michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 14:38:32 GMT -5
i don't understand how you guys think that the "control" suddenly jumps from RADIO to FANS. i'd say it jumps more from RADIO to RECORD LABELS. how about they discount tracks on itunes so they can sell more and make it to #1? or they can release ALL songs off the album individually to itunes before they're released so each one can have a turn at #1? in fact, why even have country radio at all? Labels can release any thing any time they choose. The power to buy into it still rests with the fans. A discount track or a countdown single going to #1 just because there is such a thing means that the artist is in demand with the fans. The label for another artist could employ that trick and watch it fall flat. which is exactly why it works even better for crossover artists, just like this entire chart.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 14:40:11 GMT -5
Giving BB the power to decide what song belongs in what genre is only adding power to an organization that probabily already has to much power. . BB does not make those decisions yes they do.
|
|
cerulean
New Member
I just hope I stay long enough to be a memory.
Joined: June 2012
Posts: 294
|
Post by cerulean on Oct 12, 2012 14:40:16 GMT -5
Unfortunately, charts are not meant to preserve genre "identity." They're meant to display this supposed change in "identity."
The issue where country music may be pollinated with other genres to chart better may be deterred by simply removing the airplay-from-other-genres factor (which should have never been made a part of the chart in the first place). However, this genre's been going down this road for decades, and I doubt the chart update will do much in that aspect.
While I agree that the chart's not perfect (I think the airplay from other stations factor should be the first thing removed), it's still a perfectly viable point that this hybrid chart does take away some control from radio and puts it back into the hands of fans with the inclusion of sales. Nobody can make you click buy unless you want to.
|
|
McCreerian
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 9,076
|
Post by McCreerian on Oct 12, 2012 14:44:12 GMT -5
Record labels also solely can't drop artists just because they have songs that aren't charting well. They have to sell well too which is the business aspect of it thats the most important. Vice versa labels can't justify keeping artists who chart well due to "deals" but don't sell enough records to make the label a profit.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 14:44:19 GMT -5
if they're putting the power in the hands of the fans, maybe the fans should determine the genre of the song then instead of BB?
|
|
Ten Pound Hammer
9x Platinum Member
Banned
I watched it all on my radio
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 9,595
|
Post by Ten Pound Hammer on Oct 12, 2012 14:45:32 GMT -5
if they're putting the power in the hands of the fans, maybe the fans should determine the genre of the song then instead of BB? Hey, anything that stops us from getting another "Mr. Know It All".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 14:47:13 GMT -5
BB does not make those decisions yes they do. The articles posted indicate otherwise. It talks about chart departments making phone calls to the industry to determines which songs qualify for a particular chart. BB does not do that by themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 14:48:07 GMT -5
So the new chart gives more people the opportunity to influence what is popular than some guy at a radio station. Songs that don't land at radio can become popular by other means now. It swung it too far the other way, though. I haven't really seen anyone argue that sales shouldn't factor in; people are upset non-genre airplay is counting toward genre charts. Yes songs that crossover to other formats will be bigger hits than songs that don't A song identified as "country" being played on a pop station (for example) is still a country song I do acknowledge though that the definition of "what is country" is being stretched a bit sometimes
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 14:53:23 GMT -5
Unfortunately, charts are not meant to preserve genre "identity." They're meant to display this supposed change in "identity." The issue where country music may be pollinated with other genres to chart better may be deterred by simply removing the airplay-from-other-genres factor (which should have never been made a part of the chart in the first place). However, this genre's been going down this road for decades, and I doubt the chart update will do much in that aspect. While I agree that the chart's not perfect (I think the airplay from other stations factor should be the first thing removed), it's still a perfectly viable point that this hybrid chart does take away some control from radio and puts it back into the hands of fans with the inclusion of sales. Nobody can make you click buy unless you want to. That still doesn't make a distinction if the sales are spurred from pop stations/fans or country stations/fans. There is simply no reason for a hybrid chart. Why not make a simple country sales chart? But keep it seperate
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 14:54:04 GMT -5
The articles posted indicate otherwise. It talks about chart departments making phone calls to the industry to determines which songs qualify for a particular chart. BB does not do that by themselves. they make phone calls (to whom, nobody really knows), but they ultimately make the decision. "Every week, Billboard makes dozens of calls about the various charts a song should be eligible for. The point is: We make these calls. We've been doing it for 50+ years. We'll make a bunch more next week. We take it very seriously. We work at codifying the process, so that anyone who assumes the job of a genre chart manager can inherit guidelines for making these decisions."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 15:01:09 GMT -5
