Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 11:36:37 GMT -5
Yep. "Diamonds" and "Girl On Fire" both got big bumps at Urban radio in the last 24 hours, since they jumped to #1 and into the Top 10 on the R&B chart respectively. That was of course due to digital sales (when the iTunes buying demographic is very different from the Urban radio listening demographic) as well as (especially in the case of "Diamonds") Top 40 airplay. Top 40 listeners and programmers are starting to determine what gets played on Urban radio.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 12, 2012 11:41:03 GMT -5
^ A disgrace.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 12, 2012 11:45:27 GMT -5
I forgot to tell Silvio Pietroluongo that they don't understand how much difference there is right now between a Pop station's playlist and an Urban station's playlist. This is not the mid-00s, they couldn't be any more different. Pop radio is already shunning R&B music from their format and they are making it a component of the R&B chart. A disgrace.
|
|
₫anny Jerz ♔
Diamond Member
Irrelevant
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 10,939
|
Post by ₫anny Jerz ♔ on Oct 12, 2012 12:29:43 GMT -5
Like I said in my previous post, the only reason Pop radio is "shunning" R&B music is because R&B music lately hasn't been crossover friendly at all. R&B has veered pretty sharply into a more traditional, less pop sound. The R&B hits of today don't sound too much different than the R&B hits of the 90s which failed to crossover as well, even in a more diverse Pop radio climate. Pop PD's have supposedly found that ratings have soared most when playlists are dominated with pure pop material, with a few crossover hits sprinkled in for more measure. I'd really be interested in seeing how R&B ratings have been doing in comparison and if embracing more mainstream material would make a dent in ratings, either negatively or positively.
|
|
allow that
Diamond Member
Fall into the atlas
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 14,792
|
Post by allow that on Oct 12, 2012 12:44:36 GMT -5
Wait... Philip Phillips has the #3 and Train has the #4 Rock song in the country? Okay I just feel like laughing along now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 12:50:19 GMT -5
Like I said in my previous post, the only reason Pop radio is "shunning" R&B music is because R&B music lately hasn't been crossover friendly at all. R&B has veered pretty sharply into a more traditional, less pop sound. As someone who's a bit more of an R&B traditionalist, I feel like this change is actually punishing traditional R&B artists. I don't think these acts should feel compelled to appeal to pop audiences to even have a chance on their own genre-specific chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 13:07:25 GMT -5
This wasn't implemented into the Hot AC songs chart, right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 13:18:42 GMT -5
Country, R&B, Latin, Rock, Rap
|
|
Jay
7x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,650
|
Post by Jay on Oct 12, 2012 14:23:42 GMT -5
I keep thinking to how the Dixie Chicks were shunned from radio. This will give them a chance to get Country hits again when/if they release new music. I don't think this new chart system is perfect nor do I think it's all that fair, but I do think it's more represtantive of what the public wants to hear and not only what the radio PDs want to play. That's just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 14:28:32 GMT -5
This forces artists to compete across platforms to get notice on the BB HOT 100. I agree with these changes. Artists were getting too comfortable and lazy with promoting their records to the widest audience possible. Every song should really only have one genre assigned to it... however, I think that if a song can get a certain amount of airplay at another format it should be allowed to chart if it charts in the Top 40 in airplay at the format if it's designated as a song from a different format.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 14:56:25 GMT -5
This forces artists to compete across platforms to get notice on the BB HOT 100. I agree with these changes. Artists were getting too comfortable and lazy with promoting their records to the widest audience possible. Every song should really only have one genre assigned to it... however, I think that if a song can get a certain amount of airplay at another format it should be allowed to chart if it charts in the Top 40 in airplay at the format if it's designated as a song from a different format. I call bulls**t... "Too lazy"? I think not. Some, like Carrie Underwood, didn't want to crossover. She was happy if and when she did, but it was never her intent. She and her team are not "lazy" and neither are the other core artists that this affects. You're essentially saying Top 40/Pop radio airplay should count towards genre specific charts? Those charts measured activity within a confined genre, not the degree to which artists crossed over. Now it seems the main criteria for these genre charts is crossover airplay and generated digital sales. These changes are not positive for anyone but the crossover artists, and there are only a select few of them... This is why we have charts like the Billboard Hot 100 in the first place. Now every genre chart is a near replica of the Billboard Hot 100 with a slight influence of their own respective genre.
|
|
d.t.m
6x Platinum Member
D.T.M.
