Musical Acts with the Most Hits since 1962

I'm wondering that too. I'm guessing it's a combination of modern artists releasing a lot more singles than artists did in previous eras, and the fact that many hits will by someone featuring someone so both artists will probably get the points for the one song.

Yep, the internet. Every stream on a platform such as Spotify counts towards a song's chart performance. If someone listens to a whole album, every song is counted. Billie Eilish's last album saw 12 of its 14 songs in the Top 100 at the same time, along with 2 of her other songs. 6 of them weren't even singles.

When I was young - in the '60s - the only way we could buy music was to go to the record store and get either a 45 or LP album. Most of us didn't have that much money and had to be selective on what we purchased. It was also very difficult for an artist to get signed to a record label. I'm surprised to see so many artists from the earlier decades, and I'm really surprised to see Rod Stewart so high on the list. I like his music, but I didn't realize he was so popular. I'm surprised that Simon and Garfunkel didn't make the list.

Besides the internet, in the 60s, 70s, and 80s the music was being churned out by many, many different groups. There was more competition. The market has had less competition in recent years. Some will argue that there is more competition because there is more access, but as for as original music being produced, you can't beat the 60s, 70s, and 80s. A lot of diversity there.

They didn't take the world by storm like the Freddie Mercury cash cow hype machine likes to tell it.

It's only singles not albums, I think. And it's the best-selling singles of the year. You could have 20 hits in one year, but if none of them were in the top 100 best-selling hits of the year, you're not going to get any points for the list. I agree, it's strange criteria. It's an interesting concept for a quiz but the title is very misleading.

The Billboard Hot 100 is a list of songs, not albums. Making it on the list you need to sell copies of that song, so, I assume selling an album counts as selling one copy of each song on the album, but some artists sell many more singles either on records or through digital downloads now. It also factors in radio play and online streaming, and country just doesn't play on the radio that much in many markets and certainly doesn't get watched as much online. Mostly what you hear on the radio is "pop," which is why they call it popular music. The above is certain. Now, to speculate a bit on why some contemporary artists appear so high while not having had as many years to chart, I think it might be because modern pop music is dominated by just a small handful of artists who put out large numbers of singles and in effect monopolize the airwaves and online downloads. In the past you had a lot more "one-hit wonders" and there was a greater variety of acts being played on the radio. I think.

Perhaps the fact that Garth rarely gets played on the radio most places contributes to him selling more physical albums (less exposure, but at the same time if his fans want to hear his music they need to buy it). I also assume that during the decades when he was blowing up his fanbase were less Internet savvy than most and probably didn't download as much from Napster or iTunes or spend as much time on YouTube.

That's what happens when you're popular, I guess.

I was expecting a lot worse. There are a lot of really good acts on this list. Beatles, Elvis, Elton John, Billy Joel, Marvin Gaye, Temptations, Eminem, Stevie Wonder, Alicia Keys, Supremes, Bruno Mars, Boyz II Men, Adele, the Stones, Prince, MJ. I get that some people think only classic rock warrants appreciation, but a lot of these acts represent the best of their style of music.