"Numbers DO Lie": G.O.A.T. Talk and the Problems That Come With Broken Records

This is my first entry on this blog in months. Although, I've been slacking on my writing, I've stayed busy. Between my full time job and finding time for photography, I've picked up on a NEW hobby: collecting. What you may ask? I'm no Thanos and as much as I wanna tell you I've been gathering the Infinity Stones in order to create MY idea of a "perfect world", unfortunately, I'm not that cool. No, no, no, I'm not that cool. But you know what is? Vinyl. Records. Physical media and things of that nature. I've watched my collection grow from a single copy of Tyler, the Creator's "Call Me If You Get Lost", to a few hundred records and limited storage for them all. The only thing I've put more time and money into is my career and this is slowly becoming a bigger and bigger part of that as well.

With each new addition to my wall, I find myself falling more and more in love with the craft and art of sound, but it's also made me question the importance of it and what exactly people look for when calculating numbers. What makes a record "record breaking?" What is a true feat in this world? How do we measure accolades?

Streaming has changed the way we consume music in ways we would've never thought possible 20 to 30 years ago. With innovations like Spotify and Apple Music, we now have the ability to listen to any and every song ever released in the palm of our hand. The days of waiting in line or standing outside of a record store are long behind us and in many ways, that's a good thing. The downside of being able to listen to anything at any time on loop, though, is that it teeters on the line of fact and fiction. With each new record and #1 album, it becomes harder to differentiate the real from the fake. But even if it is real, does it really even matter?

I recently saw a clip of DDG and his family arguing about Drake and his place atop the charts and whether or not its time to acknowledge him as the TRUE "Greatest of All Time". His competition? Michael "The King of Pop" Jackson.

Now, before I offer my opinion. Let's state the facts:

• Drake has sold more records in the 2010s than any other artist.

• Drake is one of the most successful artists of all time

• Drake has the most #1 hits in history

• Drake is one of the most successful male artists in history.

• Drake is the most streamed artist in Apple Music's history. Granted, it's a SHORT history, but still history nonetheless.

There's no denying Drake's influence and what he's been able to accomplish in his career. I will not take that away from him. But in the same breath, there's a lot Drake has not done. Drake is not the most streamed artist on Spotify, that record belongs to Taylor Swift. In fact, he's not even the most streamed MALE artist on Spotify, that record belongs to Bad Bunny. Although his reign of terror on Apple Music's charts doesn't look to end any time soon, Taylor Swift isn't far behind him which is a very funny case of irony. The only reason you've managed to stay atop this hill is because she's already atop the other bigger hill (Spotify, gloabally, is the more popular streaming service. Don't argue with me, argue with Apple). In addition to that, Drake has only sold a combined 170 million units in his career. Even if he moved another 30 million, he would still only be half way to Michael Jackson who has 400 million, respectfully. Even in the year 2026, we can't go more than 5 years without a documentary or story about Michael which only drives more people to stream his music which just adds to this already impressive and growing number. These are facts.

Looking at the bigger picture, Drake and Michael are both "the best" in their own respects, but if your really wanting to get into the "ABC's" of it all:

Michael has more Accolades. Best selling album of all time. Some of the most innovative music video and art direction during your time and your parents' alike.

Drake has more Billboard Records. Most number ones, the only artist to hold all 3 top spots at one time.

But as an artist and a talent, Michael has done more for the Culture in his youth than Drake has done in his entire career.

And that's the difference maker. That's to me what TRULY defines the G.O.A.T. It's the way when you mention Justin Timberlake, Usher, or Chris Brown, people say "he stole his entire style from Michael Jackson." Sure, Michael was heavily influenced by James Brown, but Michael took a formula that had worked before and put an entirely different spin on it (and that ain't no pun intended by the way).

Michael moonwalked his way out of Gary and into homes on every single continent. Michael was the only person who could perform at the Super Bowl and get a two minute standing ovation before saying a single word which ties into ANOTHER form of influence. He singlehandedly changed the way we view the "Super Bowl Halftime Show" and in many ways made it as big as it is now (with of course, help from the Wayans Family). These are facts.

As impressive as Drake's run in the industry has been, there's still much to be desired from him and I, quite frankly, don't think he'll be the one to dethrone Michael, and in all honesty, he's not even close. In our lifetime, I doubt we'll ever see someone with as much talent or influence as Michael Jackson anyway, and honestly, I'm ok with that.

What I am not ok with however is the constant reliance on numbers to push these narratives or create these hot takes. If all it takes to be "great" is a few hit singles, then surely, anyone can be the best. There's nothing stopping Cardi B or Nicki Minaj from being thrown into the conversation except any rational thinking adult with a bit of self respect and an open mind. And that isn't a dig at either of them or their fans (except maybe Nicki's ignorant ass), its just a testament of how low people's standards are these days. The fact that Taylor Swift has sold more records than Stevie Wonder upsets me in a way I cannot type or form into coherent sentences. But his lack of accolades doesn't make him any less talented. If anything, it makes his numbers that much more impressive. Stevie did these things at a time when streaming wasn't even a thought. Physical media was the ONLY option. And he did it all without his eyes (though, take that with a grain of salt).

I don't care what y'all say, his ass can see at least a LITTLE BIT.

Numbers don't lie, this is true, but numbers aren't always the deciding factor. Both of these can be true without hurting the other's argument. Everyone can be great without being the greatest. But if everyone is great, is anyone at all? I mean, hell, Steve Nash got more MVPs than Kobe, but are you really gonna tell me Steve Nash is better than the Mamba? Steve Nash HIMSELF probably won't tell you that bullshit, but somewhere on this Earth, its someone tucking their kid's into bed every night and telling them how much better Steve was of the two.

Art, opinions, adoration, its all subjective. It only means as much as it does to you. If numbers are how you view success, then that's fine. But remember that the next time there's another "Justin Bieber Incident" where an artist is telling his fans to put their record on before bed in order to inflate their numbers.

If you share my mindset, though, greatness is more than just a spot on a chart. It's what you do in this life and long after you're gone. Its both the way you create and the regard in which people hold your creation. It's not just the way you perceive yourself, it the way others perceive you.

Michael never referred to himself as the "King of Pop." He was bestowed that title. Drake has made it a norm to call himself "the best" at a time where you could argue he's not even the best of the so-called "Big 3". Now you tell me which statement holds more validity.

As always, I hope you enjoyed this read, but please do remember, this is just my opinion. I'd love to hear yours. Till then, don't fall victim to the hype. It might drive you MAD.