|
Post by Β€ Matthea Β€ on Oct 13, 2012 7:08:36 GMT -5
I personally only care for two Billboard charts: BB 200 and Hot Digital Songs.
I don't like charts that combine different components based on a certain formula to determine the most popular songs in the USA in general or in certain genre. I don't care about HOT 100 chart on these new Hot X Genre Charts. Mixing apples, oranges and peas (radio airplay, sales, streaming) just doesn't make sense. Why can't they just have separate charts for radio airplay, sales and streaming and leave it at that?!
I understand that people are upset that a song that is not really country is #1 on the main country chart because of the crossover radioplay and sales. I get it. At the same time I'm happy that the main country chart is no longer just based on country format radioplay.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 13, 2012 7:35:30 GMT -5
Any silver lining is that Billboard's chart department has been forced (by the speed of modern technology) to be more nimble and fast changing their chart rules than in the past. Recall it took FOUR YEARS for the magazine and the music industry to agree how to incorporate album cuts onto the Hot 100. Now, if this new system bombs WITH THE INDUSTRY, it will be modified quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 7:40:01 GMT -5
Does the Pop 100 still exist?
|
|
Lozzy
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 49,237
|
Post by Lozzy on Oct 13, 2012 7:47:03 GMT -5
Does the Pop 100 still exist? No. It was discontinued in 2009.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 13, 2012 7:58:14 GMT -5
I think your post makes good points Slizzard and there are a lot of issues and factors that could and likely will result from this change. The one thing I disagree with, and we might just agree to disagree, is that I don't think just because country radio listeners reject a song should mean it shouldn't be allowed to chart. In using the example of the Dixie Chicks again, if they came out with a new album this year, there's a chance that most country stations wouldn't even play anything from it due to the 10 or 15% of listeners that haven't moved on from their comments in 2004 and will change the station immediately if they came on. 10-15% audience loss is huge for a radio station and likely not a chance they'd be willing to take. So even if they get requests to play the song, they'd likely avoid it anyway. So even if this DCs song, no matter how country it sounds, gets little country radio airplay, it'd make up for it in downloads and streams perhaps. Would you still say it has no place on a country music chart because of the choice of radio?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 7:58:49 GMT -5
Just curious. The .biz archives have pop 100 charts through 9-1-12. Was wondering if there was anything after that.
Anyway, although I think the changes are a good thing and any fan attempt to change it will get them to recite the standard line "Although we are pleased we have fans, we ultimately serve the industry" tere is a precedent for trying something like this and failing.
In the case of the Pop 100, they used Pop airplay and the entire digital chart (rather than the genre chart - which had not existed yet (first charts were 2010)
Obviously wrong since the all-genre digital chart contains more than pop.
The point here is, this was a chart that was tried and discontinued due to failure.
If these new charts follow the same path, these wil fail too but it won't happen right away and it will only happen if the industry tells them too change. (Fan input won't do a thing)
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,587
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 13, 2012 8:00:19 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. The issue I have with this response is that a lot of people seem to have an "all or nothing" approach. Most people are not upset about sales being included. We understand the need for that. The LeAnn Rimes' example is fine in that sense. What most people are upset about is non-genre airplay counting towards genre charts. I don't like how in the other response they mention not being able to separate out genre sales and streaming. So what? You can separate out genre airplay, so why not do it? With their reasoning I wouldn't ever recycle; my recycling company won't separate out plastic but will separate out paper. I guess I can't recycle paper because we can't separate out everything. WTH? Lame.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 8:02:04 GMT -5
I think non-genre airplay being included is good. The chart is intended to measure the popularity of country songs, not country songs within the country market.
A country song being played on another format is still a country song and SHOULD be a bigger hit
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,587
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 13, 2012 8:07:48 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. And who is arguing your downloads shouldn't be counted? I don't see anyone saying that. Where is this "all or nothing" mentality coming from? I think if Billboard had just changed their methodology to include downloads (and maybe streaming) and that was it, there wouldn't be much controversy at all. People understand including sales. Again, what people are upset about is Top 40 airplay counting toward genre charts. Let's see the reaction when Taylor has pop songs spending dozens of weeks at #1 on Country Song at the expense of true country hits. "WANEGBT" would be on its 9th week at #1 right now had the methodology been in place all year. And it has no real end in sight since its non-country airplay is still increasing. Is that really what people want?
