michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 0:17:07 GMT -5
Call it what you will, the Taylor Swift songs are being sold on itunes as country songs. What radio plays and what country music fans buy are often different. Fans of these charts do not have to like the new charts they can read the old ones. What is "official" or not "official" really does not matter. You can choose to follow whichever chart you like. My opinion of these charts also do not matter. I am simply throwing my support towards them since they are here to stay. I believe this format was positively tested within the industry, otherwise they would not have made the switch. They have not consuted fans before on what charts they publish I don't think they are going to start any time soon What about "diamonds" by Rihanna then, which is listed under the pop genre under iTunes but currently holds the title of #1 on the new R&B chart. The iTunes genre doesn't actually always reflect the sound of individual songs. And the point about these new charts being official is that they are the ones that will count in the record books, yet they are not remotely comparable to the charts in the past.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,577
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 0:18:28 GMT -5
I do have to say that I'm having a bit of fun with these chart changes. Reading the bitter thoughts of some fans because they think their artist is so deserving has been kind of entertaining. Sure, the methodology is flawed and needs some improving, which I'm sure will happen down the line, but I do feel that this is a step in the right direction. The success of a song can't be measured by airplay only, especially with how radio and payola work. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that Carrie Underwood managed to get 12 number #1's all on her own, with no push from her label and no sort of shady negotiations going on. This is confirmed even more with the disparity between her recognition as a whole (album sales + single sales + awards) and the number of #1's she gets. It's just a bit difficult, though, to add sales in the equation. I mean, Taylor has a pretty large fanbase and following, so when she releases someting, all of them buy it. How can you take the non-country fans out of the equation to make a more accurate chart? This is why, even if I criticized the way the chart works, I still see no way to sincerely measure the real success of a song going by genre limitation. Which is why the creation of this chart is fine, but should not be the official chart because it is far from being a fair and balanced representation of each genre, and their respective hits. To your other point, there's no doubt chart manipulation occurs to maintain a streak like that. But it's not new, and just about every artist's team takes advantage of their connections when they're close to reaching the top. It's not specific to Carrie, and their methods are hardly "shady" - a phone call here and there never hurt anyone. In Carrie's case, her songs have come close to nearing the top every time, thus those connections were utilized more often.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 0:22:19 GMT -5
I completely understand what everyone is saying. I also understand why people are upset.
I personally like any attempt to get a better picture of popularity. Radio airplay alone is not accurate in that sense and never has been. Just an opinion of course.
The charts are here to stay. You don't have to like them. You can choose to cancel your subscription if you have one or read other charts more to your liking in protest. I doubt that wll make a difference. The charts were not designed for anyone here. It was likely an industry request. If they did not get positive feedback from their core customers, I doubt this would have happened.
As a music fan and chart fan, I am choosing to support the switch. Since the charts are avaiable for review. I can still see the individual components of the Country Hot 100 and the main Hot 100 if I choose to.
It will not influence my future decisions in any way shape or form to buy music from these artists. I doubt it will for anyone else either.
