by Josh Rosenblat on May 24, 2016 Vox

Adele, the 28-year-old British pop star, overtook some of the top names in pop music this weekend — Drake, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, the Weeknd — taking the Top Artist award at Sunday's Billboard Music Awards.

Unlike other awards, the Billboard Awards are determined strictly by chart performance, rather than a vote from a guild, for example. And since she made her US chart debut in early 2009 with "Chasing Pavements," Adele has stayed at or near the top of the music world.

But how long can it last?

To get a better idea of which musicians have had the most staying power, I analyzed the weeks between the top 50 Billboard artists' first and last "peak" in the Hot 100, with peaks referring to the date a song reached its highest point in the Hot 100.

I found that top artists can survive for upward of two decades — but that staying power varies significantly by genre and time period.

Longevity in the music industry is fleeting, an aspect that impacts artists from different eras and genres differently

The Hot 100 charts are a general measure of a song's popularity. Starting in 1958, Billboard has published the charts each week, ranking singles on a shifting list of criteria. Right now the list is derived from radio airplay, sales, and streaming data. While not perfect, the Hot 100 gives an adequate picture of the most popular songs at any given moment and has adjusted its criteria over time to account for changes in how Americans listen to music.

So I took the top 50 artists from Billboard's "Greatest of All Time" list and measured the length of time between their first peaks and most recent peaks to get a rough view of how long they stayed popular.

One thing that became immediately clear combing through the data is how greatly musical lifespans vary by genre. Rappers have the lowest average musical lifespan — 12.24 years — whereas those in R&B and rock tend to stick around much longer.

"In hip-hop, anything that’s more than a couple years old starts to be kind of corny," says Steven Hyden, author of Your Favorite Band Is Killing Me, a book on the history of pop music rivalries. "There’s an expectation in that genre where you have to do something different all the time. That makes it really exciting, but also makes a lot of artists disposable."

What that generates is a variety of artists making fewer hits over a shorter length of time.

But with R&B and rock, for example, artists and bands such as Stevie Wonder, Prince, the Rolling Stones, and the Beatles have years of making hits for a large, consistent audience.

Stars from those genres, then, have become more and more entrenched in the ears of the music-listening public, to the point where almost anything they put out is classified as a "hit."

Producing hits isn’t the only standard of a long, successful music career

Taylor Swift already has more weeks with singles in the Hot 100 than any other artist besides Madonna and Elton John. But a lot of that stems from her ability to release entire albums on streaming services that people use constantly, allowing more of her songs to reach the Hot 100 chart.

Streaming services make it easier for listeners to cycle through entire albums, Hyden said. For instance, Drake, who put out his album Views a matter of weeks ago, has 17 songs in this week's Hot 100. The album has 20 songs. The same phenomenon applies to Swift whenever she puts out a full-length album.

For Madonna and Elton John, though, the non-hit singles on their albums didn't receive that streaming boost.

"When people use the word relevant, they mean this person is hip or has some cachet with youth culture," Hyden said. "If we’re just talking success or popularity, there are lots of bands who do really well on the road that haven’t had hits in decades."

Specifically, Hyden mentioned the Grateful Dead, a band that produced songs totaling just 43 weeks on Hot 100 charts, yet toured and sold out huge shows from 1965 through 2015.

Even so, producing hits is often the only way bands and artists can stay relevant from a cultural and economic perspective.

Take Billy Joel, who hasn’t produced a Hot 100 single since 1997. Yet he’s touring throughout 2016.

Oftentimes, it’s the hits that keep musicians relevant in the minds of popular culture, even if they were released decades prior.

"The power of a hit song, even if it’s 20 years old, it’s pretty powerful," Hyden said. "It’s amazing how people hang on to that shit for so long."

Unreal is= Elvis Presley & he won't be getting topped anytime soon...MJ does not have the catalog...they still have a 2 hour every Sunday Morning Radio show in Philadelphia that is popular WorldWide- and they have get togethers that do very well.

Coming up on 40 years and just last week in the news a Elvis guitar sold for big $$$ in the UK.

Only 1 King.

MotownSubdivision said:

What amazes me is how R&B/ Soul artists apparently have more longevity than artists of any other genre. Also no sign of JT or Beyonce. Not really surprising but interesting nonetheless. Overall, very intriguing collection of info.

Blacks (R&B/Soul) can crossover much more easily than white (rock/hard rock) artist. You'll see an Isley Bros record in a white household before you see a Steely Dan record in a blacks.

thetimefan said:

It's a shame he didn't record more R&B and especially Gospel.

