syrus
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by syrus on Oct 12, 2012 19:50:22 GMT -5
Okay, now I get what Billboard is trying to do. However, Rihanna's "Diamonds" is NOT an R&B song. That is a problem!
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 19:58:03 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. It's not about what's the most popular song at a format. It's about what's the most popular song that is in a genre. BB charts are no longer radio format charts and now genre charts. BB charts should be consumer focused in terms of popularity. Someone buying several days worth of airplay does not reflect popularity with the consumer even if it's just for one day. To me these clear channel deals should be disqualified from the chart statistics... TBQH. It's like giving your song away for free for a day to give you a big head start on the charts. I have to change my previous position on sales. Sales are not overweighted. Charts should be dictated by the listener not the radio stations.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 20:03:53 GMT -5
Okay, now I get what Billboard is trying to do. However, Rihanna's "Diamonds" is NOT an R&B song. That is a problem! I agree. How does one classify the record? A song getting 2 spins at radio makes it an R&B song. I guess if Diamonds gets a couple plays on a rock station it's rock. Now you have a #1 rock record. I think the record company should classify their songs. I dont understand what makes a Rock record vs an R&B record vs a Country record. I think that's where the confusion is...BB should clear that up. I get what it's trying to do but they should've gotten some feedback first and then made changes to their rules when the new chart year starts.
|
|
syrus
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by syrus on Oct 12, 2012 20:10:27 GMT -5
I wonder if Darius Rucker is now going to start charting on either of the R&B Charts since he's black cause that's got to be the main reason Rih's song is suddenly "R&B." I'd have no issue if this was "Talk That Talk" or "Cockiness."
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 20:23:38 GMT -5
I wonder if Darius Rucker is now going to start charting on either of the R&B Charts since he's black cause that's got to be the main reason Rih's song is suddenly "R&B." I'd have no issue if this was "Talk That Talk" or "Cockiness." Diamonds was #66 on the R&B chart the week before. So it was getting some airplay however minuscule. That's why I said maybe Billboard needs to explain what the bar is for determining an R&B track. Billboard probably considered Rihanna's previous history on the R&B charts and that this song does have some R&B airplay...
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Oct 12, 2012 20:28:28 GMT -5
That rude man Bill Verde said that he considered the Artist history to decide the genre of the song. So I guess that makes "We Found Love" and "S&M" R&B songs just because RiRi had previous songs charting on the R&B charts.
The same can be said for Taylor's bublegum pop song We Are Never Ever and her new dubstep track.
|
|
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 20:32:42 GMT -5
If that Billboard's way of changing the method then call the charts "Most Popular R&B/Hip-Hop Songs", "Most Popular Country Songs" and etc. but not after the original chart names due to the association of how those charts were once measure. I don't have any issue if they want a seperate chart for these so called most popular songs among specific genres but it shouldn't interfere with the old charts and their recognition in the industry. It sounds like a half ass job on relying on sales to determine popularity between a genre when it is not the case due to certain circumstance on who benefits from major backing to succeed in crossover success.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 20:38:17 GMT -5
Okay, now I get what Billboard is trying to do. However, Rihanna's "Diamonds" is NOT an R&B song. That is a problem! I agree. How does one classify the record? A song getting 2 spins at radio makes it an R&B song. I guess if Diamonds gets a couple plays on a rock station it's rock. Now you have a #1 rock record. I think the record company should classify their songs. I dont understand what makes a Rock record vs an R&B record vs a Country record. I think that's where the confusion is...BB should clear that up. I get what it's trying to do but they should've gotten some feedback first and then made changes to their rules when the new chart year starts. I don't think labels should be able to dictate what genre songs are because then it gets into label politics. I think there should be a panel, possibly independent of Billboard, that decides what genre a song belongs to. Though I'm not sure now but is a song able to chart on multiple charts? Hypothetically speaking, Adele could have when Rolling In The Deep came out, even though it's not a rock song, Billboard labels it as such. While I think songs should be limited to just one genre, there are often instances where a song is legitimately more than one style of music and plus there are legitimate multi-format/multi-genre hits. Though in a case like Rolling In The Deep, seeing it top both R&B and Rock charts for weeks on end might feel a bit off too.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 20:39:06 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. Because a song isn't limited to the airplay it gets on just one format. Let's use Frank Ocean as an example. Thinkin' About You is around the #10 mark on Urban radio right now with very limited airplay from other formats. Let's pretend that digital sales are relatively decent and streaming is on par with that, making it a bigger hit than many of the other songs in the Urban Top 10 that aren't crossover hits. It's already considerably a bigger hit than those because, despite what radio is telling us based on its airplay, the song has gotten a lot of attention from other non-radio outlets like television appearances and social media. People buying the song aren't necessarily normal buyers of R&B music but they like the song. Now, let's pretend in a few months from now, the song crosses over to Rhythmic for some reason and then a few weeks after that, is picked up by Pop before landing a new home at Hot AC. By now, the song is long done on Urban radio but sales are still decent and streaming is even higher now because of new exposure to people that do listen to these radio formats. The song is still an R&B song, barring any remixes that might have come out to push it. Comparing it to any other R&B song that's out at the time, it's still doing better in relation to them when looking at the bigger picture. As an R&B song, it's getting exposure outside of its traditional audience to be worthy of the title of Most Popular R&B song of these particular weeks. Now that the chart isn't limiting itself to just one radio format, is instead opening itself up as a musical genre to incorporate everything to determine what the most popular R&B song is in a given week, rather than 'Most Played by R&B Radio +sales/streaming'.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 12, 2012 20:52:09 GMT -5
Billboard and the record companies just took some major power away from the radio stations. I love it.
