Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,548
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Oct 13, 2012 16:50:55 GMT -5
So "We Are Never Ever..." is the most popular COUNTRY SONG in America because Billboard tells me so just like "I Knew You Were Trouble." will be the most popular COUNTRY SONG next week because Tay Tay's previous history in the country charts. Which is why I don't like their decisions. "Begin Again," sure. "Red," I can deal with that. "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" and "I Knew You Were Trouble."? No.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 13, 2012 16:57:05 GMT -5
So "We Are Never Ever..." is the most popular COUNTRY SONG in America because Billboard tells me so just like "I Knew You Were Trouble." will be the most popular COUNTRY SONG next week because Tay Tay's previous history in the country charts. #DEAL Who told you what the most popular country song in America was before if it wasn't Billboard? The fact Billboard changed them all from format charts to genre charts is not bothering me. It's the fact that they are dictating what constitutes each genre. So you and I are on the same page then. It's not the actual chart that is a problem, it's one aspect of how the songs are chosen to be eligible.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 13, 2012 17:04:17 GMT -5
Which was already depicted on the ALL GENRE BILLBOARD HOT 100. True, but this isn't the first time Billboard has used a chart methodology which has essentially been a distillation of another chart (e.g., the old methodology for compiling Rap Songs was basically to go down the R&B chart and pick out the charting rap.) Make whatever arguments you will about the relevance of respective charts, but there are still charts that represent the same data. Very little has been lost with these changes. If you really feel that way, then the easy solution is to stop following meaningless charts. Records on all charts should be considered in context. Example: With the Hot 100's inclusion digital sales, it became easier for artists to chart multiple songs, leading to a lot of modern artists moving up the list of most Hot 100 hits of all time. This is a fact; one can't argue with the quantity of titles any individual artist charted. However, understanding how existing formulas of any given time period affected various artists' ability to put songs on the chart offers valuable context when determining the significance of these and other chart statistics. Anyone who used to look at any given chart record and failed to think about context was not getting much useful knowledge, in my opinion. This essentially amounts to an argument that the old way is better because we've always done it that way. I could see your point if the Country Airplay data stopped being tracked by Billboard and other reputable sources, but since one will still be able to monitor it, there's little point in making an argument about historic chart watching. Now, I do agree that, in many ways, it would be easier if Billboard kept chart histories of charts with the most similar formulas together, even when they shifted the status of each chart. For example, when Billboard chose to allow catalogue titles on the Billboard 200 (a smart move, in my opinion), I think it would have been better to have shifted the history of Comprehensive Albums to match that of the 200, but I can also understand the 1984-ish aspects to revisionist history that publications may find off-putting, so am not terribly bothered by the fact that I simply have to keep the rule change in mind when I am comparing data before and after. I think that general principle is going to have to be what those of us who wish to continue monitoring the affected genre charts use when making our analyses. I agree with most everything you've said. One of my main concerns is the change in what will now be the "official chart". WANEGBT will sit on top of the "Hot Country Songs" chart for months, along with many of Taylor's other songs. I'm afraid people will equate these with all of the #1 hits scored throughout Country music history. Now if the names were changed as to represent what these new charts actually show, I'd be okay. But they're essentially equating all past #1s with newly charted #1s because they'll be advertised as the same through just the chart title. Maybe it's pathetic to think this way, I don't know, but it's upsetting to me to think that so many progressing "official" records are now frozen in time simply because of a formula change on a chart that remains titled and advertised as the original one. It just doesn't seem right or fair for so many artists who strive for these #1s. They have parties for these #1s, they're celebrated for Country #1s, and they're promoted through their #1s in press releases and such. #1s in Country music mean so much, possibly more than other genres in that Country generally seems to be more of an isolated community proud of its overall 'individuality' from other genres. These #1s will now be influenced on primarily crossover success, and not a measure of success within the confines of Country. In theory this seems logical and fair in that it's a well-rounded measure of overall success. However, this chart almost requires cross-genre success to chart well, and many Country artists aren't interested in that. This would all be fine if the old chart remained A official chart, but calling this new chart the ONLY official one makes all previous #1s practically irrelevant and incomparable to the #1s of this new chart because of the extreme differences in formulas. Maybe this is the argument, as you say, "This essentially amounts to an argument that the old way is better because we've always done it that way". In the context of the individuality