It Against Me" blasts in at the summit.

Spears previously launched at the apex with "3" the week of Oct. 24, 2009. She joins Mariah Carey as the only acts to arrive at No. 1 more than once. Carey made such grand entrances with "Fantasy" and "One Sweet Day" in 1995 and "Honey" in 1997. (All charts will be refreshed tomorrow (Jan. 20) on Billboard.com).

Hold It Against Me" is the 18th song to debut at No. 1 and the first since Ke$ha's "We R Who We R" the week of Nov. 13, 2010.

The track is Spears' fourth No. 1 on the Hot 100. Prior to "3," she reigned with her debut single "...Baby One More Time" (two weeks, 1999) and "Womanizer" (one week, 2008).

"Hold It Against Me" starts atop Digital Songs with 411,000 downloads sold, according to Nielsen SoundScan. As previously reported, the sum marks the highest debut frame by a lead female artist, besting the 325,000 shifted by Taylor Swift's "Today Was a Fairytale" the week of Feb. 6, 2010.

On Radio Songs, "Hold It Against Me" begins at No. 23 with 45 million first-week audience impressions, according to Nielsen BDS, the highest audience sum for a debuting title in the chart's history. The song's No. 23 entrance is the chart's best since Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body" began at the same rank the week of March 1, 2008.

Two other tracks storm the upper reaches of the Hot 100. "What the Hell," the first single from Avril Lavigne's fourth album, "Goodbye Lullaby," due March 8, opens at No. 13. The song starts at No. 6 on Digital Songs with sales of 163,000.

At No. 23 on the Hot 100, Kanye West and Jay-Z debut with "H*A*M." The first single from the superstar pair's upcoming collaborative album, "Watch the Throne," enters Digital Songs at No. 10 (125,000).

Directly below "Hold It Against Me" on the Hot 100, three titles dip one notch each: Bruno Mar's "Grenade" (1-2) Katy Perry's "Firework" (2-3) and Rihanna's "What's My Name?" featuring Drake (3-4).

Wiz Khalifa's "Black and Yellow" lifts 7-5, jumping Enrique Iglesias' "Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)," featuring Ludacris & DJ Frank E (6-6), while "We R Who We R" slides 4-7.

P!nk descends 5-8 with "Raise Your Glass" but claims dual Greatest Gainer/Digital and Airplay honors with "F**kin' Perfect" (57-30). The second new track from her "Greatest Hits... So Far!!!" retrospective bounds 66-25 on Digital Songs (70,000, up 95%) and 68-44 (27.5 million, up 54%) on Radio Songs.

The Black Eyed Peas "The Time (Dirty Bit)" and Mars' "Just the Way You Are" round out the Hot 100 top 10, each dropping a rung to Nos. 9 and 10, respectively.

http://www.billboard.com/...9415.story

congrats britney, another stupid song to kill the charts

it's garbage, I'll give her props when she deserves it, but just, no...

alphastreet said:

congrats britney, another stupid song to kill the charts

it's garbage, I'll give her props when she deserves it, but just, no...

Totally agree. I'm not a hater, but this song sucks. Her name alone is what made this a hit.

Her fans are just insane, really.

[img:$uid]http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4871913/I-Aint-Even-Mad.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=I-Aint-Even-Mad[/img:$uid]

Will this turn into another memorable/madcap/funny as fuck/14-page thread???

or is it true that sequels are always worse???

Like the song or not, it fits perfectly into the Billboard zeitgeist. It's absolutely perfect for radio.

I was a britney hater for years but then realized I know too much about her to hate her

I'm not a fan either though but a lot of her songs are catchy with good writers, especially on some unreleased album tracks...it's just too bad she ruined her voice with smoking (except for her high notes on in the zone) and can't dance that well IMO

No surprise. She's a media machine. One minute she's operational and the next she's out of order. If her song never made a dime it would still debut at #1. Fixed.

alphastreet said:

I was a britney hater for years but then realized I know too much about her to hate her

I'm not a fan either though but a lot of her songs are catchy with good writers, especially on some unreleased album tracks...it's just too bad she ruined her voice with smoking (except for her high notes on in the zone) and can't dance that well IMO

I know what you mean. I cant say I've ever been a fan in the same way I am for Michael, but I grew up with Britney and know everything about her career without even trying. I think you cant help but like her in some way. So while I dont enjoy the song I'm happy for her success.

Arnotts said:

alphastreet said:

I was a britney hater for years but then realized I know too much about her to hate her

I'm not a fan either though but a lot of her songs are catchy with good writers, especially on some unreleased album tracks...it's just too bad she ruined her voice with smoking (except for her high notes on in the zone) and can't dance that well IMO

I know what you mean. I cant say I've ever been a fan in the same way I am for Michael, but I grew up with Britney and know everything about her career without even trying. I think you cant help but like her in some way. So while I dont enjoy the song I'm happy for her success.

what a load of shit ..... , she's a shit act .... and this is a crappy thread...

