dajross6
Platinum Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 1,133
|
Post by dajross6 on Oct 15, 2012 23:00:53 GMT -5
This new chart is going to be ruled by Carrie and Taylor or whichever artist has crossover history and a brand new album coming out. Billboard isn''t going to change, no matter how much the fans yell. Billboard doesn't produce the charts for the fans, and doesn't make their money from the fans. They make their money from advertising in their magazine (which i subscribe to) which mostly consists of ads from music labels and other industry things. If anything, Billboard is getting a ton of PR over it.
I hate, hate, hate the new chart. But no matter how much I hate it, fans won't be the ones who get it changed. Artists and labels would need to rise up and stop paying for advertising in the magazine, but that's not likely to happen. With Taylor's AI at pop (which is approximately 2-3 times higher that of a normal #1 country song) how many weeks is she going to spend at #1 on this new chart? Maybe when a song spends 20 or so weeks at the top people will really see how dumb it is.
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Oct 15, 2012 23:11:06 GMT -5
but it's not like radio programmers didn't previously have access to see what songs were big sellers. that's what the digital songs chart is for, so why would this new chart suddenly make them change their minds about what to play? IMO with music overall, I think the Hot 100 being the main chart that mainstream artists care about, the chart that they brag about having achievements on, that it sort of acts like a check on radio programmers. There are airplay-only charts in Top 40/Hot AC too, but labels will go to radio with sales data and argue, "Look at how well this song is doing on the chart of record (the Hot 100)...why aren't you playing this song? Since people are buying this song, wouldn't more people listen to your stations if you played it?" Sometimes you do get songs that have massive airplay without the corresponding sales, or a song that sells well that radio sort of ignores, but I think it happens less in pop than it does in country. At least the programming decisions, as a chart follower, are overall less baffling and less seemingly manipulated. But when the digital sales chart is just a throwaway chart like it was in country, and it didn't factor in to the "old" Hot Country Songs at all, why would programmers pay attention to it? It didn't really count for/towards anything that mattered so its data was very easily ignored. But now that sales are huge component of the "official" chart, if PDs/corporate blocks decided to base more of their programming decisions from the rankings on the "new" HCS, then sales would become more of a factor in what actually gets played on country radio, theoretically anyway. In reality I know that's not going to happen.
|
|
wastedtime
New Member
Joined: February 2006
Posts: 209
|
Post by wastedtime on Oct 15, 2012 23:35:24 GMT -5
The "as long as it's a country song" part is the real hangup...I just think pop mixes should have no part in determining a how well a song does on the country charts. I think it was time for the genre charts to start counting streaming and sales, instead of maintaining the position that the most popular [genre] song of the week is only what [genre] radio says it is. Billboard is just really messy about classifying which genre a song belongs to. They also really need to rethink the whole pop mix issue, especially as it pertains to country. Other than that, though, I don't have a problem with huge sales allowing a song to chart high on a genre chart even without corresponding airplay. If 300K people are buying a country song, is it not a popular country song for that particular week? The new chart is trying to measure a somewhat different thing than what the old chart did and a lot of people can't get past that. For music overall, I generally like the Hot 100. Songs that have sold well for weeks and gotten a decent Hot 100 position are sometimes given a chance at Top 40 because programmers can see that wow, this song has been selling well for weeks, so maybe they should get on board with what people like, and they start playing it more. I can't see that as a bad thing. Ideally, the new country chart would work the same way and give more female artists, or artists who were decent sellers but radio was lukewarm about, a chance to get more airplay at country. But, with Billboard counting pop mix airplay from Top 40/Hot AC/AC/etc. on the "new" Hot Country Songs, the new chart is going to be completely ignored by programmers, at least in country, and I don't think that's what Billboard was hoping for. Yes, this is my issue exactly. I'd like to have clarification on how they plan to handle pop remixes of country songs. I don't have a problem on them counting the sales generated from these remixes because I don't see a way to do it, but also they generally don't sell the pop remix so people are still buying a country song. But I don't think a pop remix's airplay should count on the country chart.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 16, 2012 0:00:52 GMT -5