and overall isolation of Country music, the old way is better, in my opinion. I say this because only under rare circumstances do core artists cross over successfully. Currently, Taylor Swift is the only Country artist who can do this, and one of the only willing artists to purposefully crossover. The rest do it only on occasion, and rarely on purpose. This chart is essentially geared to those who crossover, and do so purposefully as charting high requires airplay from multiple formats. We've always charted Country music songs based on airplay, and I agree with the incorporation of digital sales. However, as said before, using outside airplay only favors Taylor Swift currently, and will for months. How is this better than the old way? Then there's the fact that her sales portion of the equation is predominately influenced by her Pop airplay. Point in case, there are so many loopholes, so to speak, with this new methodology that I simply prefer the old one. It wasn't as inclusive, but that made it specific to Country, and that's what Country fans liked. Just as the case with R&B, Latin, etc.. Regardless of whether Taylor and her songs are Country or not, this chart no longer represents what it did for all of its charting history, and that's a hard hit to take. Especially considering it'll remain the official chart with the same name, but mean something completely different. I think you touched on this in your last paragraph, so sorry to rant in response to you, this isn't a response as much as a rant, but it feels good to get it all out.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,959
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Oct 13, 2012 17:16:34 GMT -5
I still think that most labels are going to use Mediabase when they say "#1 Country Song In America".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 17:32:54 GMT -5
So should #1 songs on the Hot 100 post the 1991 soundscan/BDS monitoring change be considered "differently" than the ones pre-1991, that used more "primitive" methods to gather their information.
Are the #1 songs since 1991 on the Hot 100 somehow "lesser" #1 hits than the ones that came before?
After all, they used two different ways of gathering their information, even though the name of the chart remained The Hot 100.
A lot of fans, especially on this board, wouldn't be too happy if their fave songs by their fave divas somehow didn't count as much as older songs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 18:13:22 GMT -5
I still think that most labels are going to use Mediabase when they say "#1 Country Song In America". Labels will use any chart their artists are #1 on to say they have a "#1 Billboard hit" or "#1 hit at radio".
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 13, 2012 18:18:57 GMT -5
Didn't Silvio say "I Knew You Were Trouble" won't chart country?
|
|
Hot AC Archiver
2x Platinum Member
And the countdown continues...
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 2,385
|
Post by Hot AC Archiver on Oct 13, 2012 18:29:06 GMT -5
So should #1 songs on the Hot 100 post the 1991 soundscan/BDS monitoring change be considered "differently" than the ones pre-1991, that used more "primitive" methods to gather their information. Are the #1 songs since 1991 on the Hot 100 somehow "lesser" #1 hits than the ones that came before? After all, they used two different ways of gathering their information, even though the name of the chart remained The Hot 100. A lot of fans, especially on this board, wouldn't be too happy if their fave songs by their fave divas somehow didn't count as much as older songs. Like I said in my earlier post, I do consider pre-Nov 30, 1991 songs different than those after that date. Not better, not worse, but different. Take this for example: "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You" by Bryan Adams spent 7 weeks at #1 on the Hot 100. In Joel Whitburn's latest pop singles book, that ranks as #80 when you list songs by most weeks at #1. However, the song spent 17 weeks at #1 on the Singles Sales chart and 8 weeks at #1 on the Airplay chart, the charts that would be combined to make the revised Hot 100 just a few months later. If the latter method would have been used to compile the chart earlier in 1991, "Everything" could have conceivably spent 12 or more weeks at #1, depending on how high the sales were. That would place the song in the top 20 or so of all time instead of #80. Thus you really can't say whether songs pre/post 1991 are better or worse just based on chart performance. The same can be said about the new charts IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 19:20:06 GMT -5
I agree, and that was my point.
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Oct 13, 2012 21:09:06 GMT -5
So "We Are Never Ever..." is the most popular COUNTRY SONG in America because Billboard tells me so just like "I Knew You Were Trouble." will be the most popular COUNTRY SONG next week because Tay Tay's previous history in the country charts. Which is why I don't like their decisions. "Begin Again," sure. "Red," I can deal with that. "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" and "I Knew You Were Trouble."? No. Personally, I don't think the released version of "Re-e-e-e-e-e-e-ed" is country either. It may not be as bla-a-a-a-a-a-a-tant an embrace of current CHR/Pop conventions as "Never..." and "I Knew You Were Trouble" but the melody, vocal style, lyrical approach, and production land it squarely in the pop-rock realm as far as I'm concerned. It's a song that would likely need a country remix were it to be released to country radio, and that would put it in the same boat as "Never..." (in the sense that it would have a country remix; not even a so-called country remix could make "Never..." sound country).