The articles posted indicate otherwise. It talks about chart departments making phone calls to the industry to determines which songs qualify for a particular chart. BB does not do that by themselves. they make phone calls (to whom, nobody really knows), but they ultimately make the decision. "Every week, Billboard makes dozens of calls about the various charts a song should be eligible for. The point is: We make these calls. We've been doing it for 50+ years. We'll make a bunch more next week. We take it very seriously. We work at codifying the process, so that anyone who assumes the job of a genre chart manager can inherit guidelines for making these decisions." If 5 of their customers say that Taylor Swift is a pop artist and only 1 says Taylor Swift is a country artist and the songs charts country anyway then they are alienating their customers. I tend to think the labels (or whomever it is that they call) have the votes and BB just tallies up the votes.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 15:02:34 GMT -5
Unfortunately, charts are not meant to preserve genre "identity." They're meant to display this supposed change in "identity." The issue where country music may be pollinated with other genres to chart better may be deterred by simply removing the airplay-from-other-genres factor (which should have never been made a part of the chart in the first place). However, this genre's been going down this road for decades, and I doubt the chart update will do much in that aspect. While I agree that the chart's not perfect (I think the airplay from other stations factor should be the first thing removed), it's still a perfectly viable point that this hybrid chart does take away some control from radio and puts it back into the hands of fans with the inclusion of sales. Nobody can make you click buy unless you want to. That still doesn't make a distinction if the sales are spurred from pop stations/fans or country stations/fans. There is simply no reason for a hybrid chart. Why not make a simple country sales chart? But keep it seperate It swung it too far the other way, though. I haven't really seen anyone argue that sales shouldn't factor in; people are upset non-genre airplay is counting toward genre charts. Yes songs that crossover to other formats will be bigger hits than songs that don't If country has to compete with other genres in its own "home turf" chart. Seriously, why even bother tracking them?
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Oct 12, 2012 15:02:50 GMT -5
I am in full agreement with the editior. Its great even he says radio, not fans, controls what people hear and its forced onto listeners. So this takes radio as the largest factor out of the equation and replaces it with sales, for the "official" record. This move doesn't take radio as the largest factor out of the equation. By incorporating airplay from other formats onto the Hot Country Songs chart, the new methodology gives CHR/Pop programmers with even less of an interest in the tastes of country music fans than Country programmers the unprecedented ability to control the top of the Hot Country Songs chart. The surest way to top the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart will be to release a song that smashes at CHR/Pop (which will also bring supplementary airplay from the Hot AC and AC formats). With that in mind, the top of both the Country and R&B charts in this introductory week for the methodology bring Billboard's ability and willingness to properly classify songs into serious question. I read one of the comments in the country universe.net article mentioning Bill Werde of Billboard being best friends with Scott Borchetta and this chart having something to do with Big Machine and Bill Werde being in "cahoots". Does anyone think this comment has any truth in it or is she/he just an angry fan? I have a hard time imagining that Billboard would make such a wholesale change for Scott Borchetta's sake alone. I think it is more likely that Billboard announced this change now instead of at year's end precisely because it would yield controversial and attention-getting results via Taylor, Psy, and Rihanna. And to the degree that this was Billboard's motivation, it looks like a business move more than one that prioritizes the integrity of the charts. The following tweets from Silvio Pietroluongo ( Billboard's director of charts) suggest even more strongly to me that he and his Billboard brethren are winging it when it comes to their definitions and policies. In response to the following question, "Artist X is smashing on pop/digitally & releases a country mix of that song. eligible for HCS?" Pietroluongo said:And followed that by saying:If that's the case then it seems to me that Taylor Swift's "Never..." ought to have been handled the same way. But that wouldn't have made as big a splash, and I think that's what Billboard was going for here. Media consolidation had already made chart-watching less fun, and I suppose it was only a matter of time before Billboard did something to exacerbate that. Ah well.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,577
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 15:06:09 GMT -5
Radio plays the music, you can change the channel, shut it off, or listen to your iPod. They control nothing, and to argue that is complete BS. At the end of the day, you listen, play, and buy the music YOU like, regardless of what radio plays.