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Oct 13, 2012 8:08:46 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. Everyone has been buying the pop version of We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together. Now maybe if the country mix had been available to buy, then it would have sold well too, but since it hasn't, it doesn't make sense to me that the airplay and sales of a pop version are being used to say, "This is such a popular country song!" But in this particular case where a country and a pop version of a song exist, for sales anyway, it would be pretty easy for Billboard to say, only the sales of the country version will be considered as a component on the country charts. Just figure it out from Hot Digital Tracks. Maybe if the sales of WANEGBT hadn't been counted by any country chart, then that might have pressured Taylor's label to release the country mix of it. I don't know about airplay, because maybe, I don't know, some random pop stations are spinning the country mix, and with other crossover country songs, sometimes Top 40 or especially Hot AC/AC stations have played the original unremixed versions instead of the pop mixes. Can Billboard break down airplay of songs the same way they do with sales (pop mixes, clean vs. explicit, remixes with rappers, etc.)? I think that's what they should be doing with the new chart rules. I think it's really strange to reward artists for doing pop remixes, on genre charts. Isn't a better Hot 100 position reward enough?
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,587
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 13, 2012 8:09:22 GMT -5
I think non-genre airplay being included is good. The chart is intended to measure the popularity of country songs, not country songs within the country market. A country song being played on another format is still a country song and SHOULD be a bigger hit But how does that help country PDs, record labels, etc. know what a country audience wants to hear? As has been stated, the goal is now general crossover acceptance. In other words, artists like Frank Ocean, Anita Baker, Dierks Bentley, Patty Loveless, etc. are going to be marginalized because they cater to a specific audience and not a broad one. That's a real slippery slope.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 8:13:53 GMT -5
I think non-genre airplay being included is good. The chart is intended to measure the popularity of country songs, not country songs within the country market. A country song being played on another format is still a country song and SHOULD be a bigger hit But how does that help country PDs, record labels, etc. know what a country audience wants to hear? As has been stated, the goal is now general crossover acceptance. In other words, artists like Frank Ocean, Anita Baker, Dierks Bentley, Patty Loveless, etc. are going to be marginalized because they cater to a specific audience and not a broad one. That's a real slippery slope. As I have stated before, what country PDs tell their audience they should hear and what the country audience wants to buy are often two different things. If there are distinct differences this could be a tool for PDs to say they should be playing something differnt
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 13, 2012 8:16:39 GMT -5
Karma? For a change to music charts? If one feels that strongly about it, perhaps it's time to get those life priorities in order?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 8:19:27 GMT -5
Karma? For a ' change to music charts? If one feels that strongly about it, perhaps it's time to get those life priorities in order. LOL - I love that (starting petitions, sending in complaints and so forth will do nothing) From a fan perspective, these are entertainment charts - nothing more
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 13, 2012 8:21:42 GMT -5
I think non-genre airplay being included is good. The chart is intended to measure the popularity of country songs, not country songs within the country market. A country song being played on another format is still a country song and SHOULD be a bigger hit Which was already depicted on the ALL GENRE BILLBOARD HOT 100. People took pride in these genre charts in that they were specific to their given genre. The most popular "Country" song was already shown on the Billboard Hot 100, and that was the purpose of that chart. Making every other chart a hybrid replica is illogical because they've always represented songs within the confines of each genre, not overall success. Again, that's what people referred