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Oct 12, 2012 20:56:20 GMT -5
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. I think you've described the principle of the methodology change well, but in practice, there is as much if not more radio control over the genre charts. I'm going to illustrate this using this week's Billboard Hot Country Songs chart. The top songs at country radio generally accumulate between 35 and 40 million in audience impressions in a week. But because power rotations at CHR/Pop stations result in 100-120 weekly spins for the top songs (as opposed to an absolute maximum of 60-70 spins at country stations, which plenty sticking to the 40-55 range for their power songs), top songs at CHR/Pop generate much higher audience impressions. Last week's top-10 CHR/Pop songs on the BDS chart all had higher audience than the #2 Country song on the BDS chart. To be even more specific, the #5 CHR/Pop song, Taylor Swift's "Never..." stood at 57.934 million in audience, more than 19.5 million ahead of the #1 BDS country airplay song (Jason Aldean's "Take a Little Ride"). Add in 16.258 million in audience from the Hot AC chart (which is essentially a CHR follower) and 4.577 million from the AC chart (also a follower format), and that sums to a difference of 40.362 million AIs between "Never..." and the #1 country airplay song. In the same week, Taylor's "Never..." generated 2.955 million in audience on the BDS country chart. Once Billboard elected to allow "Never..." to chart on Hot Country Songs under its new methodology, "Never..." likely had an insurmountable lead thanks to its pop airplay alone. Sure, this means country radio lost control over Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart. But in this case, that control transferred right over to the pop radio formats and to pop programmers who have even less of a connection to country music fans than country programmers. And incorporating sales when pop music fans still buy downloads in greater numbers than country music fans was only going to magnify the pop radio effect. Thus, the effect of Billboard's methodology change on the Billboard is to make CHR/Pop success the most surefire path to #1 on the Hot Country Songs chart. The situation is made even more absurd because "Never..." turned out to be the first Taylor release to country radio that the market outright rejected. It received an inflated debut at #13 thanks to Clear Channel, dropped about a third of its airplay in its second week, and failed to get back to that first week level of airplay in its subsequent seven weeks on the chart. Callout on the song was poor. For once, country radio's pullback on the song truly did seem driven by its listeners. Despite claims by Billboard that its methodology change put chart control in the hands of consumers, this week's chart shows the disconnect between the overall market and the market within the country genre. There is also a consistency issue (probably one of many) that I already mentioned in the Country forum. The following tweets from Silvio Pietroluongo ( Billboard's director of charts) suggest even more strongly to me that he and his Billboard brethren are winging it when it comes to their definitions and policies. In response to the following question, "Artist X is smashing on pop/digitally & releases a country mix of that song. eligible for HCS?" Pietroluongo said:And followed that by saying:Taylor's "Never..." had a putatively country mix. It didn't make the song any more country, but the mix (produced by Dann Huff, who also did the so-called country mix of Kelly Clarkson's "Mr. Know It All") was sent to country radio. It was not, however, put on sale. By the logic that Pietroluongo laid out in discussing Kelly's attempt to cross over with "Mr. Know It All," it is only the airplay and sales of "Never..."'s so-called country mix that should have counted toward the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart. That would mean 2.995 million in audience impressions and zero sales. And no #1 for "Never..." on the Hot Country Songs chart, which would properly reflect the country market (not to mention the nature of the song itself, one that even Scott Borchetta characterized to Billboard* as a "pop record"). I won't even start on the genre classification issue, except to say that I am starting to wonder why the current singles from Mumford & Sons and Phillip Phillip aren't charting on Hot Country Songs, because I consider both to be much closer to country music than either of the two Taylor songs atop the Hot Country Songs chart this week. * Thanks to michellef for the link.