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 6,437
|
Post by d.t.m on Oct 12, 2012 15:15:59 GMT -5
Like I said in my previous post, the only reason Pop radio is "shunning" R&B music is because R&B music lately hasn't been crossover friendly at all. R&B has veered pretty sharply into a more traditional, less pop sound. As someone who's a bit more of an R&B traditionalist, I feel like this change is actually punishing traditional R&B artists. I don't think these acts should feel compelled to appeal to pop audiences to even have a chance on their own genre-specific chart. Yep, real R&B is getting phased out. That's part fo the reason why electro pop has lasted longer than most thought it would on top40. That's also why it's very important for Frank Ocean, one of R&B's brightest stars, to win the industry's highest honor, AOTY. It may be the one thing to help change the tide we're experiencing.
|
|
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 15:28:52 GMT -5
Yep. "Diamonds" and "Girl On Fire" both got big bumps at Urban radio in the last 24 hours, since they jumped to #1 and into the Top 10 on the R&B chart respectively. That was of course due to digital sales (when the iTunes buying demographic is very different from the Urban radio listening demographic) as well as (especially in the case of "Diamonds") Top 40 airplay. Top 40 listeners and programmers are starting to determine what gets played on Urban radio. Alicia is on a radio tour, that's where her bump came from. Rihanna, that's a different story.
|
|
Sir Benji
Diamond Member
The One
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 13,354
|
Post by Sir Benji on Oct 12, 2012 15:29:51 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. I'm positive will backfire and blow up in their face. I think this is a ploy to raise album sales for crossover artists but if people don't like the music they still won't buy it. This is another move of desperation by the powers that be in the music industry. I disagree with Adonis' last post also. artists shouldn't have to waste their own or the labels money to promote themselves to Pop radio, and they don't need to make their material more mainstream sounding to try and get crossover airplay many people like pure traditional R&B, Country etc. music. Most popular modern Music is already way too manufactured.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 15:32:01 GMT -5
This forces artists to compete across platforms to get notice on the BB HOT 100. I agree with these changes. Artists were getting too comfortable and lazy with promoting their records to the widest audience possible. Every song should really only have one genre assigned to it... however, I think that if a song can get a certain amount of airplay at another format it should be allowed to chart if it charts in the Top 40 in airplay at the format if it's designated as a song from a different format. I call bulls**t... "Too lazy"? I think not. Some, like Carrie Underwood, didn't want to crossover. She was happy if and when she did, but it was never her intent. She and her team are not "lazy" and neither are the other core artists that this affects. You're essentially saying Top 40/Pop radio airplay should count towards genre specific charts? Those charts measured activity within a confined genre, not the degree to which artists crossed over. Now it seems the main criteria for these genre charts is crossover airplay and generated digital sales. These changes are not positive for anyone but the crossover artists, and there are only a select few of them... This is why we have charts like the Billboard Hot 100 in the first place. Now every genre chart is a near replica of the Billboard Hot 100 with a slight influence of their own respective genre. How can you be the most popular song of a genre if not that many people like it accept for the people who listen exclusively to that genre? Why is a listener who has less diverse tastes more relevant than a listener who has more diverse musical tastes?
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 15:40:37 GMT -5
How can you be the most popular song of a genre if not that many people like it accept for the people who listen exclusively to that genre? Why is a listener who has less diverse tastes more relevant than a listener who has more diverse musical tastes? LOL what? that's exactly what the point of a GENRE chart is.
|
|
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 15:43:34 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. I'm positive will backfire and blow up in their face. I think this is a ploy to raise album sales for crossover artists but if people don't like the music they still won't buy it. This is another move of desperation by the powers that be in the music industry. That's exactly what I was thinking also. Labels want to force music upon certain genres and by doing that is this method. I see it backfiring also. It's just unfortunate that urban radio will eventually change and the playlists will be Pop radio driven from crossover artists. It is clear the labels don't understand the urban generation because they don't care for that Pop music which why the urban radio geared toward Rap/Hip-Hop. I actually see this hurting radio DJs if they are forced to put crossover hits in their playlists because people won't tune in. I don't get how Billboard is trying to stop the controlling of radio station program directors within the same measure trying to set the charts in the favor of crossover artists. It is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 16:28:24 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't realize the rock chart was changed as well. Now I definitely disagree with the change. The songs that get labeled as Rock are sometimes really a far reach.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 16:34:12 GMT -5
Yeah, there are many things to complain about but I think the most important complaint/flaw to remember is that they're using crossover airplay to determine the rankings on non-CHR charts.