Dreamer2 said:

Arnotts said:

I know what you mean. I cant say I've ever been a fan in the same way I am for Michael, but I grew up with Britney and know everything about her career without even trying. I think you cant help but like her in some way. So while I dont enjoy the song I'm happy for her success.

what a load of shit ..... , she's a shit act .... and this is a crappy thread...

You haven't been banned yet? *Hold on*

Reporting...(again)

JoeTyler said:

Will this turn into another memorable/madcap/funny as fuck/14-page thread???

or is it true that sequels are always worse???

I guess your right ... I'm out of here...

this is the sad state of "music" today when "artists" like Shitney Spears and Ke$ha can just debut at the top of the charts...

I really don't know what's wrong with people's ears these days

musicjunky318 said:

Dreamer2 said:

what a load of shit ..... , she's a shit act .... and this is a crappy thread...

You haven't been banned yet? *Hold on*

Reporting...(again)

Really?

Regarding the article, I don't really follow the Billboards anymore and don't care much for mainstream music.

Arnotts said:

alphastreet said:

I was a britney hater for years but then realized I know too much about her to hate her

I'm not a fan either though but a lot of her songs are catchy with good writers, especially on some unreleased album tracks...it's just too bad she ruined her voice with smoking (except for her high notes on in the zone) and can't dance that well IMO

I know what you mean. I cant say I've ever been a fan in the same way I am for Michael, but I grew up with Britney and know everything about her career without even trying. I think you cant help but like her in some way. So while I dont enjoy the song I'm happy for her success.

since I was 15 she was everywhere shoved in our faces so I know what you mean, but even though her singles were catchy, I was more into r&b/hip hop and michael & janet those times and managed to get several britney albums cause of singles I liked or discovering non album cuts, but her voice annoys me

I lost baby one more time and don't plan to buy it, i threw out oops and then downloaded the songs I do like, I bought in the zone for madonna and ended up liking a lot of the album. Maybe I will buy a hits package at some point but that's it.... and I used to get angry she was copying janet so much and selling more than her that time, and silly people my age would hate on janet and kiss britney's ass, I thought it was racist and all kinds of stuff.

[Edited 1/20/11 7:24am]

mimi2 said:

this is the sad state of "music" today when "artists" like Shitney Spears and Ke$ha can just debut at the top of the charts...

I really don't know what's wrong with people's ears these days

The question is why is she now just getting her 4th #1?

trueiopian said:

The question is why is she now just getting her 4th #1?

I guess she's not the marketed media machine that the haters would have you believe. Because surely, if it was all down to money and mass marketing, she'd have more. Ironically enough her best singles are the one's that haven't reached #1.

Militant said:

trueiopian said:

The question is why is she now just getting her 4th #1?

I guess she's not the marketed media machine that the haters would have you believe. Because surely, if it was all down to money and mass marketing, she'd have more. Ironically enough her best singles are the one's that haven't reached #1.

No, she's a media market machine. You don't need to believe a "hater" to know that She's crafted to bring money in to the industry - nothing more, nothing less. But I still want an explanation as to why she has only 4 #1's.

trueiopian said:

The question is why is she now just getting her 4th #1?

Before the birth of the digital era, radio play and physical singles made up the brunt of the Hot 100. In Britney's early career, JIVE Records would always forgo physical singles for album sales. There's a reason why her numbers were outstanding compared to some of her peers who would release singles to get higher chart positions. Couple that with the fact that until recently, she's had very limited appeal to formats outside of pop radio and there you have it. For example, even though Toxic was an unbelievable smash on Top 40, she still couldn't topple Usher's Yeah! because he was being exposed on all stations. (Pop/Rhythmic/Urban) This was all before the digital market took affect where the public themselves could literally go to I-Tunes and buy whatever they wanted.

And as a side-note, during the Britney album, Clear Channel, which controls every major radio station in the US was supposed to sponsor her "Dream Within A Dream" world tour (supporting Britney), but she ended up changing her mind going with Pepsi, which pissed the Clear Channel off causing them to blacklist her on US radio. She was never on the radio. And that's why all the singles from the album flopped. Once she signed the contract with Clear Channel for "The Onyx Hotel" tour (supporting In The Zone), she got a lot more play.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

The question is why is she now just getting her 4th #1?

