Talk:List of one-hit wonders in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

songs that are missing from the list

Bloodrock - D.O.A. (song) (peaked at 36 on March 6, 1971)

Randy Newman - Short People (peaked at 2 on January 28, 1978)

Pink Lady (duo) - Kiss in the Dark (Pink Lady song) (peaked at 37 on August 4, 1979) 2601:8D:600:4CF0:48D2:44E8:5CA1:DD59 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this particular list article is that the media must name the song and artist as one-hit wonders, with the media representing an American viewpoint. We don't put songs in or take songs out based on chart performance. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

One flaw with your criteria: *domestic* media are notorious for overlooking/underplaying/ignoring *foreign* influences (NB I'm not singling out America as this is true everywhere). Case in point: I suggest that "Hocus Pocus" (#9 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1973) is currently absen from this US list only because Focus is a *Dutch* band and had the misfortune to fall into the American media's 'blind spot' when listing one-hit wonders. (I say "misfortune" because I see "Venus" by the Dutch band Shocking Blue is on this list - so should "Hocus Pocus"!) Birdman euston (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, Lee Michaels - "Do You Know What I Mean" (1971) fulfils Chris Molanphy's criteria (as featured in the main article!) for a OHW because Michaels' only other top-40 hit, "Can I Get A Witness?", peaked at #39 on the Billboard Hot 100 ca. two months after "DYKWIM" peaked at #6 - and none of his nine albums went platinum. Birdman euston (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Our job is to represent the published media, not to fill the gaps left by the media. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Our" job? Oh, I get it. Wikipedia is supposed to represent accuracy - but instead you merely pledge blind allegiance the "published media" (which, as I've just explained, is *not* always completely accurate and unbiased, especially about foreign sources). Kindly be less dogmatic/anal, take your blinkers off, use your brains (e.g., fill in for yourself the media's apparent blind spot over Hocus Pocus re U.S. One-Hit Wonders) and just be accurate! Birdman euston (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that Hocus Pocus fulfils the once-this-high-in-Billboard criterion. If in addition, two or more US DJ's or Rock journo's have to have commented on the objective fact of the matter, than that is where we leave the realm of the encyclopaedic. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why we should use the Billboard charts (although you could use the Radio & Records charts as well if you want two sources). 99.118.250.37 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Considering that this article is about one-hit wonders in the United States, I would hope that the sources we are citing represent an American viewpoint. To look at things from the opposite direction, no sensible American music writer would classify John Denver as a one-hit wonder -- four of his songs went to #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 (and he had eleven other top 40 hits). Yet in the UK, John Denver nearly qualified as a one-hit wonder even under their stricter definition -- he had one #1 hit in the UK and a duet that peaked at #46, and that's all. An American writer might say, "John Denver is obviously not a one-hit wonder," while a British writer might say, "John Denver is technically not a one-hit wonder," and both would be correct in regard to their own countries' singles charts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Europe - The Final Countdown

Should Europe's 1986 hit, The Final Countdown be considered a "One hit wonder"? 92.9.101.53 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No. According to Billboard, Europe had four Top 40 hits ("The Final Countdown" at #8 Billboard/#7 Radio & Records, "Rock the Night" at #30 BB/#28 R&R, "Carrie" at #3 BB/#1 R&R, and "Superstitious" at #31 BB/#30 R&R). 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone is saying they are a one hit wonder remember they did have a hit with song called "Carrie" which out preformed "The Final Countdown" however this list is not about chart positions it's about sources claiming it's a one hit wonder. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a curious diachronic aspect to these matters. At the time, Carrie was "bigger." Since then, Countdown has become almost like a short-hand for 80s Euro-big-hair-metal pop. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Multiple appearances"

I find it a bit strange to have a category of people appearing multiple times on a list of one-hit-wonders. See for instance the sentence "British musician Tony Burrows sang the lead vocal on five one-hit wonders". To me, it's not immediately apparent how you're a one-time-wonder when you've had five top hits. --2A02:8071:B6A8:1B00:FC0E:E627:B689:15C9 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Because "one hit wonder" is an egregious misnomer. It sounds like a (nasty and uncalled-for) slight of the artist who "only managed one" when in fact we are talking about songs - songs that took on a life of their own and whose fame outshines the artist (in the sense that among 100 people picked at random, 90 or more can hum along but fewer than 30 know who sang it). What is particularly galling is that this is pretty much the default situation for classical music!

Marvellous Tony Burrows lend his hit power to five such songs, with five nominally distinct "acts." He just never got the recognition that perhaps ought to go along, but such is life.

2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The acts that Burrows was part of were groups with one-hit wonders. Nobody takes the lead singer under any consideration. 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Rodney Crowell

Binksternet, the criteria says " even though they may actually have had multiple hits", I'm not sure we have to be slavish to the sources here, as there is some flexibility. Any source that would call Rodney Crowell a "one hit wonder", well, is kind of an idiot. He's had more than a few hits. I understand that some entries may have had some other minor hits or just called that, but he kind of stands out as someone who has had tremendous success, and even if a source things he was a "one hit wonder", he really isn't. Unlike most of the entries, he is rather critically acclaimed for writing, singing, and has charted over a dozen singles and over a dozen albums in a career that spans over 40 years. Two Grammys plus other awards. I mean, that is kind of the antithesis of a one hit wonder. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria here at this particular article was strongly established in 2017 at the discussion Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria. Prior to that discussion, lots of reversions were being made to add/remove entries based on all sorts of factors. We settled into a non-chart-related inclusion criteria to squelch the chart arguments.

The next year, the inclusion criteria was challenged with Talk:List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#RfC_about_inclusion_criteria as you can see above. The consensus was once again strongly against using chart stats.