Put it like this - if it were 2002 do you think they would have implemented this rule change so that Pop Songs included non-CHR play to determine pop rankings? Hell no. So why is it suddenly okay to do the reverse now? People were upset as it was that urban music was taking over the Hot 100 but if you really wanted to know what was most popular with pop listeners, you still had a pure component chart to look at. I have complained before about CHR snubbing urban music but you know, if that is what they've determined their listeners want that is what it is - for them. But WHY do they get to determine what's most popular for something else?
I've said this so much I almost hate typing it again, but CHR will not even play crossover-friendly r&b now. Meanwhile, urban won't play these urban "lite" songs...but now urban artists are going to be pushed to record precisely that type of music if they want to show up on their own chart. As Allow That said, urban PDs apparently don't realize that they made the charts, and now they're letting the charts make them. (Funny enough, I don't see country PDs relinquishing their power over radio nearly so quickly.)
If BB/industry people/whoever wanted to calculate popularity across the entire country, they already have a chart for that. It is called the Hot 100 and it only takes five minutes to go through and pick out all the r&b (or country, or rock) songs on it. Boom, you now know what the most popular r&b songs across all US demographics are. Did it really take redoing all your old charts to figure this out? I like Billy Shears' suggestion, where they left the component charts as is and created two other subcharts per genre to handle this.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 16:36:23 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. I'm positive will backfire and blow up in their face. I think this is a ploy to raise album sales for crossover artists but if people don't like the music they still won't buy it. This is another move of desperation by the powers that be in the music industry. I disagree with Adonis' last post also. artists shouldn't have to waste their own or the labels money to promote themselves to Pop radio, and they don't need to make their material more mainstream sounding to try and get crossover airplay many people like pure traditional R&B, Country etc. music. Most popular modern Music is already way too manufactured. That's fine but there is a chart for that. They didn't get rid of the R&B chart. They have a purely R&B chart now and they have a purely rap chart as well. They have R&B airplay charts as well. The R&B/HipHop 100 before was just an airplay chart anyway. So now it will go back to being just that. If people like the R&B Airplay chart more there is nothing to stop them from using that in their promotions or using the more traditional R&B charts billboard has that feature the older methodology for compiling BB charts. I do think the mistake BB made is that the bar wasn't set high enough in terms of what is an R&B record and what isn't.... I think the sales component should've been much smaller for genre charts and I think that the barrier to entry on the R&B chart should've been higher for a song like Diamonds and Girl On Fire both of which are simply pop songs that get some urban airplay from time to time. Keep in mind the record companies signed off on this. So they obviously thought this was the best path forward for their companies to measure what is the most popular R&B record. I think artists with pop songs that get miniscule amounts of R&B airplay should be left off the R&B charts TBQH. Even Macarena made the R&B airplay chart but they left it off the R&B chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 17:04:27 GMT -5
The revised charts are here to stay. We are all fans of these charts and the magazine that produces them (otherwise we wouldn't be here)
As fans, I suggest that each of us find a positive way to use these revised charts as they exist and adapt or continue to follow the original airplay charts or maybe don't follow these charts but choose to follow others.
I have a feeling that once the initial uproar dies down that we will all adapt anyway.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 13,002
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Oct 12, 2012 17:25:31 GMT -5
*cries* Brandy was so close to getting another R&B #1
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 17:52:48 GMT -5
For some reason, the change has just hit me! The R&B chart now doesn't restrict itself to the R&B "format" per se as defined by radio but rather showcases the most popular R&B *songs* of the week regardless of where their popularity is coming from! Same with Rock, Country, etc. So the most popular country song of the week may not be a "current" at Country radio but due to its crossover success, is still #1 on Country because, well, as a genre of music, that song is the most popular country song in the country for that week. So in theory, these "new" charts should reflect their order as they are in the Hot 100 for any given week? So if rock songs occupy numbers 4, 11, 15, 22, 39, 56, 81, 82 and 95 in the Hot 100, they would be the ones at the top of the Rock chart for that week in that same order?