|
|
|
Post by strikeleo on Oct 12, 2012 0:26:03 GMT -5
I do have to say that I'm having a bit of fun with these chart changes. Reading the bitter thoughts of some fans because they think their artist is so deserving has been kind of entertaining. Sure, the methodology is flawed and needs some improving, which I'm sure will happen down the line, but I do feel that this is a step in the right direction. The success of a song can't be measured by airplay only, especially with how radio and payola work. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that Carrie Underwood managed to get 12 number #1's all on her own, with no push from her label and no sort of shady negotiations going on. This is confirmed even more with the disparity between her recognition as a whole (album sales + single sales + awards) and the number of #1's she gets. It's just a bit difficult, though, to add sales in the equation. I mean, Taylor has a pretty large fanbase and following, so when she releases someting, all of them buy it. How can you take the non-country fans out of the equation to make a more accurate chart? This is why, even if I criticized the way the chart works, I still see no way to sincerely measure the real success of a song going by genre limitation. Which is why the creation of this chart is fine, but should not be the official chart because it is far from being a fair and balanced representation of each genre, and their respective hits. To your other point, there's no doubt chart manipulation occurs to maintain a streak like that. But it's not new, and just about every artist's team takes advantage of their connections when they're close to reaching the top. It's not specific to Carrie, and their methods are hardly "shady" - a phone call here and there never hurt anyone. In Carrie's case, her songs have come close to nearing the top every time, thus those connections were utilized more often. I do agree with you, but I don't think the country airplay chart should be the official one either, because it only measures a portion of the country community. This is why, to me, this is supposedly a set in the right direction, though the formula clearly needs to be re-done and airplay from another genres should NOT count. On the topic of the radio deals, I do know that Carrie is not the only one, and I do agree that probably every artist uses it (with the exception of a few, like, I don't think Miranda's The House That Built Me needed any help doing what it did). However, should a rigged chart dictate what is popular in country music? At the end of the day, listeners aren't really saying what's popular, that's mostly the Djs and radio programmers. I do think a good formula would be adding airplay + sales, and in case the song is crossing over to other genres, like say, 50% of its total airplay is coming from country, count only 50% of its total sales. I know it's not going to happen and it's flawed, as well, but it'd definitely be a lot more accurate and wouldn't let the whole chart to the manipulation of radio and labels.
|
|
Rican@
8x Platinum Member
[Only dry eyes, I would love on you for years]
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,974
|
Post by Rican@ on Oct 12, 2012 0:27:17 GMT -5
Call it what you will, the Taylor Swift songs are being sold on itunes as country songs. What radio plays and what country music fans buy are often different. It can be sold as House music but it doesn't make it that. That logic is senseless, IMO. You can't assume what it is labeled that the consumers are fans of that genre. That customer could be just a fan of the song itself that why the separation is needed in these genres that illustrate the real measure of a song's performance and what not being push as something it is not to a genre. The only way of that occurring is leaving specific genres on airplay based method with physical sales added in.
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 869
|
Post by WolfSpear on Oct 12, 2012 0:43:35 GMT -5
It's odd that they labeled Taylor Swift's songs as "country".
C'mon, her own genre is rejecting the songs ...
|
|
leoapp
4x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 4,986
|
Post by leoapp on Oct 12, 2012 2:36:10 GMT -5
Billboard = A mess Seriously, today, it's very hard to make a difference between: - a country song released by a country artist - a pop song released by a country artist all can hit #1 on country??? Similar problem - an urban song released by an urban artist - a pop song released by an urban artist - an urban song released by a pop artist all can hit #1 on urban???
Poor for some real country and urban artists who are consistent with their main genre, their chance to hit #1 on Hot 100 is already difficult, and now, on their main genre, it's also very difficult, beaten by all those crossover #1 hits
Waiting till digital sales count on Dance club chart, so #1 hits on dance chart won't be some flop songs anymore, but all are crossover #1 hits
Just realized that with this rule, Adele's Rolling In The Deep could've been #1 on urban & rock cos it even charted on urban and rock airplay
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Oct 12, 2012 3:08:10 GMT -5
You people are missing the point. It's not that the methodology was changed. It's HOW it was changed. The way it is now is even worse of a representation than airplay alone.