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Oct 12, 2012 21:09:51 GMT -5
Because a song isn't limited to the airplay it gets on just one format. Let's use Frank Ocean as an example. Thinkin' About You is around the #10 mark on Urban radio right now with very limited airplay from other formats. Let's pretend that digital sales are relatively decent and streaming is on par with that, making it a bigger hit than many of the other songs in the Urban Top 10 that aren't crossover hits. It's already considerably a bigger hit than those because, despite what radio is telling us based on its airplay, the song has gotten a lot of attention from other non-radio outlets like television appearances and social media. People buying the song aren't necessarily normal buyers of R&B music but they like the song. Now, let's pretend in a few months from now, the song crosses over to Rhythmic for some reason and then a few weeks after that, is picked up by Pop before landing a new home at Hot AC. By now, the song is long done on Urban radio but sales are still decent and streaming is even higher now because of new exposure to people that do listen to these radio formats. The song is still an R&B song, barring any remixes that might have come out to push it. Comparing it to any other R&B song that's out at the time, it's still doing better in relation to them when looking at the bigger picture. As an R&B song, it's getting exposure outside of its traditional audience to be worthy of the title of Most Popular R&B song of these particular weeks. Now that the chart isn't limiting itself to just one radio format, is instead opening itself up as a musical genre to incorporate everything to determine what the most popular R&B song is in a given week, rather than 'Most Played by R&B Radio +sales/streaming'. I have less of an issue with this scenario than the situation with We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together, where it's topping the country chart based overwhelmingly on the airplay and sales of the pop mix. I get the idea of rewarding crossover airplay but not crossover airplay that comes by removing the very elements that make something a "genre" song in the first place. With these new rules, it seems like they will end up rewarding artists whose sound is more pop-friendly (however you want to define that). What is the point of having genre charts at all if artists have to have pop airplay (and basically sound more "pop" in the process) in order to be successful on them?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 21:10:18 GMT -5
The top songs at country radio generally accumulate between 35 and 40 million in audience impressions in a week. But because power rotations at CHR/Pop stations result in 100-120 weekly spins for the top songs (as opposed to an absolute maximum of 60-70 spins at country stations, which plenty sticking to the 40-55 range for their power songs), top songs at CHR/Pop generate much higher audience impressions. Last week's top-10 CHR/Pop songs on the BDS chart all had higher audience than the #2 Country song on the BDS chart. To be even more specific, the #5 CHR/Pop song, Taylor Swift's "Never..." stood at 57.934 million in audience, more than 19.5 million ahead of the #1 BDS country airplay song (Jason Aldean's "Take a Little Ride"). Add in 16.258 million in audience from the Hot AC chart (which is essentially a CHR follower) and 4.577 million from the AC chart (also a follower format), and that sums to a difference of 40.362 million AIs between "Never..." and the #1 country airplay song. In the same week, Taylor's "Never..." generated 2.955 million in audience on the BDS country chart. Once Billboard elected to allow "Never..." to chart on Hot Country Songs under its new methodology, "Never..." likely had an insurmountable lead thanks to its pop airplay alone. Sure, this means country radio lost control over Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart. But in this case, that control transferred right over to the pop radio formats and to pop programmers who have even less of a connection to country music fans than country programmers. And incorporating sales when pop music fans still buy downloads in greater numbers than country music fans was only going to magnify the pop radio effect. Thus, the effect of Billboard's methodology change on the Billboard is to make CHR/Pop success the most surefire path to #1 on the Hot Country Songs chart. You're still looking at it as a radio issue though. I think at this point in time, radio is still an important contributing factor to what makes a song popular. Thanks to airplay from those other formats you mentioned, Taylor technically has the most popular country song in the country. It just has the added advantage of having airplay from other formats and the resulting downloads/streams that come from that audience. The unfortunate downside is that now whenever there is a crossover country song occurring, it will be difficult for any other to outdo it. I think that's a side issue though. The issue at hand here is accuracy when determining popularity. Despite all of the mentions of radio, chart stats and chart history, when looking at the bigger picture, Taylor in fact has the most popular country-music song in the country. Except: Taylor's song barely qualifies. But for the point of my post above, let's just pretend that it does.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 21:14:23 GMT -5