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 21,000
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 13, 2012 21:26:39 GMT -5
I absolutely think "Red" is a hybrid country/pop song, just as much as a portion of her previous releases that found success on country radio without the help of a remix ("Mine" for example); even "Mine" and "Red" share a similar melodic structure and have similar vocal styling in my opinion. The "Re-e-e-e-e-e-e-ed" portion of the song isn't enough to justify it being called a strictly pop release either (no more than the "Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-ndo it" in "Undo it"). I have absolutely zero doubt that "Red" would perform exceptionally well on country radio as is. I actually hope they release it after "Begin Again" and prove such.
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Oct 13, 2012 21:47:10 GMT -5
I absolutely think "Red" is a hybrid country/pop song, just as much as a portion of her previous releases that found success on country radio without the help of a remix ("Mine" for example). The "Re-e-e-e-e-e-e-ed" portion of the song isn't enough to justify it being called a strictly pop release in my opinion (no more than the "Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-ndo it" in "Undo it"). I have absolutely zero doubt that "Red" would perform exceptionally well on country radio as is. I actually hope they release it after "Begin Again" and prove such. I couldn't figure out a way to approximate electronic stuttering in a post, which is an aspect of the production that a) makes "Red" pop and b) would make it difficult for the song on country radio, even though country radio has proven willing to play Taylor's previous pop releases (like "Mine," though it drew the line at the CHR-ness of "Never..."). I can imagine the demo version of "Red" being more along the lines of the acoustic pop songs that Taylor has previously sent to country, however.
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 21,000
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 13, 2012 21:54:30 GMT -5
I think it's what gives the song more of a pop flare than it would have had otherwise, but I do not think its inclusion makes "Red" a pop song. The song is very much a hybrid in my opinion. I don't think it would be the case at all. If "Undo It" (using prominent repetition in a similar pattern) can find success and a song featuring rap ("Dirt Road Anthem"), to name a few, can find success on country radio, I see no reason as to why "Red" couldn't.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 13, 2012 22:09:27 GMT -5
So should #1 songs on the Hot 100 post the 1991 soundscan/BDS monitoring change be considered "differently" than the ones pre-1991, that used more "primitive" methods to gather their information. Are the #1 songs since 1991 on the Hot 100 somehow "lesser" #1 hits than the ones that came before? After all, they used two different ways of gathering their information, even though the name of the chart remained The Hot 100. A lot of fans, especially on this board, wouldn't be too happy if their fave songs by their fave divas somehow didn't count as much as older songs. The circumstances surrounding the Billboard Hot 100's 1991 change differ greatly from this week's genre chart revisions. First and foremost, all genres were fully represented equally on the Hot 100, and have been since the chart's creation. The change in formula was in favor because the way through which music was purchased and listened to was changing somewhat dramatically. It was only sensible to update the formula to maintain accuracy by accounting for all the various existing outlets of the time. The same thing occurred in February 2005 when digital downloads were first included. As downloads became a direct indicator of overall popularity, it was only logical to include them as part of the equation. In these changes though, the format was never compromised in that all genres were represented equally in proportion to their relative popularity. The main difference between these changes, and the ones we have seen this week is the compromising of each genre's power over their own respective charts. In other words, Country music, and its relative power has less representation on its given chart. More power is given to other airplay outlets, and Pop-driven digital sales (in Taylor's case). Therefore the entire premise of the chart is compromised, as its original purpose, in Country music's case, was to rank the most popular songs determined by Country radio airplay. The change in formula contradicts this to the point where the chart's significance is for naught through its inclusion of out-of-Country-music-outlets. The Hot 100 has always represented the genres with enough overall popularity to chart on it. Through Billboard's multiple methodology changes, this aspect of the chart format was never compromised. The chart has always remained inclusive of all genres. Country, R&B, and Latin charts were always primarily exclusive to each respective genre, and that aspect through history was never compromised up until now. A pre-1991 Hot 100 #1, and a prior #1 are essentially the same thing because the independent variables, so to speak, were never changed. All genres were included, so it was always a fair and balanced representation of the general popularity of all genres. The formula has changed throughout history to better suit the listening an consumer demographic trends, but the genres which were included, and their respective chart values were always kept constant. This was the same in respect to genre-specific airplay-based charts up until now. Now they include foreign variables that were never once included before, this changes the entire ideology and premise of the original charts. This is fine, but they shouldn't be given the same name as a chart that was kept for 60 years (Country) with a completely different formula. The new and old formulas are so different that a #1 on the "old" Hot Country Songs chart is entirely different from what a "new" #1 is classified as. OLD Hot Country Songs = Country Airplay. NEW Hot Country Songs = Cross-genre airplay + overall sales + streams + Country airplay. And here's the GRAND difference! Old Billboard Hot 100 = All genres included; Single sales > overall airplay. 1991 Billboard Hot 100 = All genres included; Overall airplay < Physical Single sales. Newest Billboard Hot 100 = All genres STILL included; Overall Airplay + Overall Sales + Streaming. See the difference?