|
|
Juanca
Diamond Member
Enjoying work, family/personal life with partner and doggies, and music. I couldn't ask for more :)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 11,078
|
Post by Juanca on Oct 12, 2012 3:17:37 GMT -5
Wow! What a day!!! I have several comments, but the main one is that I'm stunned at Billboard's lack of consistency among its own charts. Dance is not receiving any change. Pop is only airplay since the Pop 100 was killed some years ago, and it does not receive bonus in airplay from other formats. And now, even with the changes this week, they go one opposite way with the Hot Latin Songs chart. Here, the positive change is that it includes sales and streaming. But the other move is making it more close than before, more genre focused. It excludes non-"Latin" songs (songs in English), and practically leaves any sort of crossover impact out, since the English version of Latin songs won't count. I wonder what they'll do with songs in Spanglish? In a way, I understand, but a similar rule could have implemented for the other charts. Let's rephrase it for Country songs: "Dual-version songs (those recorded independently in both Country and non-Country versions) will have only their Country-version airplay, sales and estimated streaming factored into their Hot Country Songs rankings" Had this rule been in place, the Pop version of WNEGBT (since there IS a country version) would not have counted in the country charts. Same for any future Pop remix of a country, rock or hip-hop song. Also, this made me LOL "We're proud to be offering updated genre charts that better reflect the current music landscape as well as a new R&B Songs chart that finally shines a spotlight solely on core R&B acts like Frank Ocean, John Legend and Anthony Hamilton." And then the song that tops the first R&B Songs chart is such a core R&B song by a core R&B act I agree with the overall principle of combining sales, streaming and airplay for the genre chart all over (Dance and Pop included), and this is a very welcomed change to me. But I don't think that crossover airplay / sales should count as they are now counting. Many examples have been mentioned... I can imagine Gaga having a couple of Top 10s with the BTW remix and You & I 'sounding' country. Probably S&M and We Found Love had topped the R&B Songs chart as well. And probably songs like Hips Don't Lie, Let's Get Loud and Macarena, despite being Latin songs would not have charted at all in the Latin Songs charts because they were entirely or mostly sung in English. Genre is not defined by language either!
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 3:39:58 GMT -5
I think the big problem with this new methodology just comes down to actual genre. I have found that Billboard will often attribute a genre to a song just because of the artist, even if the song is nowhere near that. I'm almost surprised that Both Of Us wasn't labeled as country just because it has Taylor featured on it.
Mind you, I think any "official" chart that moves away from being based solely on airplay is a good thing because it gives control to people other than PDs who, let's face it, can easily manipulate playlists based on label support, or whatever. Just because something that has been this way for years changes, doesn't make it bad. People complain a lot about Billboard changing their charts so often but I think moving toward downloads and streaming paints a more accurate picture of what it's meant to.
My issue with these changes comes with how genres are defined. I'm going to go with hypotheticals here and use the Rock format. When I'm browsing through my issues of Billboard and come to the page of digital charts, I'm always so off about the Rock chart. Train was on there for months with songs like Marry Me. Now, maybe the years of being told what constituted rock music by radio has altered the truth and that Train song really IS rock, or maybe that song was mislabeled and put into rock because it came from an album that leaned rock (which I would question too since Hey Soul Sister didn't feel rock to me either) but in either case, like a Billboard chart, the definition has probably changed over time too. Just because Train's first single was a rock hit over ten years ago, doesn't mean every song they'll ever do is rock. And there are other examples for that format as well.
In looking at other digital charts, like the Latin, they are always dominated by 5+ year old Shakira or Pitbull songs. I'm sure they'll account for the old songs but if they're not so old, the crossover hits will dominate these home formats for a really long time. Marry Me by Train would have been in the rock chart for ages along with I'm Yours by Jason Mraz even though their level of support by Rock radio and fans of rock music was zero. Rihanna will have every song she releases go to #1 on R&B just because she had a few hits in that genre years ago but her songs rarely touch on it now.