Now if people had put it that way instead of telling everyone to "deal with it", then I would have seen it earlier. However, I still disagree with how songs constitute being called "rock", "R&B", "country", etc, and I think the concerns of the outcome of this on the overall music industry are still valid but in either case, I understand now and don't necessarily disagree. Billboard is moving away from allowing radio control their charts. The downside is that the industry needs to try harder to move away from using radio as their main source of promotion because it is the crossover hits that will have the longest chart life while those that don't crossover will just graze the bottom of these charts unless those songs can make a name for themselves in other ways that don't involve radio.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Oct 12, 2012 17:56:57 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't realize the rock chart was changed as well. Now I definitely disagree with the change. The songs that get labeled as Rock are sometimes really a far reach. Those Rock stations better start playing that Phillip Phillips song. But that horrible Train song is there too
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 18:37:25 GMT -5
Comentary from ask billboard:
Our BDS-based genre airplay charts aren't going away. They tell the story of each unique radio format. Pop Songs (which just celebrated its 20th anniversary) reflects mainstream top 40 radio and many of music's top superstars which it plays. Maroon 5 is No. 1 on Pop Songs this week with "One More Night," which registered 74 million audience impressions at the format; such a wide reach certainly continues to be worthy of our charting. Country Airplay, R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay, Latin Airplay, Adult Contemporary, Adult Pop Songs, Alternative Songs and Smooth Jazz Songs are more of our genre airplay charts that will continue to show on Billboard.com, with such others as Adult R&B, Rhythmic, Mainstream Rock and more viewable to subscribers on Billboard.biz.
Ultimately, here's what I think is the biggest point about - and main reason for the renovation of - Country, R&B/Hip-Hop, Rock and Latin Songs: they are meant to show the most popular songs in their genres among all pertinent metrics. Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" is No. 1 on Country Songs because it is the country song that garnered the most airplay/sales/streaming points overall this week (And, remember, "Never" was a No. 13-peaking country airplay hit (granted, aided by Clear Channel Media and Entertainment promotional play its first week) and stayed in the top 15 until last week (its first six weeks). At its peak, it drew airplay on all but one station on the country reporting panel.) A main reader question has been, why count all-format airplay on these charts? Our reasoning is that we can't count sales for "Never" among only those who may have bought it because they are country fans, because we (or SoundScan) can't know the mindset behind a song's purchase; we can't count streaming for "Never" among only those who may stream it because they are country fans, again because it's not feasible to discern whether someone streams a pop-leaning country song because of its pop or country nature. Thus, why count only the country airplay of "Never"? If we're including all-encompassing sales and streaming, why segregate country airplay to help decide the most popular country song in the U.S.? Instead, why not reward a song for its entire reach? That's the goal of these charts: to reveal the biggest songs in each genre across the many ways we now consume music.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 18:37:53 GMT -5
more from ask billboard
Surely, it will likely be tougher for songs or artists that are more core-country, core-R&B, core-rock or core-Latin to top each respective chart. But, maybe not always. In 1996, LeAnn Rimes' Patsy Cline-influenced "Blue" stopped at No. 10 on Country Songs, a victim of polarity in radio research. But, the song spent 20 weeks at No. 1 on Country Singles Sales (the physical-sales chart of the CD/cassette singles era; now, Country Digital Songs serves as the genre's sales list). History will show that "Blue" was a No. 10 hit on Billboard's main country songs chart, which from 1990 through last week was based on only BDS-monitored country airplay. Had a country hybrid chart existed then, "Blue" might've ruled it. And, wouldn't have that made sense? The same for Rimes' "How Do I Live" a year later. The song peaked at No. 43 on Country Songs (as radio chose Trisha Yearwood's version, which rose to No. 2). The public, however, loved Rimes' song to the extent that it spent 32 weeks atop Country Singles Sales. Again, calling "Live" a No. 43 song on Billboard's major country songs chart just doesn't jell with its massive sales. A hybrid chart shows a song's entire popularity - just as the revised Country Songs chart is doing now with another young country singer that has explored different sounds in her music: Swift.
As an avid chart fan myself going back to 1988 when I, at 14, discovered the magic of "American Top 40" with Casey Kasem (and Shadoe Stevens) and the Hot 100 chart that fueled it - how amazed I was to learn that this magazine also had charts for AC, rock, albums and more β¦ many of which I made my brother, Michael, photocopy at the Boston University library each week, or browsed in smoky cigar shops where Billboard was available (under the menacing watch of owners who, correctly, doubted that I had the money to buy an issue β¦) - it's logical to fret that fewer titles might top Country Songs, or the other hybrid charts, because star artists might make repeated trips to the summit, and/or stay there longer once they reign. We like reading our Joel Whitburn books and seeing 50 No. 1s in a year (as happened in pre-BDS times when labels fought to get to a song to No. 1, only to drop any promotional push immediately after). Would we rather go back to a chart where a song goes 2-1-15 over three weeks? Incredibly, just 25 years ago Country Songs was based on airplay and sales reported by stations and retailers in such ranks as "heavy," "medium" and "light." Which do we think is more accurate: that methodology, or the electronically-tracked airplay, sales and multiple streaming sources now available? Years from now, I'd rather flip through a charts reference book that shows the most popular songs in a genre from as many trusted sources as possible.