I think for the most part Elvis just recorded whatever Colonel Parker approved, not necessarily what he wanted to sing.

I'm not going to pretend to understand how they are metrically demonstrating longevity ...but the way I read this, if Prince was ready to GO with reissues of his 80's work, or releasing that vault material, there's a good chance he would outpace Elvis at some point.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

MotownSubdivision said:

What amazes me is how R&B/ Soul artists apparently have more longevity than artists of any other genre. Also no sign of JT or Beyonce. Not really surprising but interesting nonetheless. Overall, very intriguing collection of info.

Blacks (R&B/Soul) can crossover much more easily than white (rock/hard rock) artist. You'll see an Isley Bros record in a white household before you see a Steely Dan record in a blacks.

thats very racist in my opinion

GeorgieAto said:

It's interesting they didn't list Paul McCartney separately, but then again his greatest popularity was with the Beatles. If you look technically at his work as a solo artist or with his group Wings, he would be listed from 1970 with "Maybe I'm Amazed" and go all the way to last year with Rihanna and Kanye West with "FourFiveSeconds". If you include his work with the Beatles, he would have charted for over 50 years.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

GeorgieAto said:

thats very racist in my opinion

How is it racist? Do blacks not crossover more than white artist?

you said that black people would never ever bring a white artists record into their homes because they are white

GeorgieAto said:

I'm not entirely sure what exactly constitutes "longevity" in this case because it seems to be they are doing this a really broad type of way. I don't know if they are basing this on the date an artist first showed up on the Billboard up until the date when they left the Billboard. Or if they are basing it on album sales for each individual year. Or if they are included years when artists came and left the Billboard. For example if an artist dropped an album today and it stayed on the charts for a few weeks then fell off, and they following year they did the same thing, came in went all within a year (but just doing it multiple years in a row). I'm not really sure what they are exactly saying with these charts. All I know is that no matter what they mean, there's nobody who could top Pink Floyd's run on Billboard. Not their overall run, but their Dark Side Of The Moon run. Which was on the Billboard for 14 years straight. From the time it entered the Billboard until the time it final left the Billboard 14 years later. It went 14 years straight without missing a single week. So like I said, not matter what they are trying to say here, nobody ever has and never will break the record that Pink Floyd has for the longest album (not artist) has on the Billboard.

LayzieKrayzie said:

All I know is that no matter what they mean, there's nobody who could top Pink Floyd's run on Billboard. Not their overall run, but their Dark Side Of The Moon run. Which was on the Billboard for 14 years straight. From the time it entered the Billboard until the time it final left the Billboard 14 years later. It went 14 years straight without missing a single week. So like I said, not matter what they are trying to say here, nobody ever has and never will break the record that Pink Floyd has for the longest album (not artist) has on the Billboard.

The Hot 100 is the pop singles chart, which is the main chart in Billboard. Albums aren't counted. This is based on the first time an act hit the Hot 100 and the last time they hit the Hot 100. I don't know the cutoff date that was used. If an Elvis single was released today and made the chart, then that would extend his time. He charted in the modern era with remixes like Rubberneckin' & A Little Less Conversation. It doesn't necessarily has to be a big hit either. A song could have charted at #99 and fell off. It still made the chart.

MickyDolenz said:

thetimefan said:

It's a shame he didn't record more R&B and especially Gospel.

I think for the most part Elvis just recorded whatever Colonel Parker approved, not necessarily what he wanted to sing.

I've heard Elvis' rehearsals- when it came to the music & arrangements that was all Elvis- folks that were there & involved say the same even the Sweet Inspirations.

jimmy3121 said:

MickyDolenz said:

I think for the most part Elvis just recorded whatever Colonel Parker approved, not necessarily what he wanted to sing.

I've heard Elvis' rehearsals- when it came to the music & arrangements that was all Elvis- folks that were there & involved say the same even the Sweet Inspirations.

Yes, although like Micky says Col Parker was very instrumental in making Elvis do the movies and the soundtrack songs. If Elvis had a manager who was more I guess you could say musically minded & focused on Elvis the recording artist, we'd have had Elvis record some greater songs and toured outside the USA so Elvis Presley would have been an even bigger artist than he was. I've also heard many outtakes/rehearsals and alternative versions and El was very hands on. Also he was a perfectionist and some songs go into the double figures (in terms of take #'s).