I know these charts aren't for fans but there does need to be an element of logic when these changes are applied and calling a song an R&B song or a Rock song just because of artist history doesn't make sense. These side charts should be measuring, as much as possible, the subcultures of the bigger picture. The subculture of R&B, of Latin, of Country, without the direct influence from audiences who rarely ever venture into these otherwise. Most Taylor fans might be fans of country music in general but there are a large number of them who aren't and now they dictate the chart of an entire subculture of music that no longer represents their buying and listening habits because it is skewed away from them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 6:55:56 GMT -5
The biggest problem is simply that BB is trying to create something that frankly is just not possible right now. They want the component charts to reflect all the elements that could indicate popularity (sales, streaming, radio) and that makes sense, but there's no way to reasonably approximate what portion of one's sales come from any one genre, and on top of that they got the bright idea to make it even worse by including crossover airplay in a component chart. Even with that ridiculousness, I think BB may have avoided a lot of the outcry if they could at least tell the difference between a pop song and a country or r&b one. It's ridiculous that THREE of the charts have a #1 song that simply shouldn't be on that chart. Psy is getting all his exposure from pop and being a viral craze. Rihanna is a pop/rhythmic artist who just released a pop lead single. Taylor hasn't even released the country mix of WANEGBT for sale, but her POP version's sales and airplay are counting for her showing on a COUNTRY chart. It's like they really wanted to go out of their way to piss fans off for some reason. I'm not expecting them to cater to us but geez, it almost feels like they're rubbing it in our faces at this point, and I am not sure why. The charts are here to stay. You don't have to like them. You can choose to cancel your subscription if you have one or read other charts more to your liking in protest. There ARE no other charts. BB has a monopoly on song charts and I actually think that is what is pissing people off the most even if it's the formula they're openly railing against; I know it is certainly what rankles me right now. Before when it would do things I didn't like, I at least had another BB chart to fall back on. When BB changed the Hot 100 formula I didn't like it but I told myself, well I can always just compare the airplay and sales charts and draw my own conclusions from that. If I really had time I could even create my own sales/airplay/stream weight. I thought it was shady when BB flipped the rules on Katy at the last minute so that she couldn't "make history," but it wasn't so much the rule (which in itself, I agreed with) as the way they went about it. And hey, if I did disagree with it I could make a footnote in my own mental history if I want to. With this though, I really have very little consolation. Yes, the airplay charts are still there, but as someone pointed out, that's akin to throwing it in the bin with Tropical Albums and Myspace Songs. I'll be one of maybe 50 people checking for that...artists who otherwise were actually garnering some buzz from their r&b/hip-hop showing are now once again being thrown into the basement. And for what? So Rihanna and Kanye can claim to be even more ubiquitous than they already are? So Beyonce can dominate with her next album? Beyonce was going to do that anyway. Rihanna and Kanye are fine. They don't need the extra exposure at this point. The Brandys and Melanie Fionas of the world do, and they just got f**ked. This kind of thing does influence people just in that if someone loses the exposure they had under the old formula, then less people are going to even know that person has any music out, let alone buy it. It's going to become this circular thing where PDs think listeners want to hear certain songs more, so they redo their playlists to fit that. Then actual r&b sells less (b/c duh, no exposure) and labels think that means people aren't feeling r&b anymore, so they stop signing r&b artists and either drop the ones they do have or push them to record more crossover material. Then of course that will sell more (b/c duh, it's crossover and pop has proven to have fans who buy singles more readily than urban fans do) and it will chart better and PDs will think that's what the people want, so they play that. Country is much less susceptible to that particular problem, but I think there is another potential problem there. Country radio has been accused before of being highly rigged, but if that is true it's done so in such a systematic manner that I really doubt that genre as a whole is going to appreciate its main chart now being monopolized by Taylor until her era is over and she feels magnanimous enough to pass it on to whoever else has a current era out, which will then dominate the chart. Taylor's the one people are going to whine about the most when it comes to this; what if PDs retaliate by refusing to play most of her songs in an attempt to keep them from charting? This attitude could permeate to other country acts as well - if they become too popular then radio may dump them in an attempt to give someone else a shot, which will make it harder for any act to maintain some sense of longevity. That isn't guaranteed to happen but is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, and clearly is something BB either didn't think or didn't care about. I'll go with the latter. They simply do not care about the long term effects this could have on artists' careers or even on the future of an entire genre as we know it. It's frustrating as someone who enjoys following charts b/c I'm all for attempts at improvement, but I just can't at blatant mess like this. And I will be honest, I feel like the people who are supporting it are doing it more as an A for effort - "hey, at least they're trying!" - but this isn't No Child Left Behind. They tried, and they've failed. This methodology is no more accurate than the old formula they had, and in fact I think it is more harmful. If it's not going to be any better it's just a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Oct 12, 2012 7:20:55 GMT -5
People should cancel their subscriptions. Billboard is trash. Big Machine is a cheating mess trash >:(
I wish this mess was last year so we could see S&M and We Found Love topping the R&B charts. Maybe Billboard would have realized that way what a fucking mess they are.