to the Billboard Hot 100 for. The meaning and significance of these charts are for naught now. Carrie Underwood's amazing ride is over, she'll never be able to sustain such a streak on essentially an all-genre including chart. All the previous records kept are essentially meaningless considering the new formula. Reba's 30+ #1s, George's 50+ #1s are all just history. Their airplay success will remain charted, but with that no longer being the official chart, their #1s from now on will no longer be recognized as official Country #1s, and therefore their records are effectively frozen. Only a few, a select few, may continue adding #1s to their respective lists. Carrie is considerably lucky as she has a very strong following, with debuts she could quite easily garner more #1s throughout her career. The same goes with Taylor Swift, obviously, and possibly recent popular crossover acts like Rascal Flats and Lady Antebellum. That's about it. Unless other Country acts crossover into Pop airways, they'll no longer be able to score what is now recognized as an "official Country #1". I think in the very least a compromise would make people happy. If the old chart remained "official" along with the new one, to now have two official charts, I'd be fine. However, this new one being the only "official" chart is upsetting to those who have, all their chart-following lives, followed the Country Airplay chart as their official one.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 13, 2012 8:29:22 GMT -5
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 don't agree with this. Billboard already has a chart which includes sales and streamings: the Hot 100. Even when Frank's song will not be played at Urban radio, its airplay at other formats, its sales and its streamings will still contribute to its showing and peak on the Billboard Hot 100. As long as he has airplay on Urban radio, it will be reflected on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. When Urban radio stops playing it, it will go recurrent. No big deal, it'll still be a hit on another chart.
|
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on Oct 13, 2012 8:44:06 GMT -5
Which was already depicted on the ALL GENRE BILLBOARD HOT 100. True, but this isn't the first time Billboard has used a chart methodology which has essentially been a distillation of another chart (e.g., the old methodology for compiling Rap Songs was basically to go down the R&B chart and pick out the charting rap.) Make whatever arguments you will about the relevance of respective charts, but there are still charts that represent the same data. Very little has been lost with these changes. If you really feel that way, then the easy solution is to stop following meaningless charts. Records on all charts should be considered in context. Example: With the Hot 100's inclusion digital sales, it became easier for artists to chart multiple songs, leading to a lot of modern artists moving up the list of most Hot 100 hits of all time. This is a fact; one can't argue with the quantity of titles any individual artist charted. However, understanding how existing formulas of any given time period affected various artists' ability to put songs on the chart offers valuable context when determining the significance of these and other chart statistics. Anyone who used to look at any given chart record and failed to think about context was not getting much useful knowledge, in my opinion. This essentially amounts to an argument that the old way is better because we've always done it that way. I could see your point if the Country Airplay data stopped being tracked by Billboard and other reputable sources, but since one will still be able to monitor it, there's little point in making an argument about historic chart watching. Now, I do agree that, in many ways, it would be easier if Billboard kept chart histories of charts with the most similar formulas together, even when they shifted the status of each chart. For example, when Billboard chose to allow catalogue titles on the Billboard 200 (a smart move, in my opinion), I think it would have been better to have shifted the history of Comprehensive Albums to match that of the 200, but I can also understand the 1984-ish aspects to revisionist history that publications may find off-putting, so am not terribly bothered by the fact that I simply have to keep the rule change in mind when I am comparing data before and after. I think that general principle is going to have to be what those of us who wish to continue monitoring the affected genre charts use when making our analyses.