but it's not like radio programmers didn't previously have access to see what songs were big sellers. that's what the digital songs chart is for, so why would this new chart suddenly make them change their minds about what to play? IMO with music overall, I think the Hot 100 being the main chart that mainstream artists care about, the chart that they brag about having achievements on, that it sort of acts like a check on radio programmers. There are airplay-only charts in Top 40/Hot AC too, but labels will go to radio with sales data and argue, "Look at how well this song is doing on the chart of record (the Hot 100)...why aren't you playing this song? Since people are buying this song, wouldn't more people listen to your stations if you played it?" Sometimes you do get songs that have massive airplay without the corresponding sales, or a song that sells well that radio sort of ignores, but I think it happens less in pop than it does in country. At least the programming decisions, as a chart follower, are overall less baffling and less seemingly manipulated. But when the digital sales chart is just a throwaway chart like it was in country, and it didn't factor in to the "old" Hot Country Songs at all, why would programmers pay attention to it? It didn't really count for/towards anything that mattered so its data was very easily ignored. But now that sales are huge component of the "official" chart, if PDs/corporate blocks decided to base more of their programming decisions from the rankings on the "new" HCS, then sales would become more of a factor in what actually gets played on country radio, theoretically anyway. In reality I know that's not going to happen. But that's what the overall hot 100 chart is for. It's VERY easy to pick out the country songs from the chart and put them in order, so I don't understand why this new chart was needed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 0:17:16 GMT -5
Wow, that parallel to the Hot 100 is really telling. It's more than a parallel. The new country chart is essentially nothing different than what we already had with the Hot 100. The only slight difference is Jana Kramer must already be recurrent for some reason on the Hot 100, or it is a copy and paste error (she wasn't on the list, which I got from the General News section of Pulse). Otherwise, it's the same...WANEBGT, Red, Carrie, Hunter, Jason, FGL, etc. They're all in the same order on Hot Country Songs as they are on the Hot 100, it's just that Billboard removed all the non-country songs. It makes no sense. I'm literally laughing at how stupid it is. The new chart wouldn't bother me all that much if a) it didn't include multi-format airplay and b) if it wasn't the main chart, but just a new chart...or, in other words, if it hadn't assumed the history/records of Hot Country Songs from 1990 through last week. If they really want to have a "Country Hot 50" by pulling all the country songs out of the Hot 100 and listing them 1-50, that's fine by me. But don't make it the main chart, the continuation of what we've had since BDS began tracking airplay in 1990...which leaves the "Airplay chart" as the spin-off chart. So essentially, in the Billboard record books, all the songs that went #1 this year are #1 hits on Hot Country Songs, but instead of Jason getting a 3rd week at #1, suddenly Taylor leapfrogs from 21-1, despite dropping to #36 on airplay and going recurrent there tonight. The info that this new chart shows is is not new. We already had access to this. I can go on the Hot 100, and type the order of country songs into a Word document, and voila! The new "Billboard Hot Country Songs"!
|
|
wastedtime
New Member
Joined: February 2006
Posts: 209
|
Post by wastedtime on Oct 16, 2012 0:38:17 GMT -5
^It's not called the #1 country song though, it's the#7 (or whatever) song on the Hot 100.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 0:42:17 GMT -5
^It's not called the #1 country song though, it's the#7 (or whatever) song on the Hot 100. You're missing my point. The new chart is redundant, because anyone can already say it's the biggest country hit if they really feel that, based on Hot 100 rankings. The new chart is not a new chart at all...it's just the Hot 100 minus non-country songs. All this new chart does is slap different numbers next to the songs. It's not going to fool anybody who follow charts. We already knew for weeks and weeks that WANEGBT was higher on the Hot 100 than any other country song. So the changes made to the country chart don't make any sense.
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 21,000
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 16, 2012 1:06:15 GMT -5
The only problem I find with the new-found methodology of the Hot Country Songs chart is the seemingly erroneous genre designations (I would not classify "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" as a country song). I have absolutely no issue with the new chart completely replacing the old chart, as I've said for quite a while that I believe the inclusion of downloads were needed to provide a more accurate depiction of what is truly popular with country audiences as a whole (and not just what's popular amongst radio programmers). I even think the idea of including airplay from other formats is fine (given the song accumulating this airplay is actually country, or at the least country-flavoured). I mean, would this many individuals be upset if it were "Hard To Love" sitting pretty at #1 on the new chart (dominating with the extra crossover airplay)? I don't think so.