I seriously hope "I knew you where dustep." debuts at the top of the country chart next week. That will be a fucking mess and the biggest joke ever and I'm here for that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 8:07:12 GMT -5
I read the 'letter from the editor' that was posted here yesterday so I won't post it again but essentially I agree with it.
A few key points
- Country radio program directors have too much power. They are the ones that decide what you listen too and they are the ones that tell you what it popular. This gives the fans no voice. This also leaves out the country fans that stream their music online or buy singles on itunes. Adding in sales and streaming was 100% the correct thing to do.
- Industry people, with whom they consulted love the change
- Gangnam Style is a rap song because they did the research and found that the industry decided it was a rap song.
- A song such as those released by Taylor Swift is not a genre hit simply because one guy at a radio station decides that it is.
To sum it up: The fans have a voice too in deciding what is popular.
100% the correct move
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 8:11:36 GMT -5
Brilliant move by billboard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 8:12:02 GMT -5
There ARE no other charts. BB has a monopoly on song charts . Of course there are other charts. There are sales and airplay charts all over the place. However I was also referring too also the dozens upon dozens of "non official" charts that Billboard also puts out. The perception of what is "official" is only the guide because people want it to be that way
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 8:13:00 GMT -5
Let me start this by saying I've read Billboard's charts for almost eight years now and have agreed with every single change I can think of in that time and even before. Until now. Also that this post hasn't been well proofread or researched. What annoys me is Billboard's director of charts (?) posted that condescending letter on Tumblr making it sound like only crazy stans have a problem with these changes. Now, silver linings and everything, but this has been the most interesting thing to happen on Pulse in a while in terms of reading material. Apart from fridayteenage, Joe and maybe a Rihanna stan or two, it's been perhaps the most mature, balanced response from almost every fanbase on any issue I've been here for. It really makes me appreciate Pulse when I see measured posts from pretty much everybody, but it also highlights how ridiculous the changes are. When a change is debatable then people's stan cards tend to come out and there's big arguments, but it takes a lot for people to be this unbiased. I don't doubt Billboard have been getting emails from crazies, but that's not what they should be responding to - they should be responding to the genuine concerns. I appreciate what they were trying to do. More accurately, I appreciate what they were supposedly trying to do. I'm not a conspiracy theory person, but I have no doubt there were ulterior motives behind this. Billboard are, at the end of the day, a business. It's the reason they've been doing their much-maligned daily Psy updates and all their polls are about artists with big online fanbases: they want hits. Putting Rihanna at number one on your chart guarantees more hits, tweets and discussion than putting Miguel there. Thinking short term, changing the charts has probably buried them in emails and given them record hits - I'm sure they couldn't be happier. It goes without say that the best form of protest is to stop going to their website/buying their magazine. (It also wouldn't surprise me if there was label pressure like has been mentioned, but I don't really have anything to add about that.) I think they're justifying their quest for hits with logic that actually makes sense. It makes sense to add sales to the country and R&B charts. Traditionally, as far as I can tell, they had sales components and I understand the logic that they are stuck in Hot 100-circa-2004 territory by continuing on without them. I do also understand the logic that finding the biggest R&B hit in the country (rather than the biggest hit among R&B listeners in the country) has value. But it seems pretty obvious that what they should have done is split the relevant charts like so: - R&B/Hip-Hop Singles and Songs (or whatever the hell it's called): stays the same and thus keeps its history for side-by-side comparisons and continuity. Stays the 'official' chart.