To be fair, there should be a chart to measure overall popularity, but unless they can figure out a way to fairly represent all forms of popularity, and not just the crossover airplay and generated digital sales, then they should stick to the old way which wasn't broken in the first place.
|
|
cerulean
New Member
I just hope I stay long enough to be a memory.
Joined: June 2012
Posts: 294
|
Post by cerulean on Oct 12, 2012 15:13:22 GMT -5
In that aspect, I doubt most are people are fans of strictly one genre. It's impossible to make a distinction and they shouldn't try.
Also, there have been and are still separate charts for both sales and airplay. However, only the airplay chart was considered the primary "Country Songs" chart, with the existing chart having little to no importance in comparison. You could end up with songs at #1 at radio, but with absolutely pitiful sales. The question is, does that really qualify as a #1 hit?
In the end, I believe there was a demand for a chart that was representative of the full state of the country genre and the other genres, to include both sales and airplay. Sure the existing separate charts for sales and airplay worked, but I think the goal was to make the primary chart a truly representative image of the genre as a whole.
Now why they didn't just find a way to weigh sales and airplay more equally, I don't know. I think 40% sales, 40% (country only) airplay, 20% streaming is perfectly acceptable. But of course, I'm a nobody.
|
|
mikem
New Member
Gillian Welch 'The Harrow and the Harvest'
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 242
|
Post by mikem on Oct 12, 2012 15:14:26 GMT -5
I'd feel better if someone other than Bill Werde was speaking on behalf of this chart. He has a near-obsession with Taylor that's borderline creepy. When she did her live chat a few weeks ago introducing her new album, he was on twitter sounding like a 12-year-old fangirl. I was honestly embarrassed for him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 15:16:06 GMT -5
Radio plays the music, you can change the channel, shut it off, or listen to your iPod. They control nothing, and to argue that is complete BS. At the end of the day, you listen, play, and buy the music YOU like, regardless of what radio plays. To be fair, there should be a chart to measure overall popularity, but unless they can figure out a way to fairly represent all forms of popularity, and not just the crossover airplay and generated digital sales, then they should stick to the old way which wasn't broken in the first place. Radio controls the music that they play. The prior chart measured only radio. You listen to a country radio station you are at the mercy of that station, unless you change it to a different station. Then you are at their mercy. The ipods and such that you reference were not measured on the prior chart but they are on the current one. This is a good thing. You pay money to put something on your ipod, you the fan are casting your vote, not the radio guy. Regarding crossover airplay. I think this is a wonderful. since the new chart is no longer simply measuring popularity of songs by a group of radio PDs, they are attempting to measure actual overall popularity. A song identified as country that gets played on another format is still country and should be a bigger hit than something that doesn't get played on another format. That is the way it should be.