|
|
|
Post by strikeleo on Oct 13, 2012 22:11:43 GMT -5
I was going to try and make a point but I just remembered the poster's history and gave up. So I'm just going to state this as a random fact: Red is not pop because of the R-e-e-e-e-d. It contains elements of both genres.
On another topic, I'm wondering when the madness over this will die down. Billboard will eventually see their mistakes and make a change to portray a more accurate chart, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 13, 2012 22:19:52 GMT -5
The Hot 100 was not an all-genre chart prior to 1991. It only sampled mainstream top 40 stations. Only in 1998 did it become all- format.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 13, 2012 22:29:51 GMT -5
The Hot 100 was not an all-genre chart prior to 1991. It only sampled mainstream top 40 stations. Only in 1998 did it become all- format. From what I've been able to find, which isn't much, all genres were included, or at least not excluded since the early beginning version of the chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 22:34:26 GMT -5
Nope - 1998 is correct
btw - at one point the Hot 100 did not include airplay at all - it was a sales -only chart
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 13, 2012 22:41:23 GMT -5
Nope - 1998 is correct btw - at one point the Hot 100 did not include airplay at all - it was a sales -only chart The latter part is not true. The "Best Selling Chart" was the most commonly referred to chart, but it wasn't the first version of the Hot 100. The first official version of the Hot 100 by Billboard comprised of; Jukebox plays, sales, and airplay. I know my source is Wikipedia, but it's all I can find right now. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Hot_100I unfortunately cannot confirm or deny the 1998 date, but from what I can find (on wikipedia), the chart was all inclusive from the start of its official publication.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 22:46:48 GMT -5
Wikipedia? - LOL
I got a better source than that. Casey Kasem via AT40 the 70s who actually describes on several early 70s shows how the Hot 100 is compiled.
Regarding the 1998 date - it is true. I can only suggest you find old magazines and read them
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 13, 2012 23:07:23 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 23:18:47 GMT -5
The 1st version of AT40 counted down the 40 top spots of the Hot 100 from July 1970 until it was canceled in 1995 Casey Kasem was the host from 1970 to 1988 and Shadoe Stevens took over until it ended in 1995 A new version of AT40 reappeared in 1998 but did notuse the Hot 100 But yes, you're right - Wikipedia written by some fan is better than the actual source The Hot 100 was a sales chart -exclusively in the early 70s through 1973. It was sales and airplay after that. The panel of stations expanded to all formats in 1998, for the longest time it was a pop chart Either take the word of the posters here who have said this (me right now and others before) or please educate yourself before commenting further
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 13, 2012 23:33:08 GMT -5
The 1st version of AT40 counted down the 40 top spots of the Hot 100 from July 1970 until it was canceled in 1995 Casey Kasem was the host from 1970 to 1988 and Shadoe Stevens took over until it ended in 1995 A new version of AT40 reappeared in 1998 but did notuse the Hot 100 But yes, you're right - Wikipedia written by some fan is better than the actual source The Hot 100 was a sales chart -exclusively in the early 70s through 1973. It was sales and airplay after that. The panel of stations expanded to all formats in 1998, for the longest time it was a pop chart Either take the word of the posters here who have said this (me right now and others before) or please educate yourself before commenting further I don't doubt that you know all that... But I'd like to see more proof than just "I heard", "he said", "other posters agree" blah blah blah. And to the last comment you so disrespectfully made, you are the LAST person who should recommend anyone educate themselves before posting. I don't know where your hostility comes from, as I was under the impression that this discussion was in the very least civil. Whatever the case, you don't have to be mean and condescending to get your point across. There are better and more efficient ways to persuade others. One of which might be to provide sources... ;)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 23:33:57 GMT -5
books.google.com/books/about/Billboard.html?id=pBQEAAAAMBAJA much better source than wikipedia Key dates are May 1991 and December 1998. This doesn't have those specific magazines but perhaps there are magazines around those dates to answer your questions. I don't have enough time to point you to he right spot. I can assure you though that what I and others are saying is true though