Because a song isn't limited to the airplay it gets on just one format. Let's use Frank Ocean as an example. Thinkin' About You is around the #10 mark on Urban radio right now with very limited airplay from other formats. Let's pretend that digital sales are relatively decent and streaming is on par with that, making it a bigger hit than many of the other songs in the Urban Top 10 that aren't crossover hits. It's already considerably a bigger hit than those because, despite what radio is telling us based on its airplay, the song has gotten a lot of attention from other non-radio outlets like television appearances and social media. People buying the song aren't necessarily normal buyers of R&B music but they like the song. Now, let's pretend in a few months from now, the song crosses over to Rhythmic for some reason and then a few weeks after that, is picked up by Pop before landing a new home at Hot AC. By now, the song is long done on Urban radio but sales are still decent and streaming is even higher now because of new exposure to people that do listen to these radio formats. The song is still an R&B song, barring any remixes that might have come out to push it. Comparing it to any other R&B song that's out at the time, it's still doing better in relation to them when looking at the bigger picture. As an R&B song, it's getting exposure outside of its traditional audience to be worthy of the title of Most Popular R&B song of these particular weeks. Now that the chart isn't limiting itself to just one radio format, is instead opening itself up as a musical genre to incorporate everything to determine what the most popular R&B song is in a given week, rather than 'Most Played by R&B Radio +sales/streaming'. I have less of an issue with this scenario than the situation with We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together, where it's topping the country chart based overwhelmingly on the airplay and sales of the pop mix. I get the idea of rewarding crossover airplay but not crossover airplay that comes by removing the very elements that make something a "genre" song in the first place. With these new rules, it seems like they will end up rewarding artists whose sound is more pop-friendly (however you want to define that). What is the point of having genre charts at all if artists basically have to have pop airplay (and basically sound more "pop" in the process) in order to be successful on them? And that's where I believe the biggest problem lies. Just because an artist is primarily a country artist, doesn't mean everything they do is going to fit into the spectrum of country music. Likewise, just because an artist isn't country, doesn't mean they'll never record an authentic country song. I think each song needs to be assessed on a song-by-song basis in order for this change to actually work. Not every Linkin Park song is going to be rock. Not every Carrie Underwood song is going to be country and sometimes, Rihanna will record an R&B song. What about situations where there are collaborations between genres? Nelly and Tim McGraw? Taylor Swift and B.o.B? Jay-Z and Linkin Park? I'm curious as to how they'll be dealt with. As much as I've grown to like the new change, I think it has potential to open a huge bag of worms beyond what we've seen here.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,588
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 21:46:52 GMT -5
The biggest discrepancy, I think, in regards to the Country chart is the rejection of Taylor's song in the first place. Country listeners weren't liking it... And now it sits on top of the Country chart based PRIMARILY on its Pop support.
The argument of whether it's Country or not is irrelevant, Country listeners don't like it... so why is it #1 on the Country chart? (This is a rhetorical question)... If it were well supported by Country radio, and maybe in the top 5 or so (airplay), people wouldn't have an issue, but it's currently plummeting in Country airplay through the upper thirties. Yet its massive Pop airplay is enough to make it the #1 Country song. Sure, it's the most popular "Country" song, but not WITHIN Country. Country's rejection, if you will, is not fairly represented on this revised chart, and that's what people are pissed about.
Taylor, for months on end will have the #1 Country song(s) because of her massive digital sales and Pop airplay. Taylor charting on the Country chart has much more to do with her Pop success, and that's not fair to those who do not have the same outlets, so to speak.
I do think each genre will begin to recognize airplay charts as their official charts, because these revised genre charts are completely bogus in respect to each individual genre.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 12, 2012 22:00:50 GMT -5
I guess the question then to ask is whether country radio listeners should be the only ones to dictate whether a country song is deserving to be the most popular or not. Again, it comes down to making it into a radio issue. I never listen to listen to country radio. Ever. But I buy occasional country music albums and have a number of country artists that I enjoy very much. They just happen to rarely ever get radio airplay or are simply older. But sometimes, a popular country song will come along that I do happen to like and would support in the way of a digital purchase and/or stream. Should my contribution not count because I don't listen to country radio? What if there were millions of people like me that liked a particular song that was actually a country-music song that, for whatever reason, didn't get picked up by country radio. The song is popular. Just not with country music fans.
Let's put this into another example, because I love making up examples. The Dixie Chicks.
The year is 2006 and they've just put out Not Ready To Make Nice. The song, obviously, gets very little country radio support and even less support from listeners of country radio. But the song is #1 on iTunes and high on streaming. If it's a country-music song by a country-music act that is getting a LOT of buzz around the country, why shouldn't it be considered the most Popular Country-Music Song for that time? More people are aware of and like that song than any other country-music song out at that particular moment in time. The only issue here is that *country radio* and their listeners aren't on board. Why is that fair?
For another example, if a song comes out that is clearly classified as a Latin song, non-English but takes the world by storm a la Gangnam Style. It's hugely popular everywhere you go and even hits the Hot 100 #1. But the song was originally released to Latin radio markets last year. Is it or is it not the most popular Latin-music song of the moment?