|
|
Ten Pound Hammer
9x Platinum Member
Banned
I watched it all on my radio
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 9,595
|
Post by Ten Pound Hammer on Oct 12, 2012 15:17:43 GMT -5
^ But what's the point of including crossover anyway? Last I checked, country + crossover = Taylor Swift and only Taylor Swift, barring the very, VERY occasional fluke.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 15:18:50 GMT -5
You could end up with songs at #1 at radio, but with absolutely pitiful sales. The question is, does that really qualify as a #1 hit? . Yes I would still say that qualifys more as a #1 country record when I see the top two songs this week.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 15:21:52 GMT -5
You could end up with songs at #1 at radio, but with absolutely pitiful sales. The question is, does that really qualify as a #1 hit? . Yes I would still say that qualifys more as a #1 country record when I see the top two songs this week. And that is the beauty of having more than one chart at your disposal. You don't have to follow the new chart, you can still follow the old one
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,577
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 15:25:11 GMT -5
Radio plays the music, you can change the channel, shut it off, or listen to your iPod. They control nothing, and to argue that is complete BS. At the end of the day, you listen, play, and buy the music YOU like, regardless of what radio plays. To be fair, there should be a chart to measure overall popularity, but unless they can figure out a way to fairly represent all forms of popularity, and not just the crossover airplay and generated digital sales, then they should stick to the old way which wasn't broken in the first place. Radio controls the music that they play. The prior chart measured only radio. You listen to a country radio station you are at the mercy of that station, unless you change it to a different station. Then you are at their mercy. The ipods and such that you reference were not measured on the prior chart but they are on the current one. This is a good thing. You pay money to put something on your ipod, you the fan are casting your vote, not the radio guy. Regarding crossover airplay. I think this is a wonderful. since the new chart is no longer simply measuring popularity of songs by a group of radio PDs, they are attempting to measure actual overall popularity. A song identified as country that gets played on another format is still country and should be a bigger hit than something that doesn't get played on another format. That is the way it should be. I've never felt "at mercy" by my Country radio station. I love them, and request songs all the time... They control what's played, but for the most part they play what people like. Otherwise people wouldn't listen. I pay money, and that money should go to the digital sales numbers, not become part of some bogus formula that decides one song is #1 based primarily on its crossover airplay and digital sales. Taylor's WANEGT was HARDLY classified as Country, and that was shown by its relatively poor airplay chart performance. Regardless of that, it's the #1 Country song SOLELY because it's played heavily on multiple OUTSIDE genres, and thus it generates MASSIVE Pop-influenced sales. I don't care if it's Country or not, Country radio clearly wasn't backing this song, so it shouldn't be marketed as the #1 song in Country music when it's only #1 because of outside influences. The reason for having the Billboard Hot 100 was to essentially incorporate all components (cross-genre airplay, sales, streams, etc...), which charted overall popularity. Now each genre chart is a hybrid replica of the Hot 100, only influenced by each respective genre slightly.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 15:27:08 GMT -5
Also, there have been and are still separate charts for both sales and airplay. However, only the airplay chart was considered the primary "Country Songs" chart, with the existing chart having little to no importance in comparison. You could end up with songs at #1 at radio, but with absolutely pitiful sales. The question is, does that really qualify as a #1 hit?
well in this case, we ended up with a song that has absolutely 0 airplay become a hit. how does that make any more sense?!
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 15:27:16 GMT -5
^ But what's the point of including crossover anyway? Last I checked, country + crossover = Taylor Swift and only Taylor Swift, barring the very, VERY occasional fluke. On the current chart you have other than Taylor, Carrie Underwood and Hunter Hayes(His song has an adds date for Pop). Before that Faith Hill, Shania, Lady A, The Band Perry, and Jason Aldean off the top of my head all had crossover hits. I think Eric Church's song "Springsteen" got spins on other formats as well.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 15:29:12 GMT -5
Yes I would still say that qualifys more as a #1 country record when I see the top two songs this week. And that is the beauty of having more than one chart at your disposal. You don't have to follow the new chart, you can still follow the old one that old chart means absolutely nothing now. why not keep the old chart as the main chart and just create this new one for people to "follow?"
|
|
cerulean
New Member
I just hope I stay long enough to be a memory.
Joined: June 2012
Posts: 294
|
Post by cerulean on Oct 12, 2012 15:32:11 GMT -5
well in this case, we ended up with a song that has absolutely 0 airplay become a hit. how does that make any more sense?! I never said the current chart was weighted properly. Please read my entire comment.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 15:37:03 GMT -5
well in this case, we ended up with a song that has absolutely 0 airplay become a hit. how does that make any more sense?! I never said the current chart was weighted properly. Please read my entire comment. i already did. but it seems like you think the new way is at least better than the old way, which doesn't really make sense to me. a song that's #1 at radio with poor sales is at least more worthy of a #1 than a song with 0 airplay and great sales.
|
|
cerulean
New Member
I just hope I stay long enough to be a memory.