I get what you're saying, but I would rather deal with published references than with Wikipedia editors taking it upon themselves to count chart results and determine who is and who is not a one-hit wonder. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with you if DJs and pop rock journo's were known for their standards of scholarship. As it is, the only-once-this-high-in-Billboard-and-less-then-that-ever-after criterion is one that editors can surely apply just as diligently.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E08D:C862:D617:C42B (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would rather use conclusive chart results (include Radio & Records or Cashbox chart results if you need more than one source). 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

We need to have better criteria then just having 2 sources as many of the singers and bands mentioned are not truly one hit wonders as they have multiple hits Lunacats (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Use the actual charts. 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we only list songs/bands who broke the top 40 of the Billboard hot 100 list?

While I agree that we shouldn’t use “number of songs that made top 40 on the Billboard Hot 100” as a hard and fast determiner of what constitutes a one hit wonder (Jimi Hendrix is not a one-hit-wonder, but Dead or Alive is a one hit wonder band), one issue I am seeing in the list is the number of British or regional one hit wonders which never broke the top 40 in the US: Toto Coelo, that Shiny Shiny song, to name just two 1980s examples which were only top 40 in the UK; here in the US they were either MTV hits or were mainly played on alternative music stations. That in mind, would it be reasonable to remove songs from this list which never made the US Billboard top 40? It can sometimes be hard to tell, without grabbing a lot of context, if a given reference is talking about the US or UK when they discuss a song being a 1-hit-wonder, so a number of UK-only hits are on the list. Samboy (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria, based on two reliable sources per entry, should suffice. The sources must describe the song or the band in the context of American viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but we do need to remove entries for an unrelated reason: A lot of entries are relying on a forum posting, which is, as per Wikipedia policy, not a reliable source. I agree to not remove entries just because they were never US top 40 hits and agree that would be original research, but we also must make sure we are using reliable sources when claiming a song is a “one hit wonder”. A forum post does not cut it. Samboy (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Back to the Hot 100 we should go. 99.118.250.37 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The list was great once but now ridiculous

not a fan of bands like simple red or Europe but we should use the criteria of BILLBOARD. simple minds had at least 3-4 Top 40 Hits. A one hit wonder is defined as artist who had just one Top 40 Hit in the US.

Worthless under-charts like Dance Charts etc. irrelevant !! 2A02:8071:67C1:5320:69BD:3358:F697:F6CD (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a clear consensus against Billboard chart stats as defining this topic. Instead, the media define the topic. See Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria which was unanimous. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

JESUS JONES problem

JESUS JONES had 2 Top 40 hits on the billboard Charts

RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW #2 REAL REAL REAL #4

fact is that this band is not a one hit wonder

but there is one problem.

REAL REAL REAL became #4 on the hot 100 because of changes in Hot 100 criteria in 1991. no one in The USA knows this song 2A02:8071:67C1:5320:69BD:3358:F697:F6CD (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a clear consensus against Billboard chart stats as defining this topic. Instead, the media define the topic. See Talk:List_of_2010s_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States#Inclusion_criteria which was unanimous. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Warning about possible false citations

So, I was recently looking through the list, and I noticed something. It seems that some people are citing (or at least are going to attempt to cite) the page "All One-Hit Wonders 1955-2016" from top40weekly.com

The cite lists all artists from 1955 to a certain point in 2016 (then it just cuts off for whatever reason) who have only had one song appear in the Top 40 of The Billboard Hot 100. The issue is that some people are citing this cite for artists that in reality, have had more than one song reach the Top 40 of The Billbaord Hot 100. They seem to think that because the list is long, no one is going to be bothered to click on the direct link, and actually look through the list for themselves and see if the artist in question is even on the list at all.

A similar thing goes for Wayne Jancik. I just removed an entry from the list (That being the group Club Nouveau with the song "Lean on Me" to be exact) because Wayne Jancik was falsely cited. He explicitly defines a One-Hit Wonder as "An act that has won a position on Billboard's national, pop, Top 40 just once." Club Nouveau however, had two Top 40 songs. I also just replaced a citation for Mungo Jerry's "In The Summertime". The citation was "Jancik (1998), p. 500."

One issue however, I don't think whoever used this citation (or most people on this Wiki page for that matter) have even READ Wayne Jancik's book at ALL. My Wayne Jancik book is from 2008. The bulk of the book tells the stories of artists who have had only one Top 40 song, who's songs have in turn peaked at positions #1 - #20. At the back of the book from Pages #498 - #509, are some pages not talking about in detail, but rather simply listing all of the artists (from 1955 - 1992) who have had only one Top 40 song, who's songs have in turn peaked at positions #21 - #40. The section is called "The Bottom 20". (Likely because of limitations) Mungo Jerry's song "In The Summertime" was cited to be Page #500 of Wayne Jancik's 1998 book, "The Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders". (Which in all fairness, I do not own)

https://www.amazon.com/Billboard-One-Hit-Wonders-Wayne-Jancik/dp/0823076229

Here on Amazon, one of the reviewers is explaining the "Bottom 20" section of the book. So the book must also be structured like Wayne Jancik's 2008 book, "One-Hit Wonders". (The book that I happen to own) The song "In The Summertime" by Mungo Jerry peaked at #3, so the entry for Mungo Jerry in the book should not be anywhere NEAR Page #500. It should be at the begin of the 1970's chapter. (For me, the song is listed on Page #287)

Guys, what I am trying to say is this: When a new entry is put on the list, you MUST check the sources used. End of story. There might be an invalid source used, and you would never even notice it. So I am just trying to bring awareness to this issue on here.

Thank You for your time ~ Alex Ya Boy Alex! (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)