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Oct 12, 2012 22:04:20 GMT -5
You're still looking at it as a radio issue though. Well, I was specifically addressing the assertion that this methodology change takes control away from radio. In the case of this week's Hot Country Songs chart, the new methodology took control away from country radio and gave more power to CHR/Pop radio, in opposition to a fairly widespread view among country fans (as seen at country radio and beyond). The issue at hand here is accuracy when determining popularity. Despite all of the mentions of radio, chart stats and chart history, when looking at the bigger picture, Taylor in fact has the most popular country-music song in the country. Putting categorization issues aside, that is already recognized on the Hot 100. The result from the methodology change is to shift Hot Country Songs (and other genre-based song charts) from a chart that reflects the individual genre's market to a Hot 100 redundancy. As far as I'm concerned, that results in lost information in the genre charts to which Billboard gives primary historical importance. That information will be maintained in some form in other genre charts, like the airplay charts, but I think it is unfortunate that the main genre charts won't reflect it. Moreover, Pietroluongo seems to be saying that in the case of crossover songs, it's the country mix whose airplay and sales should count toward the Hot Country Songs chart. But he applied that to Kelly Clarkson only and not to Taylor. I think that there is likely broad agreement among chart watchers that incorporating sales and streams is a good way to recognize the increased variety of ways in which music fans listen to music. I have for some time argued that the definition of the genre cannot and should not be dictated by what a radio format will or won't play, so I like the idea of a chart that isn't strictly defined by radio. Your Dixie Chicks example is a great example of why (though surveys at the time indicated that most listeners were not resistant to the idea of the DCX returning to country radio). But the new methodology does not strike me as an effective one, and I think this week's Hot Country Songs chart illustrates why. I further note that there are folk/Americana titles that perhaps should be charting on Hot Country Songs this week, yet the only new songs introduced to the chart were pop songs. Which takes us back to the categorization issue. With that in mind, I suspect that Billboard particularly chose to introduce the new charts this week rather than at the end of the year because of the names that would benefit (some of the biggest in mainstream music) and the attention and the controversy that would generate. Would there be this much discussion if, like I suggested, Mumford & Sons were suddenly all over the Hot Country Songs chart? I think there would be conversation about a folk invasion at country that would expose a disconnect with country radio. But I'm not sure that country chart watchers would be crying mutiny. If anything there would be conversation about another O Brother, Where Art Thou? moment in the country world. So I can't help but think the timing and possibly even the nature of Billboard's inclusions on the genre charts were influenced somewhat by Billboard's quest for a media moment.
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Oct 12, 2012 22:11:05 GMT -5
The biggest discrepancy, I think, in regards to the Country chart is the rejection of Taylor's song in the first place. Country listeners weren't liking it... And now it sits on top of the Country chart based PRIMARILY on its Pop support. The argument of whether it's Country or not is irrelevant, Country listeners don't like it... so why is it #1 on the Country chart? (This is a rhetorical question)... If it were well supported by Country radio, and maybe in the top 5 or so (airplay), people wouldn't have an issue, but it's currently plummeting in Country airplay through the upper thirties. Yet its massive Pop airplay is enough to make it the #1 Country song. Sure, it's the most popular "Country" song, but not WITHIN Country. Country's rejection, if you will, is not fairly represented on this revised chart, and that's what people are pissed about. Taylor, for months on end will have the #1 Country song(s) because of her massive digital sales and Pop airplay. Taylor charting on the Country chart has much more to do with her Pop success, and that's not fair to those who do not have the same outlets, so to speak. I do think each genre will begin to recognize airplay charts as their official charts, because these revised genre charts are completely bogus in respect to each individual genre. But in this case you could argue that country radio is controlled by a handful of powerful corporations/execs and maybe the song's natural chart life was unfairly thwarted because of that (though in reality I know that Taylor has a very powerful label head on her side, the song's negatives among country listeners were quite high, and PDs couldn't drop it fast enough when provided with a more "country" Taylor song to play in its place). I'm actually with the people saying that airplay isn't always a fair indicator of total popularity even within a genre, because sometimes it seems like radio decides they are going to play this artist to death but not that artist because he hasn't "paid his dues" or she is a woman in a genre that's a boys' club and she's not one of the chosen ones. So, in theory I like the idea of adding downloads and streaming to the equation to keep the PDs in check a little, but in practice, the new rules will lead to the genre charts being dominated by pop songs.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 12, 2012 22:23:52 GMT -5
"Diamonds" loses its bullet on Hot r&b / Hip-Hop airplay (the chart that mainly informed the r&b / Hip-Hop Songs chart for the last ten years), moving from #66 - #61.