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 23:36:12 GMT -5
I also suggest AT40: the 70s. They are on every weekend. In particular shows dated prior to 1973
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 23:38:29 GMT -5
The 1st version of AT40 counted down the 40 top spots of the Hot 100 from July 1970 until it was canceled in 1995 Casey Kasem was the host from 1970 to 1988 and Shadoe Stevens took over until it ended in 1995 A new version of AT40 reappeared in 1998 but did notuse the Hot 100 But yes, you're right - Wikipedia written by some fan is better than the actual source The Hot 100 was a sales chart -exclusively in the early 70s through 1973. It was sales and airplay after that. The panel of stations expanded to all formats in 1998, for the longest time it was a pop chart Either take the word of the posters here who have said this (me right now and others before) or please educate yourself before commenting further you are the LAST person who should recommend anyone educate themselves before posting. I don't know where your hostility comes from, Comments like that don't help
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Oct 13, 2012 23:49:46 GMT -5
Less than impressed by that explanation. It's rather patronizing because he makes it seem as if it's a bunch of angry stans upset over their faves freefalling this particular week. With all due respect, I'm not interested in knowing that Brandy was a "nice person" when you met her irl. How is that relevant? None of those explanations address the fact that these charts are meant to capture data that is now misrepresented because the current Billboard staff apparently failed their Stat 101 courses where surely they would have learnt the core concept in any data survey: sampling frame. "Radio doesn't represent the voice of the people." Okay, so Urban radio doesn't represent the voice of Urban music fans... but Pop radio does? I agree, that whole article was incredibly condescending. I'm sure they get plenty of angry rants from delusional stans, but the issues that've been raised about this change are entirely reasonable. Oh well, R&B will rise again. Mark my words.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 14, 2012 4:24:55 GMT -5
This chart is simply showing the most popular song of a particular genre by involving its play over ALL radio formats, downloads by ALL people who download and streams by ALL people who stream. It gets the bigger picture. The most popular R&B song of the week is this song by so-and-so because it was downloaded by more people, streamed by more people and played on more stations. In fact, it was SO big that it was played by non-R&B stations so it was heard by THAT many more people. And we already have the Hot 100 for that. I didn't need the R&B chart to tell me that.
|
|
jmd1961
New Member
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 7
|
Post by jmd1961 on Oct 14, 2012 6:33:52 GMT -5
The Billboard Hot 100 has always been sales AND airplay based. Here's an page from Billboard's own celebration of its 50th anniversary that says so: www.billboard.com/specials/hot100/index.shtmlI know it says it loads with errors, but it's true. Anyone with a copy of either Joel Whitburn's "Top Pop Singles" or "Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits" can also find this confirmed in the front of the book when he explains how the books were researched. Also, the original version of AT40 did NOT use the Hot 100 exclusively until it ended. When Billboard changed the method of compile the chart in 1991, Shadoe Stevens switched to using the Hot 100 Airplay chart. I know because, though I had stopped listening to AT40 when Casey Kasem left, I specifically listened that weekend to see how he explained the sudden change in chart position. He never explained anything, but I can tell you what chart he used, because I was a Billboard subscriber at the time. Later, when Billboard introduced the Mainstream Top 40 subchart, he changed sources again, to better reflect the stations that were actually airing the countdown. www.at40fan.info/at40/athist.html
|
|
Hot AC Archiver
2x Platinum Member
And the countdown continues...
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 2,385
|
Post by Hot AC Archiver on Oct 14, 2012 7:32:29 GMT -5
I found this on the AT40 messageboard, where someone when to the Google Books archive and looked at actual Billboard Magazines: at40fg.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=classic&action=display&thread=2680&page=1 Also, even with the change in 1991, the Hot 100 was only based on CHR airplay, as has been noted above. On Nov 30 1991 the Hot 100 used the "Top 40 Radio Monitor" chart as the airplay part of the formula. That chart was later renamed Hot 100 Airplay. You can see a scan of the description of the chart AT40 used when it switched to this chart: www.at40fan.info/at40/chart.html
|
|