|
|
|
Post by Quixotic Music Lover on Oct 13, 2012 9:07:28 GMT -5
Based on this thread, I must be one of the very few that has warmed up to the new charts. The weakness of the "old" charts (that still exist) was that they only tracked radio airplay. The collapse of the sale of physical sales put an end to the inclusion of sales in R&B and country charts. It is impossible to link digital sales to R&B radio airplay (for example), so if one believes, like I do, that sales should be factored into a music popularity chart the only way to go is a chart that includes all airplay not just airplay at the genre station. The same goes for streaming. I personally wish Billboard had done this sooner.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 10:31:29 GMT -5
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.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 13, 2012 10:33:50 GMT -5
But, the Hot 100's evolved to include streaming, which was not part of the equation- that "messed with" the airplay/sales dynamic. So, should the chart not be called the Hot 100?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 10:39:38 GMT -5
Let's see the reaction when Taylor has pop songs spending dozens of weeks at #1 on Country Song at the expense of true country hits. "WANEGBT" would be on its 9th week at #1 right now had the methodology been in place all year. And it has no real end in sight since its non-country airplay is still increasing. Is that really what people want? Yeah. Since Country rarely crossover over, I feel like the chart is going to turn into one Taylor Swift song after another at the top and a lot of songs getting 15 week reigns at the top.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 13, 2012 10:40:37 GMT -5
What most people are upset about is non-genre airplay counting towards genre charts. I don't like how in the other response they mention not being able to separate out genre sales and streaming. So what? You can separate out genre airplay, so why not do it? With their reasoning I wouldn't ever recycle; my recycling company won't separate out plastic but will separate out paper. I guess I can't recycle paper because we can't separate out everything. WTH? Lame. But it's not non-genre airplay. A country song played on a pop station is still a country song (unless it's a remix version which is a different matter). There's a difference between a genre and a format. I don't think the existence of this new chart should be a problem since the old charts still exist. I think doing it the way many people are suggesting is just redundant. Though having this new chart replace the old airplay-only chart right away might not have been the best idea.
|
|
allow that
Diamond Member
Fall into the atlas
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 14,792
|
Post by allow that on Oct 13, 2012 10:42:02 GMT -5
But, the Hot 100's evolved to include streaming, which was not part of the equation- that "messed with" the airplay/sales dynamic. So, should the chart not be called the Hot 100? Clearly not the same. The chart still measures the same thing regardless of that change: the most popular songs in the country. The sampling frame stayed the same: the whole country. The new R&B and Country charts are claiming to measure subcultures bu have changed the sampling frame from the Urban core and Country core to the whole country; yet call it the same thing as before.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 10:43:51 GMT -5
But, the Hot 100's evolved to include streaming, which was not part of the equation- that "messed with" the airplay/sales dynamic. So, should the chart not be called the Hot 100? Clearly not the same. The chart still measures the same thing regardless of that change: the most popular songs in the country. The sampling frame stayed the same: the whole country. The new R&B and Country charts are claiming to measure subcultures bu have changed the sampling frame from the Urban core and Country core to the whole country; yet call it the same thing as before. Yeah they changed the Hot 100 seeking to find a more accurate way to measure the same thing. In this case, they're not measuring the same thing and they've stated that. So it's basically a different chart operating under the same name.
|
|
peterca
New Member
Joined: August 2010
Posts: 313
|
Post by peterca on Oct 13, 2012 10:57:02 GMT -5
I think non-genre airplay being included is good. The chart is intended to measure the popularity of country songs, not country songs within the country market. A country song being played on another format is still a country song and SHOULD be a bigger hit Yes, as long as the country song was not re-mixed for another format AND as long as the song was designated "country" when released to country radio. Why "Ronan" is a country song and #34 on the hot country songs chart is beyond me. Why "Red" is #2 on the hot country songs chart when it has not been released to country radio is also beyond me.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 13, 2012 11:04:26 GMT -5
I feel like sending them some more emails.
|
|
ericNY2002
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by ericNY2002 on Oct 13, 2012 11:05:03 GMT -5
The main change I would make to the new country chart would be to set a minimum requirement of airplay on monitored country stations (maybe like be added 40 or 50% of the panel, or at least be in the top 50 on the airplay chart) to be eligible to be on this new country chart. This would prevent "album cuts" like Red and Ronan being on the chart, since they aren't offical country singles.
Other than that and possibly making airplay a little more of an important part of the formation of the chart, Im fine with it
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 11:07:06 GMT -5
I feel like sending them some more emails. What will this accomplish?
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 13, 2012 11:25:00 GMT -5
Yah, this obviously is something Billboard's wanted to do for some time. I get the logic of including all sales and all airplay- some will like it, some won't- as it goes with most things in life.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 13, 2012 11:36:28 GMT -5
I feel like sending them some more emails. What will this accomplish? My personal pleasure.
|
|