- The R&B/Hip-Hop Hot 100: an attempt at a new, Hot 100-style formula. A brand new chart. It should have been made up of airplay and physical sales from the R&B/Hip-Hop chart + digital sales (weighted much lower than they are on the actual new R&B/Hip-Hop chart, at least for now), potentially with a better system for determining what's R&B/Hip-Hop + streaming. No crossover airplay.
- R&B/Hip-Hop Hits: essentially what the new R&B/Hip-Hop chart is - the Hot 100 with non-R&B/Hip-Hop songs removed, so obviously includes crossover airplay.
You could do the same for country, rock, Latin and whatever else has been changed. I do see genuine value in all three types of chart. As far as I can tell, the main problem people are having is that the new charts have been bolted onto the old ones, thus a) inheriting their history and b) inheriting their importance as the chart of record. Splitting the genre charts into three but still focusing on the original eliminates these problems. I could see them changing back - lest we forget the Pop 100. What I think is more likely is that they'll fine tune the formulas on these charts so they'll be more heavily format airplay with a hint of sales and multi-format (say like 80/15/5 - and I know percentages isn't actually how it works). --- Does anybody know what's happened to the R&B album chart, by the way? I believe that was calculated based on 'urban sales' rather than sales minus non-urban albums, but that seems the antithesis of what Billboard's going for now. --- Another vaguely connected point I'd like to make is that I see this as a symptom of the way the music industry is going in general. It's getting smaller and will continue to do so. Honestly, eventually there probably won't even be enough major label R&B acts to fill a 100-position chart. The way music has become globalised in the internet age is fascinating and certainly mind-expanding, but I do think it will eventually lead to less artists being signed in general because access to international acts is so simple. Put simply: say a few years ago 50% of acts from Country A made it in Country B and 50% of Country B acts made it in Country A, then both acts have a fairly hefty amount of unique artists. But if both countries' overlap increases then you need less artists overall. If British acts are fulfilling the American need for boybands, eventually less American boybands are going to be signed. If the world becomes one big music market then there becomes no need to have rough equivalents of artists in each country, thus leading to less recording/being signed and less choice. ...I don't know if that really went anywhere or made much sense but yeah, vaguely connected.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 12, 2012 8:34:46 GMT -5
- R&B/Hip-Hop Singles and Songs (or whatever the hell it's called): stays the same and thus keeps its history for side-by-side comparisons and continuity. Stays the 'official' chart.
- The R&B/Hip-Hop Hot 100: an attempt at a new, Hot 100-style formula. A brand new chart. It should have been made up of airplay and physical sales from the R&B/Hip-Hop chart + digital sales (weighted much lower than they are on the actual new R&B/Hip-Hop chart, at least for now), potentially with a better system for determining what's R&B/Hip-Hop + streaming. No crossover airplay.
- R&B/Hip-Hop Hits: essentially what the new R&B/Hip-Hop chart is - the Hot 100 with non-R&B/Hip-Hop songs removed, so obviously includes crossover airplay.
I like this actually and wouldn't mind it because the "official" R&B chart is still based on true data from Urban sources. I believe the R&B Albums chart is based on sales tracked from Urban-specialized ratilers (if they even still exist). Basically the same places that Billboard tracked to get the sales component of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs in the 90s.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 12, 2012 8:38:04 GMT -5
^The R&B albums chart used to be based on sales from core R&B outlets- but not anymore. Those sales today would be even less significant than they were in the past.