Though there are certain justifiable (what I consider to be justifiable, of course) reasons why some might be upset with these changes, it is clear there would have been quite a bit of opposition with much of any change to this chart. The individuals who've been following this chart, for the most part, have been following it for years upon years (and most people, in general, are resistant to change of any kind when something becomes this reliable/fixed). In fact, I remember finding quite a bit of opposition when taking part in a discussion revolving on the inclusion of digital sales (a lot feared the charts would then be monopolized by younger artists who have more digitally-inclined and/or rabid fanbases and that older artists would suffer). Though it is an abrupt shift, and it's a lot to take in (particularly with this trial and error period), I think the chart is moving in the right direction.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 1:11:31 GMT -5
I mean, would this many individuals be upset if it were "Hard To Love" sitting pretty at #1 on the new chart (dominating with the extra crossover airplay)? I don't think so. I'd be equally upset if Lee was #1, or it it was Carrie, Keith Urban, Kenny Chesney, Big & Rich, you name it. It's not who's #1, or the song that's #1, it's the chart itself. And I think you underestimate the vast majority of us here, if you think the only reason we don't like the new chart is because Taylor is on top. My question to you, then, is...if it was someone other than Taylor at the top and people weren't in an uproar, what does that say about Taylor?
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 21,000
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 16, 2012 1:18:11 GMT -5
if you think the only reason we don't like the new chart is because Taylor is on top. I don't believe I ever said or even implied the only reason (or even a reason) members didn't like the chart was because Taylor was on top. ??? I implied some individuals were probably upset because of the song itself (as it's not in the least bit country). There is a big difference there.
|
|
wastedtime
New Member
Joined: February 2006
Posts: 209
|
Post by wastedtime on Oct 16, 2012 1:30:14 GMT -5
^It's not called the #1 country song though, it's the#7 (or whatever) song on the Hot 100. You're missing my point. The new chart is redundant, because anyone can already say it's the biggest country hit if they really feel that, based on Hot 100 rankings. The new chart is not a new chart at all...it's just the Hot 100 minus non-country songs. All this new chart does is slap different numbers next to the songs. It's not going to fool anybody who follow charts. We already knew for weeks and weeks that WANEGBT was higher on the Hot 100 than any other country song. So the changes made to the country chart don't make any sense. Lol, I'm not really, I do get your point. I was just saying the new chart isn't redundant for the media, artist, labels, etc. A #1 gets bragging rights that a #7 doesn't get.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 1:33:33 GMT -5
if you think the only reason we don't like the new chart is because Taylor is on top. I don't believe I ever said or even implied the only reason (or even a reason) members didn't like the chart was because Taylor was on top. ??? I implied some individuals were probably upset because of the song itself (as it's not in the least bit country). There is a big difference there. I almost went with Taylor/WANEGBT in my post, as in, using them interchangeably. Guess I should've done that. But that raises another issue, if you just want to focus on the song rather than an artist. Where do you draw the line on what's considered country and what isn't? And that's another big reason why I don't like the new chart (that, and the fact that we already have the Hot 100). Country is the most listened to genre in the nation, and radio ratings continue to soar. The vast majority of listeners like what their local stations are playing. So I think if country radio plays songs and most of the listeners like it, then it probably fits well enough to be classified as 'country'. WANEGBT did get airplay on country radio, but it obviously received some major resistance. And I think it's logical to assume such a song wouldn't have gotten much, if any, airplay had it been released by a relatively unknown artist. But it was new Taylor, so it got played. I just think the new chart is too messy. Genre lines are always being blurred nowadays, but there will always be people who like pop music, and people who like country music, and people who like rock music. So while I do acknowledge that genre lines get blurred and sounds get mixed, I think this new chart methodology compromises genres way too much. It works for the all-genre Hot 100, but we're dealing with individual genres here, and suddenly including other formats' airplay and sales in the chart really hurts artists who don't cross-over.
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 21,000
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 16, 2012 1:47:15 GMT -5
Where do you draw the line on what's considered country and what isn't? And that's another big reason why I don't like the new chart Which ties right back into my initial issue with the chart (designating the genre of each song: is or isn't it "country") while also highlighting the dominant example the opposition led with in demeaning the new chart ("We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"). I was simply saying had it been a country song (by Taylor or whatever artist), as opposed to an obvious pop song topping the chart this week, the outrage wouldn't have been as explosive.