Joined: June 2012
Posts: 294
|
Post by cerulean on Oct 12, 2012 15:44:51 GMT -5
i already did. but it seems like you think the new way is at least better than the old way, which doesn't really make sense to me. a song that's #1 at radio with poor sales is at least more worthy of a #1 than a song with 0 airplay and great sales. If they weighted the chart properly, a song with absolutely no airplay on country radio should never hit the top 5 of the chart. However, a song with rock-bottom sales should also never hit the top of the chart. If it went #1 on radio, but had absolutely no sales, then I'd be suspicious of country radio. I don't believe the new chart is better than the old one. But I think with a few tweaks, it could be made better than the old one.
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Oct 12, 2012 15:45:43 GMT -5
^ But what's the point of including crossover anyway? Last I checked, country + crossover = Taylor Swift and only Taylor Swift, barring the very, VERY occasional fluke. On the current chart you have other than Taylor, Carrie Underwood and Hunter Hayes(His song has an adds date for Pop). Before that Faith Hill, Shania, Lady A, The Band Perry, and Jason Aldean off the top of my head all had crossover hits. I think Eric Church's song "Springsteen" got spins on other formats as well. The point is that high charting at Hot Country Songs is now more dependent than ever on active promotion to other formats despite their lack of relevance to the country market, and that is something that only Taylor does on a consistent basis. The artist who comes closest to her level of interest and activity on other formats is Lady Antebellum, who actively promoted "Just a Kiss" and "I Run to You" to the pop formats. Carrie has charted at Hot AC a few times since "Before He Cheats," but she hasn't engaged in an active promotional effort to any pop format in years (and in fact, cut off that avenue since she was no longer signed to Arista New York as of early 2008). Jason Aldean scored a Hot AC hit thanks to his duet partner, Kelly Clarkson, and doesn't look likely to threaten the pop charts with his new material. The Band Perry hasn't yet tried to follow up the crossover success of "If I Die Young." Eric Church's "Springsteen" certainly wasn't actively promoted to other formats. That's what this comes back to. For all of Billboard's protestations that the charts should not be dictated by promotion to radio and radio programmers, the new methodology places every artist who doesn't actively promote to Pop (and/or CHR/Rhythmic and Urban) radio at a disadvantage and gives pop programmers the opportunity to influence the country charts. A song identified as country that gets played on another format is still country and should be a bigger hit than something that doesn't get played on another format. That is the way it should be. A bigger overall hit, absolutely, but not necessarily a bigger hit within the country market. The Hot 100 already captures the bigger overall hits, and the Hot Country Songs chart becomes redundant if all it does is reflect songs marketed to country (whether or not they are country in any meaningful way) that become the biggest overall hits. I personally feel the value of a Hot Country Songs chart is in its ability to provide a look at what is specific to the country marketplace. The airplay-only methodology was far from perfect in this regard (I think there is widespread agreement that there is value in a chart that incorporates sales alongside airplay), but a methodology that renders the Hot Country Songs chart redundant is worse, in my view. And that is the beauty of having more than one chart at your disposal. You don't have to follow the new chart, you can still follow the old one As stated by several posters in this thread, the objection throughout this thread is not to the existence of this chart, but to the Hot 100 methodology becoming the new historical standard for what Billboard considers the main country songs chart.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 15:53:00 GMT -5
^Is Carrie not actively promoting BA to HAC right now? Does the HAC chart factor into this new chart?
|
|
McCreerian
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 9,076
|
Post by McCreerian on Oct 12, 2012 15:55:31 GMT -5
I never said the current chart was weighted properly. Please read my entire comment. i already did. but it seems like you think the new way is at least better than the old way, which doesn't really make sense to me. a song that's #1 at radio with poor sales is at least more worthy of a #1 than a song with 0 airplay and great sales. I believe the exact opposite. A song that fans actually paid money for by the 100 thousands of downloads deserves to be a hit more than a song radio execs decided to play but fans didn't want to buy. Thats the point the Billboard editor was making by saying just radio alone doesn't work anymore.
|
|