|
|
syrus
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by syrus on Oct 12, 2012 22:38:14 GMT -5
In Taylor's case, it's not so much that country listeners don't like it, it's country PDs that don't like it. But her fans (or maybe casual "fans") spoke up with digital sales.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,588
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 22:43:47 GMT -5
The biggest discrepancy, I think, in regards to the Country chart is the rejection of Taylor's song in the first place. Country listeners weren't liking it... And now it sits on top of the Country chart based PRIMARILY on its Pop support. The argument of whether it's Country or not is irrelevant, Country listeners don't like it... so why is it #1 on the Country chart? (This is a rhetorical question)... If it were well supported by Country radio, and maybe in the top 5 or so (airplay), people wouldn't have an issue, but it's currently plummeting in Country airplay through the upper thirties. Yet its massive Pop airplay is enough to make it the #1 Country song. Sure, it's the most popular "Country" song, but not WITHIN Country. Country's rejection, if you will, is not fairly represented on this revised chart, and that's what people are pissed about. Taylor, for months on end will have the #1 Country song(s) because of her massive digital sales and Pop airplay. Taylor charting on the Country chart has much more to do with her Pop success, and that's not fair to those who do not have the same outlets, so to speak. I do think each genre will begin to recognize airplay charts as their official charts, because these revised genre charts are completely bogus in respect to each individual genre. But in this case you could argue that country radio is controlled by a handful of powerful corporations/execs and maybe the song's natural chart life was unfairly thwarted because of that (though in reality I know that Taylor has a very powerful label head on her side, the song's negatives among country listeners were quite high, and PDs couldn't drop it fast enough when provided with a more "country" Taylor song to play in its place). I' m actually with the people saying that airplay isn't always a fair indicator of total popularity even within a genre, because sometimes it seems like radio decides they are going to play this artist to death but not that artist because he hasn't "paid his dues" or she is a woman in a genre that's a boys' club and she's not one of the chosen ones. So, in theory I like the idea of adding downloads and streaming to the equation to keep the PDs in check a little, but in practice, the new rules will lead to the genre charts being dominated by pop songs. I'm not arguing against change either, I don't think anyone is. I would love a new chart with a balanced formula that doesn't heavily rely on crossover airplay and sales. This change, however, just isn't fair and doesn't represent genre-specific radio airplay fairly. Country airplay should have a much larger impact than Pop airplay and digital sales on the Country chart. The disproportion in the methodology is why chart watchers are disgruntled. These charts basically represent who can crossover into the most genres, and thus generate the most digital sales. These charts don't represent each genre in a way fans would generally like them to. They depict what the Billboard Hot 100 was already in place to do. To your first point, I'm sure chart manipulation occurs often... But I don't think this happening is justification enough to completely or partially discount the entire airplay chart(s). They're still great indicators of what's popular, and generally radio stations play what their listeners want to hear. Often they base their playlists on current Billboard charts and such. Airplay charts, while manipulated, are still much more fair and balanced in providing #1 opportunities for genre-specifc artists. Now I know they'll still exist, but they no longer being the "official" charts could really hurt each genre. In that, only certain acts will be able to hit #1, the rest will have to settle for less because they simply don't reach as many demographics as, say, Taylor or Rihanna. This, I don't think is fair for hardworking core acts who, until now, didn't find it necessary to reach past their own genre to score number ones.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 22:49:24 GMT -5
Billboard and the record companies just took some major power away from the radio stations. I love it. I would too except they didn't take power away from radio stations. Instead they mostly just spread the power between more radio stations instead. Now CHR/Pop stations have as much power as Country stations on CHR/Pop. I'm all for dropping the airplay component; I would love it if the Hot 100 and all Genre charts were 60% Sales 40% streaming. But if Billboard is intent on having airplay in the genre charts, then them extending other radio formats to have more power in those format charts isn't good. After all, a country song where sales + streaming (but minimal airplay) could have placed it at #1 might end up being blocked by a song that is large on airplay in both the country format and the chr/pop format. If the chr/pop format wasn't included, maybe then the sales + streaming could top the country airplay and get it that #1; but with chr/pop airplay added in, then it might not be able to. Thus meaning radio PDs still have plenty of power over the consumer, it's just different radio PDS. And believe it or not, the scenario I point out isn't even that crazy: it applies to "Red" vs "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" this week. If the power was truly in the hands of the consumer, "Red" would be the #1 country song. Instead CHR/Pop radio stations have the power to keep "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" as the #1 country song.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 23:00:47 GMT -5
Billboard wants to measure something that they are insisting is a - nay, the - relevant statistic, but to people upset with the change, this only serves to neglect certain segments' true desires.
Let's say I am a PD of an urban radio station in Podunk, MD. This station has been around for at least a couple of decades and has an established foothold in the area. It's an urban station so of course, the listeners must be urban music fans to some degree, and what I play is tailored to cater to these urban fans. I am not really concerned with what the CHR down the street is playing b/c that CHR is aiming for people with different tastes. I might be somewhat interested in sales, but without a solid method to extrapolate how many of those fans are urban, sales aren't as much help to me. I just want to know what urban fans are responding to, b/c that's the demographic I chose to court.