Just as history will now show that Swift has the top country song - with, granted, a pop-leaning one in "Never" - and two others in the genre's top 10, Billboard charts have revealed acute superstar dominance before. The Beatles boasted the entire top five on the Hot 100 the week of April 4, 1964, at the height of Beatlemania. The Bee Gees set up shop throughout the Hot 100's top five in the late '70s, along with songs they'd written as recorded by other artists. And, as recently as 2010-11, Katy Perry resided in the Hot 100's top 10 with at least one entry for a record 69 consecutive weeks. Now, Billboard's genre charts will better reflect such supremacy when it occurs. Rock Songs already does, as all 12 songs from the standard version of Mumford & Sons' "Babel" (plus two more from the deluxe release) populate Rock Songs. Why do they? Radio is playing primarily only focus track "I Will Wait," but fans are streaming the set's cuts with the same speed and passion with which the band plays the banjo; the title cut amassed 851,000 on-demand streams last week, according to BDS, while each of those 12 songs totaled at least 372,000 on-demand streams. As Bill wrote above: that's a hit.
We now have the luxury of experiencing music in so many more ways than before. I think it's exciting that consumers now have a greater voice than ever in shaping these charts about which so many of us care so deeply. One reader expressed concern that our hybrid charts will become a "popularity contest" where only the biggest hits will now have a chance to reach No. 1.
We sure hope so.
|
|
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 12, 2012 19:10:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 19:18:23 GMT -5
I now realize the problem many of us have here with our issue on this change is that we're relying too much on radio's dictations of what should count. By saying that a song's radio airplay should impact the levels of other areas of popularity (streaming, sales) then radio is still in control and has control over these other two factors that, in my opinion, it has no business controlling other than the fact that people buy what they hear on the radio. If, for example, a rock song were to suddenly make the rounds on social media and networking sites without the help of radio, and suddenly it got a bunch of streaming and sales points, should it cease to chart because radio isn't on board (yet)? What if this rock song started to get airplay on Pop radio because the same audience that is involved in social networking also listen to pop radio but rock still haven't jumped on board. If it's a rock song, it should be charting on a rock-based genre chart. Just because rock radio decides to not play it for a whole slew of reasons that could include label politics, or some association to a pop star that turns off rock PDs, shouldn't keep this song from being listed as one of the biggest rock songs of that particular week. At the risk of sounding condescending, as I don't mean to, but the only real thing that is changing is that Billboard is now considering its main format charts to now be genre-based, rather than format-based. It's moving away from the radio-controlled method and into the hands of the audiences with the help of radio. These charts are now Genre-charts and not Format-charts. Now when we look at the top country song or the top rock songs of the week, we're looking at them as the genre of music they are rather than the most played on country or rock radio. To me, it just makes sense. But as I've said before, whoever is in charge of deciding the genre of songs should probably get some help but that's a side-issue worth the discussion it will get.
|
|
CammyCan
9x Platinum Member
Bomb.com
Talk Nerdy To Me
Joined: April 2007
Posts: 9,901
|
Post by CammyCan on Oct 12, 2012 19:34:55 GMT -5
I understand why they are including digital sales, a move that I think was inevitable, but I really just don't understand why they're including crossover airplay. It doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|
hitseeker.
Diamond Member
The Energizer Bunny
Joined: April 2007
Posts: 17,126
|
Post by hitseeker. on Oct 12, 2012 19:43:57 GMT -5
I understand why they are including digital sales, a move that I think was inevitable, but I really just don't understand why they're including crossover airplay. It doesn't make any sense to me. This. It defeats the whole purpose of having various genre charts. Now the true genre charts will most likely be neglected to irrelevant status, the new charts benefitting crossover acts more than acts who chose and build a career cataring to one genre. Of course I'm happy seeing Rihanna at #1 on R&B, even if 'Diamonds' is not a R&B song and of course I like seeing the bump it got on Urban yesterday. I stan for her, after all, but as I said before: this change should've happened sooner and I like the rationale behind it. However, it's not the change that sucks, it's how it happened. Edit: Ok, reading what was posted about ask billboard I know get Billboard's point view in a better way. Still, I'm not totally satisfied with how this change was caries out.
|
|