Billboard IS a business, and, as hard as it may be for some to believe, it doesn't survive (or make most of its income) by catering to chart fans' likes and/or dislikes. It never has. And, as far as I know, even the subscription rates have never been through the roof- like most publications, it probably makes most of its income through advertisers.
So, it's not about pleasing chartwatchers.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 9:16:15 GMT -5
What industry people like this change? I'm curious to see that. Though I guess it makes sense when you consider the acts that will win out with these changes are the ones that make money for their labels while the smaller non-crossover acts don't. If this is another way to deter those acts then it could work but the ones that lose out will be the music fans that don't want the standard huge pop crossover hits. This is a contributing factor on behalf of the industry to the downfall of popular music. Perhaps. Not a big one but it's doing nothing to help the little guy. When you think about it, it's hard to want to support an industry that does so much to limit the options of what music they make available.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,577
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 9:23:55 GMT -5
I've been sleeping on this whole thing, and I've come up with some ideas...
I think an accurate revision would be to create some kind of census on iTunes and other digital outlets. Not a full out census, but before purchasing music online, retailers could provide a drop-down menu, or a type-in box in which you select the genre you perceive as your favorite. This could help determine the balance of each genre's true power over sales. It's obviously not sealed tight in that anyone could just chose whatever they want, but it would definitely help. And accuracy doesn't seem to be too much of a concern anyway.
Say I'm buying "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together", before I purchase, I chose the genre of Country, therefore that sale would count toward Country. Now If I were buying, say, an Usher song, and still choose Country, then that sale would count simply towards Pop. Does that make sense?
In doing this, they'd have to omit crossover airplay, as that is irrelevant to genre-specifc chart success anyway. I think this would help include digital sales in each genre, which I agree should be included, but in a way that doesn't inclusively count Pop/crossover generated sales as well.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Oct 12, 2012 9:27:06 GMT -5
What industry people like this change? I'm curious to see that. Big Machine and Def Jam have no problem with this change. :)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 9:31:25 GMT -5
Another vaguely connected point I'd like to make is that I see this as a symptom of the way the music industry is going in general. It's getting smaller and will continue to do so. Honestly, eventually there probably won't even be enough major label R&B acts to fill a 100-position chart. The way music has become globalised in the internet age is fascinating and certainly mind-expanding, but I do think it will eventually lead to less artists being signed in general because access to international acts is so simple. Put simply: say a few years ago 50% of acts from Country A made it in Country B and 50% of Country B acts made it in Country A, then both acts have a fairly hefty amount of unique artists. But if both countries' overlap increases then you need less artists overall. If British acts are fulfilling the American need for boybands, eventually less American boybands are going to be signed. If the world becomes one big music market then there becomes no need to have rough equivalents of artists in each country, thus leading to less recording/being signed and less choice. I agree with this. I'm hoping we get to a point where terrestrial radio becomes less and less prominent and independent or unsigned artists can gain enough exposure through the Internet to actually compete with major label artists.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 12, 2012 9:51:12 GMT -5
The main r&b chart went from 100 positions down to 50. What's up with that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 9:52:54 GMT -5
The main r&b chart went from 100 positions down to 50. What's up with that? They don't want to just push the core R&B artists out of the Top 50. They want them completely off the chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 9:59:20 GMT -5
All of the genre charts that were adjusted to Hot 100 methodology are 50 positions
|
|
Rodze
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,546
|
Post by Rodze on Oct 12, 2012 10:37:14 GMT -5
I am quite amused, because, amidst a relative Pulse uproar... Hot Latin Songs, meanwhile, has been based solely on radio airplay since its launch in 1986. In its new incarnation, only predominantly Spanish-language titles will appear on the chart. Titles mostly sung in English, which often receive Latin airplay and appear on the radio-based chart, are no longer eligible for inclusion. Dual-language songs (those recorded independently in both Spanish and English) will have only their Spanish-language airplay, sales and estimated streaming factored into their Hot Latin Songs rankings (see story, page 13). ... this is the only thing I read that I found rather unfair. While all the other changes I can understand (since they all simply involve adding new charts and shifting names for existing charts, which in essence means no data or tracking will be lost), this is the only change which involves actively excluding songs for somewhat arbitrary reasons. Don't get me wrong; I understand the reasoning. Billboard is trying to avoid English-language songs dominating the Latin songs charts based on moderate airplay and strong digital sales. However, I think excluding English-language songs completely despite the fact that some of them cross over to Latin stations is just as much a disservice as over-representing would be and think Billboard needs to rethink this formula if they hope to keep the U.S.-based Latin charts accurate. Much like they are separating the airplay and sales for Latin songs based on whether they are in English or Spanish or whatever, they should do the same for Taylor Swift. Only the Country version of WANEGBTETEFV should count for Country Songs. But I doubt Taylor's label would happy about that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 11:05:54 GMT -5
Another note: Lately R&B artists who have been catering to pop radio have seen declines in their album sales. If R&B artists now feel more compelled to cater to pop to even see success on the R&B chart, it should be interesting to see the further effect that has on album sales.