The new methodology is going to tell me that my listeners now want to hear songs like Diamonds, Scream, maybe Starships, and Psy. My listeners may start to call and complain b/c in actuality they don't want to hear those songs at all. But then I'll point to my data (aka my BB subscription and the fact that my Clear Channel or Cumulus overlords aren't really going to let me stray from their playbook) and say 'this is what urban listeners are saying they want now,' even though this contradicts my own anecdotal evidence, like Enough of No Love or Melanie Fiona's latest singles getting a lot of requests even though I only play them once or twice a day. My listeners will eventually stop calling to request or complain at all and tune out altogether b/c I'm not playing what they want to hear anymore. Lost listeners = lost Arbitron ratings = lost advertisers = lost money, and eventually Clear Channel/Cumulus will take that as a sign of lost interest in urban and change the station's format to a pop-leaning 'rhythmic.' If I'm lucky, it won't come to this extreme and my station will remain urban, but my playlist will basically become all hip-hop songs. But either way, r&b artists and r&b fans are the ones who lose out.
Or to make another comparison, it is reminiscent of when Let's Go was doing really well on pop but the sales weren't really matching that. Someone observed that it seemed rather weird that it wasn't doing "well," and other people pointed out that just b/c the song wasn't selling well digitally didn't mean it was a failure. The radio audience doesn't necessarily = the type of audience that will rush to download a song. This is much the same. The hypothetical audience at my radio station is not necessarily inclined to purchase songs at the rate that pop fans are, and so I can't really rely on that as an accurate measurement of popularity among core urban fans. For the moment I am stuck having to rely on airplay and callout response. It's not a flawless system but it did a much better job of gauging what my listeners would respond to than this new formula that at best, completely overhauled my station's sound and at worst, just put my station out of business.
It's natural that labels will be interested in what the most popular ___ song is across the country but since the most popular anything across the country is typically so popular because of its pop/pop-friendly qualities, all this does is enforce a concept we already know: songs with crossover appeal typically have more than one audience to court, and thus they get larger sales than songs that appeal specifically to one genre. The chart overhaul mistakenly assumes either a) that if it's the most popular song in that genre overall, then it will also be the most popular song in that genre among people who are solely fans of that genre or b) that crossover appeal should always be prioritized over niche interests. The former is not always going to be true and the latter is certainly unpalatable as it basically is saying "your choice of art form is not the most popular, therefore it is completely irrelevant and a waste of everyone's time." I really believe that BB and the people who are on board with this change just are not getting this fact. R&B stations shouldn't care what the most popular song is across the country when the audience they have doesn't have tastes that line up with that of the mainstream. I also find it interesting that in my (admittedly brief and purely anecdotal) observance of the uproar thus far, not one person in even partial support of this comes across as a hardcore urban fan. I find that rather telling. R&B fans are freaking out and wondering if this is the death knell of a genre that's already taken a beating over the past several years, and everyone else is looking at us like "...and if it was? *shrug* Viva la pop!"
Billboard can claim it's an effort to take power out of manipulative PDs' hands but this is a fallacy since all it does is take the power away from country/r&b/rock PDs and then hand most of it over to the CHR ones. It's not like indie artists are suddenly going to find it so much easier to chart now that those evil radio minions have been put in their place. If anything this makes it harder for them, as well as for major label acts who were struggling to get some attention. All this is going to do is homogenize the sound of radio.
And before a certain someone rehashes a certain point again, this is not me insisting that the charts should or will change back. Trust me, I am fully aware that we have no control over what BB does with its own charts and our gnashing of teeth is for naught...and that is what makes it so frustrating, b/c the idea that one can just look 'elsewhere' for chart information is a pipe dream. BB has a stranglehold on charts and even if there is another company out there that makes charts, people (labels, fans, media, etc.) always look to BB as the 'official' source, so any drastic rule changes are bound to eventually have an equally drastic effect on the industry overall. It's funny that PDs are being accused of having too much power when BB itself is guilty of the same thing. So yeah, it may be a moot point, but I'm going to continue gnashing my teeth about it until I discover some silver lining of my own, b/c it's really the only thing that is making me feel better about this right now.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,588
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 12, 2012 23:28:02 GMT -5
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 13, 2012 1:01:36 GMT -5
In Taylor's case, it's not so much that country listeners don't like it, it's country PDs that don't like it. But her fans (or maybe casual "fans") spoke up with digital sales. If you think that's true, you should look at several Facebook pages for country radio stations. Fans spoke loud and clear about how they didn't like this song and how they didn't think it should be played on country radio. It's mostly Taylor's pop audience that is buying this song on iTunes.
|
|
bornfearless2000
4x Platinum Member
SOMETHING IN THE WATER
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 4,030
|
Post by bornfearless2000 on Oct 13, 2012 1:43:18 GMT -5
Whoever are behind this new shit system will not live a happy live.