Also I'm not going into the whole race thing, but for me and I hope for everyone, music is colorless, universal - for everybody. You have the choice to listen to any and every genre - Pop, Rock, Soul, Blues, Funk, Hip Hop etc. Just because of the color of your skin it don't pigeonhole you to like just musical genres that you're "supposed" to like. Anyway, most vocally based music descends from gregorian chants, then hymns & spirituals, then folk music, country & western, blues, early soul music so all music is interlinked.

728huey said:

It's interesting they didn't list Paul McCartney separately, but then again his greatest popularity was with the Beatles. If you look technically at his work as a solo artist or with his group Wings, he would be listed from 1970 with "Maybe I'm Amazed" and go all the way to last year with Rihanna and Kanye West with "FourFiveSeconds". If you include his work with the Beatles, he would have charted for over 50 years.

Right. Yet they counted MJ's chart placings with the J5 by the looks of it.

Also if they're doing that, Diana Ross is missing too.

LayzieKrayzie said:

I'm not entirely sure what exactly constitutes "longevity" in this case because it seems to be they are doing this a really broad type of way. I don't know if they are basing this on the date an artist first showed up on the Billboard up until the date when they left the Billboard. Or if they are basing it on album sales for each individual year. Or if they are included years when artists came and left the Billboard. For example if an artist dropped an album today and it stayed on the charts for a few weeks then fell off, and they following year they did the same thing, came in went all within a year (but just doing it multiple years in a row). I'm not really sure what they are exactly saying with these charts. All I know is that no matter what they mean, there's nobody who could top Pink Floyd's run on Billboard. Not their overall run, but their Dark Side Of The Moon run. Which was on the Billboard for 14 years straight. From the time it entered the Billboard until the time it final left the Billboard 14 years later. It went 14 years straight without missing a single week. So like I said, not matter what they are trying to say here, nobody ever has and never will break the record that Pink Floyd has for the longest album (not artist) has on the Billboard.

I never really believed that Pink Floyd nonsense. I was in high school/college during most of that run and no one was buying Dark Side of the Moon. There just weren't enough stoners to keep that album on the charts.

I think payola was involved. Seriously, that album was never very popular. Not with high schoolers, not with college kids, and certainly not on rock radio. "Money" was the only semi-hit.

^^If Dark Side Of The Moon wasn't popular, I doubt it would get reisssued and/or remastered every 2 or 3 years with more extravagant packaging. The label isn't going to spend all that money on something that doesn't sell and not make a profit on it. I remember a girl in the 1990s who used to wear a different Pink Floyd t-shirt every day of the week. And what about those people playing it while watching Wizard Of Oz?

MickyDolenz said:

^^If Dark Side Of The Moon wasn't popular, I doubt it would get reisssued and/or remastered every 2 or 3 years with more extravagant packaging. The label isn't going to spend all that money on something that doesn't sell and not make a profit on it. I remember a girl in the 1990s who used to wear a different Pink Floyd t-shirt every day of the week. And what about those people playing it while watching Wizard Of Oz?

Yeah, what about them?

But seriously, I'd be curious to know what the average sales total was each week for DSOTM. I mean, there had to be weeks in there where it couldn't have sold more than a few hundred copies, if that. Could that really have kept it on the BB 200 every week?

I have my doubts.

Elvis is not universal at all. Elvis is a US based act.

Michael has surpassed him in sells, impact and influence.

I have never seen any little kid dancing and singing to any Elvis songs. Black people dont listen to Elvis, he is not universal at all. You will find ALL walks of life listening to Michael as well as all ages.

RodeoSchro said:

I mean, there had to be weeks in there where it couldn't have sold more than a few hundred copies, if that. Could that really have kept it on the BB 200 every week?

I have my doubts.

It was mostly the Top 20 or so albums that had the main sales. So whatever charted at 100 to 200 didn't have to sell much.

Marrk said:

728huey said:

It's interesting they didn't list Paul McCartney separately, but then again his greatest popularity was with the Beatles. If you look technically at his work as a solo artist or with his group Wings, he would be listed from 1970 with "Maybe I'm Amazed" and go all the way to last year with Rihanna and Kanye West with "FourFiveSeconds". If you include his work with the Beatles, he would have charted for over 50 years.

Right. Yet they counted MJ's chart placings with the J5 by the looks of it.

Also if they're doing that, Diana Ross is missing too.

No, They started with his solo album Got To Be There