|
|
musicrocks
Gold Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 874
|
Post by musicrocks on Oct 12, 2012 11:06:29 GMT -5
I think my only gripe with all these changes (like many people have noted) is the inclusion of crossover airplay in the genre charts. MAKES. NO. SENSE.
I am somewhat happy with these changes for the country charts off the sole reason that country PDs had too much power and the change takes some of that away. The only problem the changes interfere with is the fact that country radio was starting to usher in a new era of artists. Recent releases from big artists (Rascal Flatts, Lady Antebellum, Miranda Lambert for example) stalled prematurely, which shows that they can't just get to #1 because they're staples. New artists like Jana Kramer, Dustin Lynch, and Florida Georgia Line were starting to climb to the top but these new changes might hinder that... (sorry if some of that is confusing haha)
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,547
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 12, 2012 11:26:09 GMT -5
Wow. This thread had grown 3-4 pages since I last read. I apologize if this has been covered, but has Billboard mentioned any new recurrent rules? With a song that receives country, pop, etc. airplay, it would likely never drop below the top 10-20 in comparison to genre hits. How will Billboard handle that? I mean, "We Found Love" could potentially still be top 20 at R&B. "You Belong With Me" could have been #1 country for like 30 weeks. Really?
|
|
allow that
Diamond Member
Fall into the atlas
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 14,792
|
Post by allow that on Oct 12, 2012 11:32:39 GMT -5
Cynthia you should copy and paste your post and e-mail it (with a marker preferably) to that douche Bill Weird. The biggest problem is simply that BB is trying to create something that frankly is just not possible right now. They want the component charts to reflect all the elements that could indicate popularity (sales, streaming, radio) and that makes sense, but there's no way to reasonably approximate what portion of one's sales come from any one genre It’s not completely possible but at the same time there are more accurate ways to accomplish what they’re trying to go for here. I’ll use Dance music hypothetically. Despite the genre’s current popularity, we have very few purely Dance/EDM stations in the country. We do have a significant music shop strictly for house/electronic/dubstep, etc called Beatport. I wouldn’t mind if Billboard made a component chart called “Hot Dance singles” that included sales via Beatport, because it’s an online retail outlet patronized almost virtually exclusively by the EDM community. …and this is already happening. Today kind of shows that many PD’s don’t analyze Billboard’s data; they just follow it. Look at the greatest gainer at Urban today: Rihanna. She’s getting a bump at the format since many PD’s blindly trust Billboard’s decades of history in measuring their most popular songs. Alicia’s “Girl On Fire” also got a big bump: now I like Alicia and she is R&B but this song was struggling. I didn’t realize that apparently many PD’s don’t understand that they get to make the charts. They’re already allowing the opposite: for the chart to make them. To me that's sad in its own right.
|
|