Maybe a success career or whatever, but not a happy live. They will get karma
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 2:00:56 GMT -5
In Taylor's case, it's not so much that country listeners don't like it, it's country PDs that don't like it. But her fans (or maybe casual "fans") spoke up with digital sales. And that's why she topped the Digital Charts. I don't see such an issue with having separate charts of digital sales & airplay. Finding the need to combine sales & airplay into genre-accordinated charting, as well as taking alternative airplay from other genres back into one original chart is absolutely illogical.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 13, 2012 3:51:04 GMT -5
Why would a PD look at these new charts to help determine what to play when they can still look at the still-existing airplay-only charts or their own callout data?
|
|
Lozzy
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 49,237
|
Post by Lozzy on Oct 13, 2012 4:46:43 GMT -5
People should cancel their subscriptions. Billboard is trash. Big Machine is a cheating mess trash >:( Big Machine hasn't done anything. "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" is #1 on country because of Billboard's changes, not anything Big Machine did. If you're calling them a "cheating mess trash" for pushing the song to country radio, there's nothing wrong in them having done that. I doubt they expected the song to be a country smash, but they knew that country airplay, however minimal it would be, would give the song increased airplay points thereby helping it on Radio Songs and the Hot 100. Lastly if you're calling them a "cheating mess trash" for the radio deal that helped the song reach #13 on the old country chart, Big Machine is not the only one to have employed such a tactic so there's no reason to single them out over the respective labels who have given Rihanna, Adele, One Direction and so on the same kind of radio deals. 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) I hate Billboard, for the record. 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. This example is again ridiculous, for two reasons. Firstly, LeAnn's version of "How Do I Live" was a #4 pop hit. Even with the Country Singles Sales chart only measuring sales from specialist country outlets, the song still had far more exposure than any other #43 country hit at the time. Say you're a country fan who primarily listens to country radio, but you happen to catch LeAnn's song on a pop station one day. That's a pop-driven sale, even if you have no interest in pop music. Secondly, this was 1997. Correct me if I'm wrong, but country single sales were basically dead by this point. Sales data had been long gone from Hot Country Songs for seven years, and we all know how slow Billboard is to implement required changes. And with a song spending 32(!) weeks at #1, that truly solidifies the irrelevance of the chart. Why are Billboard trying to compare that to sales today? Ridiculous. Signed. 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. I'm personally against the general sentiment of moving from a format-based chart to a genre-based chart. The idea behind it does make some sense, but when the #1 song on the country chart was rejected by country listeners and thus radio, I don't see how it deserves that recognition. And then there's the whole issue that "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" is not at all a country song, of course. But also: they're not specifying the changes they've made as moving from format-based charts to genre-based charts. Instead, they've described their changes as adding sales and streaming and they've hidden the part about multi-format airplay including deep into their article. Also, the new genre-based charts should not be sharing the name and history of the old format-based charts when they measure completely different things. I don't think labels should be able to dictate what genre songs are because then it gets into label politics. I think there should be a panel, possibly independent of Billboard, that decides what genre a song belongs to. This would be a decent idea (and far better than letting Billboard decide), but it still requires on somebody making a subjective decision, which I don't like. And I'm sure label politics would influence these decisions. There is also a consistency issue (probably one of many) that I already mentioned in the Country forum. The following tweets from Silvio Pietroluongo ( Billboard's director of charts) suggest even more strongly to me that he and his Billboard brethren are winging it when it comes to their definitions and policies. In response to the following question, "Artist X is smashing on pop/digitally & releases a country mix of that song. eligible for HCS?" Pietroluongo said:And followed that by saying:Taylor's "Never..." had a putatively country mix. It didn't make the song any more country, but the mix (produced by Dann Huff, who also did the so-called country mix of Kelly Clarkson's "Mr. Know It All") was sent to country radio. It was not, however, put on sale. By the logic that Pietroluongo laid out in discussing Kelly's attempt to cross over with "Mr. Know It All," it is only the airplay and sales of "Never..."'s so-called country mix that should have counted toward the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart. That would mean 2.995 million in audience impressions and zero sales. And no #1 for "Never..." on the Hot Country Songs chart, which would properly reflect the country market (not to mention the nature of the song itself, one that even Scott Borchetta characterized to Billboard* as a "pop record"). The consistency issue here shows that they really haven't carefully thought over the changes. Why would a PD look at these new charts to help determine what to play when they can still look at the still-existing airplay-only charts or their own callout data? I believe Cynthia already said the same thing, but urban PD's are so used to looking at Billboard's R&B chart that they haven't thought twice about "Diamonds" moving from #66 to #1 and are just assuming that "Diamonds" (and other pop songs by artists who have done R&B who will inevitably chart on R&B in the future) is in fact what R&B listeners want to hear. I'm sure they'll look at their own callout data too, but the R&B chart has measured the same thing for so long that urban PD's have gotten used to it being what it was and as Cynthia said, they're giving up their power and letting Billboard shape them rather than shaping Billboard as they should be doing. -- That's all I have to say in regards to the last few pages. I fully agree with Cynthia, Billy Shears, Jazzy, carrieidol1, 43dudleyvillas and so on.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Oct 13, 2012 6:44:42 GMT -5
"How Do I live" would have spent like 30 weeks at #1 :o
|
|