Before the birth of the digital era, radio play and physical singles made up the brunt of the Hot 100. In Britney's early career, JIVE Records would always forgo physical singles for album sales. There's a reason why her numbers were outstanding compared to some of her peers who would release singles to get higher chart positions. Couple that with the fact that until recently, she's had very limited appeal to formats outside of pop radio and there you have it. For example, even though Toxic was an unbelievable smash on Top 40, she still couldn't topple Usher's Yeah! because he was being exposed on all stations. (Pop/Rhythmic/Urban) This was all before the digital market took affect where the public themselves could literally go to I-Tunes and buy whatever they wanted.

And as a side-note, during the Britney album, Clear Channel, which controls every major radio station in the US was supposed to sponsor her "Dream Within A Dream" world tour (supporting Britney), but she ended up changing her mind going with Pepsi, which pissed the Clear Channel off causing them to blacklist her on US radio. She was never on the radio. And that's why all the singles from the album flopped. Once she signed the contract with Clear Channel for "The Onyx Hotel" tour (supporting In The Zone), she got a lot more play.

Before the digital era? There are artists from the 80's that earned 4 #1's with just one album

trueiopian said:

musicjunky318 said:

Before the birth of the digital era, radio play and physical singles made up the brunt of the Hot 100. In Britney's early career, JIVE Records would always forgo physical singles for album sales. There's a reason why her numbers were outstanding compared to some of her peers who would release singles to get higher chart positions. Couple that with the fact that until recently, she's had very limited appeal to formats outside of pop radio and there you have it. For example, even though Toxic was an unbelievable smash on Top 40, she still couldn't topple Usher's Yeah! because he was being exposed on all stations. (Pop/Rhythmic/Urban) This was all before the digital market took affect where the public themselves could literally go to I-Tunes and buy whatever they wanted.

And as a side-note, during the Britney album, Clear Channel, which controls every major radio station in the US was supposed to sponsor her "Dream Within A Dream" world tour (supporting Britney), but she ended up changing her mind going with Pepsi, which pissed the Clear Channel off causing them to blacklist her on US radio. She was never on the radio. And that's why all the singles from the album flopped. Once she signed the contract with Clear Channel for "The Onyx Hotel" tour (supporting In The Zone), she got a lot more play.

Before the digital era? There are artists from the 80's that earned 4 #1's with just one album

They most likely had more crossover appeal on radio and a physical single.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

Before the digital era? There are artists from the 80's that earned 4 #1's with just one album

They most likely had more crossover appeal on radio and a physical single.

We're talking about the Hot 100, dear. Britney is a pop artist. Which basically means she's always being exposed to the majority. She shouldn't need Urban support to garner #1's.

You know what trueiopian, I'll do this. There's actually an entire article on idolator that discussed this. I looked it up just so you and anybody else that's curious can look at it. (This is when Womanizer went to #1)

Here:

Ten years ago this month—Oct. 23, 1998, to be exact—Jive Records released a savvy, Max Martin–produced pop trifle called “…Baby One More Time.” It went on to top Billboard’s Hot 100 in the winter of 1999 and kick off teen-pop’s headiest, craziest and silliest year of cultural dominance.

It was also the last time former Mouseketeer, aspiring starlet and pop fetish object Britney Spears would top the premier U.S. singles chart—until this week, when Spears (as predicted) shoots from the chart’s bottom rungs to the penthouse with “Womanizer.” In the process, she ousts rap king T.I. and duet partner Rihanna; defeats a record he set twice in the last two months for the biggest leap to the top in Billboard history; beats Mariah Carey’s record for one-week digital sales by a female act; and consummates a year-long effort to rehabilitate her career.

When I speak about Britney’s rehabilitation, I’m not just referring to her well-publicized efforts to turn around a half-decade of tabloid-level personal breakdown. I’m also referring to her surprisingly checkered U.S. chart history. Indeed, the first question some of you might be asking yourselves is, How is this only her second No. 1 hit?

The short answer: she’s arguably gotten screwed by the refs. To a chart geek like me, Spears comes off as a victim of a decade of erratic industry practices and radical shifts in Hot 100 chart rules.

By the same token, the industry practices and chart rules that have hurt her all these years help her disproportionately this week. Last week, a solid showing at radio brought “Womanizer” to the Hot 100 a bit earlier than expected, and it debuted at No. 96. This week, sales of 286,000 make radio almost irrelevant, and the song shoots to No. 1. Over the past four years, the Hot 100 has become a chart where radio airplay is pretty important but digital sales are massively important—and the first two chart weeks of “Womanizer” show it.

In 1998–99, when Spears scored her first hit, the Hot 100 was in transition. Back then, the digital market was essentially nonexistent, the physical single was disappearing, and Billboard was about to make a move that would give radio even greater sway over chart performance than it already had. In December 1998, the Hot 100 was converted from a singles chart to a songs chart, making album cuts and promotional tracks not available for sale to the public eligible to chart for the first time. So began a half-decade of total radio dominance, with singles sales an afterthought.

