I'm really quite surprised that none of these iconic legends ever had any number 1 hits. These artist and bands are all the very substance and essence of the rock and roll genre, and none one of them has ever had a hit that topped the charts.
"... The reasons for how this one chart-topping achievement passed by so many significant rock acts are many. Some bands were more album-oriented than others, a few didn't really care about singles, others found their popularity in other ways, and many were just unlucky. Here then are the most objectively and massively famous and vital rock stars that never had a No. 1 hit. ..."
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/2152116/rock-legends-zero-number-one-hit/
The list is endless of bands/singers that had hits but not no.1s. Like you said in the post title it means nothing. But some singers or bands weren't orientated to having hits as mentioned but had a large following. Not only that but having a song get to no.15 and not no.1 so what. A song that is no.1 doesn't mean it's better than the song that only made no. 15. It's all in the listener's personal preference. There is only so much room for no.1 songs anyways.
So the majority have to peak at somewhere else. To illustrate what I mean on the CHUM Chart(a Toronto radio station) in 20 years from 1957 to 1977 out of a 50 song chart there were only maybe 15 songs a year, maybe less that were no.1s and those no.1s could be there for weeks at a time! So all the other songs had to be elsewhere on the list with turnovers each week, but that doesn't mean the songs that only made as high as no. 33 or no.5 are not every bit as good as the no. 1s. Doesn't mean "squat" as you said. Take movies, Only so many can win an award. Only so much room at the top. Does that mean the other movies aren't good? Or, do I have to like the one that won the academy award?
.... A song that is no.1 doesn't mean it's better than the song that only made no. 15. It's all in the listener's personal preference. ...
Is it the listeners personal preference that puts a song on the charts? Number 1 or anywhere else on the charts, is it really the listener preference that puts them there? Has it ever been?
I don't know, but I get the sense it's never has been so much the listening audience that decides what gets played the most on radio stations and determine where on the hit list it resides - but rather it's the music industry politics turning gears that puts it there.
But I'm just spouting speculations.
@richpowers It used to be the listener preference when radio stations were all independently owned and the on air DJ had the freedom to play what he/she wanted and stations had their own record libraries. An independent station went on feedback from listeners, requests, and what the program director liked. Maybe some guideline was record companies and sales. A song that was a big hit on CHUM in Toronto may not have been on another hit parade station in Vancouver. There were regional hits all the time. The top 10 on a given date on a Vancouver station could be entirely different on CHUM in Toronto. As Artisans Teenage Dreams shows demonstrate. A song could be a hit and played on stations in Chicago or St Louis but only in that area. A song could be played on CHUM but not on a hit station in Winnipeg. Even 2 stations with the same format in Toronto had a playlist a bit different than the other. I DXed in the 60s at night and on different stations heard different songs on one and not another. Then came the big corporations that bought all the stations(thank Bill Clinton) and no more were the independents and one station deciding what they would play independently. Canada followed. Now radio stations don't even have their own record libraries and all programming is computer generated from afar, even what the format will be, and now what makes a hit who knows. On air personalities(not DJs anymore) have nothing to do with what is played. It was the ruin of radio when the 3 or 4 corporations run everything on the continent and a station having their own record library and playing what they want was replaced by a central computer playlist that is the same on 1000s of stations with the same format.
Yeah, now IHeart media owns the greatest majority of 9ver-the-air stations in the US and the rest of them are owned by another two or three commercial entities. Yeah, the mom and pop stations are far and few between now, most all stations now are owned by a small group of businesses, so yeah, it sucks.
There's something .. what's the word I'm looking for? .. daunting.. no.. dangerous maybe, it's not a good thing..
Yeah, lots of good music never even made the charts, or was buried on b-sides. I play a lot of that on my show Teenage Dreams.
We can't forget, however, that things weren't all rosy back then in the 50s and 60s. A lot of good music got blacklisted because of slightly racy or political overtones. I'm thinking of songs like Teenagers Three by Jan Sanders in 1962.
Then there were the payola scandals.
And while they didn't have music videos and lip synching back then, the rise of TV, along with teenage movie audiences, created multiple music sensations. Record companies and producers would comb the countryside seeking potential performers that had the then current 'look'. Fabian is a good example. During my research for Teenage Dreams, I ran across quite a few. They had that 'look' (think Elvis & Ricky Nelson); all they had to do to cut records and become stars (with potential number ones in the future) is learn how to sing!
@artisan-radio I don't know the music industry but the "payola scandals" of eras past are a pretty well known. I would guess such music industry scandals still exist and always has -- different perhaps than the 50s and 60s, but still the same type engine. It's seems sometimes the persona, "the look", is more important in a musical artist success than their actual talent (not always mind you). Stars are often made, as in formulated, created by the music industry. They are products.