Mind you, “…Baby One More Time” was released as a retail single, and it benefited mightily, reaching No. 1 on the Hot 100 thanks largely to the platinum sales it racked up in the weeks before Spears’ similarly-titled album dropped in 1999. But as Jive elected to release fewer of her subsequent hits as singles, and as radio came to dominate the Hot 100, “…Baby” was the last Spears single to benefit so greatly from sales for years.

Here’s the complete list of her Hot 100 hits—I have bolded her Top 10s:


“…Baby One More Time” (No. 1, 1999)
“Sometimes” (No. 21, 1999)
“(You Drive Me) Crazy” (No. 10, 1999)
“From the Bottom of My Broken Heart” (No. 14, 2000)
“Oops!…I Did It Again” (No. 9, 2000)
“Lucky” (No. 23, 2000)
“Stronger” (No. 11, 2000)
“I’m a Slave 4 U” (No. 27, 2001)
“Overprotected” (No. 86, 2002)
“Me Against the Music” (feat. Madonna) (No. 35, 2003)
“Toxic” (No. 9, 2004)
“Everytime” (No. 15, 2004)
“Outrageous” (No. 79, 2004)
“Do Somethin’“ (No. 100, 2005)
“Gimme More” (No. 3, 2007)
“Piece of Me” (No. 18, 2007)
“Break the Ice” (No. 43, 2008)
“Womanizer” (No. 1, 2008)


That’s six Top 10s out of 18 hits, or one out of three. (I’m not even including songs Jive promoted that didn’t make the Hot 100.) It’s a respectable yield over a decade for the average pop star, but Spears isn’t average–she has been, for better or worse, the defining female pop star of her time. Madonna’s or Mariah Carey’s people wouldn’t tolerate this kind of performance; how did Spears end up with such a mixed record?

(You can quip here if you like about the quality of Spears’ oeuvre, and I’m not her biggest fan either—I waver from song to song. But (a) since when have the charts been entirely about artistic merit? And (b) it’s arguable that the sheer volume of media attention and label promotion Spears has received should produce better results than this.)

Here’s what you don’t see glancing at the above list:

• Four of those hits (“Sometimes,” “Oops,” “Lucky,” “Overprotected”) were airplay-only in the United States.

• Four more (“Crazy,” “Slave,” “Everytime,” “Outrageous”) were released in the States only on 12-inch vinyl. The last two of those vinyl singles were also available on iTunes—but in 2004, at a time when digital sales weren’t included on the Hot 100.

• Also in 2004, the masterful “Toxic” was a huge seller at iTunes, but again, at that time it didn’t count; the song only squeaked into the Top 10 by ranking No. 1 at Top 40 radio.

• Two of her earlier hits, “…Broken Heart” and “Stronger,” were released as normal CD singles and sold superbly (platinum and gold, respectively); but by then, airplay was so critical to chart position that the songs’ underperformance at radio prevented either one from making the Top 10.

• The last five songs on the list charted in an era when iTunes sales counted toward the Hot 100, and all of them—even the unpromoted, No. 100–peaking “Do Somethin’”—probably charted better than they otherwise would have, thanks entirely to digital sales.

In short, after “…Baby,” there’s some kind of caveat on practically every hit Spears ever had, related to format, chart quirks and the development of the digital economy, rather than the relative quality or fan-friendliness of any of the songs. If Spears had been a pop star in an earlier era, when singles availability was predictable and airplay had a normal influence over the charts, she might not have gone Top 10 every time, but she likely would have had a more consistent chart presence.

Judging both on quality and on cultural resonance, the thumping “Womanizer” isn’t half as great a song as, say, the lower-charting “Toxic.” But let’s give Britney her due. Radio wouldn’t have jumped on “Womanizer” two weeks ago if the song weren’t catchy, and if she weren’t perceived as “back” in a pop-star sense. The solid hits she scored off last year’s Blackout went a long way toward reestablishing her hitmaking credibility.

And the public wouldn’t have snapped up nearly 300,000 copies of the song if she weren’t an object of fascination again, one worthy of 99 cents and about four minutes of their time.

http://idolator.com/50652...wilderness

[Edited 1/20/11 17:15pm]

I'm not reading a novel on Britney Spears You can give me a summary, though.

trueiopian said:

I'm not reading a novel on Britney Spears You can give me a summary, though.

It's all laid out in the article. I can't explain it better than that. If you don't wanna read it to figure out why that's up to you.

I'm not here for excuses.

trueiopian said:

I'm not here for excuses.

You asked a question, I gave you the receipts.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

I'm not here for excuses.

You asked a question, I gave you the receipts.

The receipts are invalid.

trueiopian said:

musicjunky318 said:

You asked a question, I gave you the receipts.

The receipts are invalid.

And why do you say that?