|
|
desertfloods
2x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by desertfloods on Oct 16, 2012 1:51:50 GMT -5
I mean, would this many individuals be upset if it were "Hard To Love" sitting pretty at #1 on the new chart (dominating with the extra crossover airplay)? I don't think so. I agree. That's precisely why the new chart is so flawed. It's a pop song hogging the country chart undeservedly, charting because of the airplay and sales of its pop version. Of course many country fans will be pissed. ======== Sometimes people (not you, but in general), look at avatars of people like me, and automatically assume it's just some jealous Carrie fans ranting. Majority of everyone who are opposing this new chart have said that including digital sales is an acceptable (even good) move, but the problem just lies in Billboard's total failure in executing the move. Taylor's song just happened to be the convenient and perfect example of Billboard's stupidity. It's not that hard to set a minimum country airplay requirement/ratio for the new chart, Billboard. After all, you didn't do any hard work setting up the new chart anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 2:08:45 GMT -5
Which ties right back into my initial issue with the chart (designating the genre of each song: is or isn't it "country") while also highlighting the dominant example the opposition led with in demeaning the new chart ("We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"). I was simply saying had it been a country song (by Taylor or whatever artist), as opposed to an obvious pop song topping the chart this week, the outrage wouldn't have been as explosive. For me, it's not really who or what is at the top of the chart. And, like I've said, the new chart doesn't really bother me all that much. It confuses me, because I don't like adding airplay and sales and would rather keep separate charts for them, but if the industry wants to have another chart to tout their accomplishments, that's fine by me. A country version of the Hot 100...I've never followed the Hot 100 or cared about it at all, and I won't care about the country version of it. The existence of this new chart itself is not really the problem. It's the fact that Billboard is presenting it as the 'main country chart' now, and it's assuming all the old records and statistics through last week when Hot Country Songs was still airplay-only. So we've had a fairly long list of #1 hits this year, and recently it went LBT's "Pontoon", then Hunter's "Wanted", followed by Jason's "Take A Little Ride"...and suddenly Taylor follows Jason at #1? It's just ridiculous. This new version of Hot Country Songs should have just had a different name. Taylor can be #1 on it all she wants, dominating it like she dominates the Hot 100 (better than other country artists, anyway). But the natural succession of the 'main country chart' or the old version of Hot Country Songs should've had Jason getting a 3rd week at #1, followed by Carrie, then Lee, then probably Luke Bryan, etc.
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 21,000
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 16, 2012 2:16:08 GMT -5
While I'll agree there should be a clear distinction between the old and new chart (for at least one obvious reason: the way they are compiled), I personally believe the chart using the new methodology should be the "main" chart from this point forward (given they fine-tune their designation skills). In my opinion it's an evolution from the airplay-only chart.
|
|
jptexas
3x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2007
Posts: 3,700
|
Post by jptexas on Oct 16, 2012 6:19:21 GMT -5
While I'll agree there should be a clear distinction between the old and new chart (for at least one obvious reason: the way they are compiled), I personally believe the chart using the new methodology should be the "main" chart from this point forward (given they fine-tune their designation skills). In my opinion it's an evolution from the airplay-only chart. IMO, there will always be hard core country fans that will view the new chart the same way we now view baseball records in the years of steroids, not the real deal. I'm one of them. I will always view so called country songs that are topping the new chart with my own personal asterisk. ********
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Oct 16, 2012 6:20:59 GMT -5
It's not that hard to set a minimum country airplay requirement/ratio for the new chart, Billboard. After all, you didn't do any hard work setting up the new chart anyway. I don't like a minimum airplay requirement. Say the Dixie Chicks reunite and release a new song that sells massively for weeks/months. I like that the (theoretical) song would chart well on Hot Country Songs now, where it really wouldn't before, since the group has been essentially blacklisted by country radio. I think that is what Billboard is trying to do in using downloads and streams in addition to airplay to capture what the most popular country song of the week is, on the official country chart. Sure, it matches up with the Hot 100 in a way, but the Hot 100 doesn't really matter, or it's at best a bonus, to the world of country (or R&B, Rap, etc.). What Billboard wants to do is move on from solely using the airplay chart as the "chart of record" for genres and in theory I think that is not a bad idea. I do agree that in practice that it's been extremely messy so far and could use a lot of tweaking.
|
|
Az Paynter
Diamond Member
On Dsico's Block List™
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 110,672
|
Post by Az Paynter on Oct 16, 2012 8:31:20 GMT -5
I'm a pop forumer by trade, but this whole chart change-up bothers me. Like others have said, I agree with the inclusion of sales, but don't like the crossover airplay thing. For country at least, it should be: sales + streaming + country airplay. No 'minimal airplay requirement' because that limits what can chart (ie. if you're not getting played on radio you just don't chart, which isn't exactly fair). Thing is, if country songs don't sell nearly as well on iTunes as pop fare, then most country songs would be around a sales level where they can still actively compete against each other.
The big complaint about crossover airplay and such - I get it. MASSIVE advantage to crossover acts; but very few ACTUALLY cross over, so there are very few that would ACTUALLY receive such an unfair advantage. By taking crossover airplay out of the equation they may still have a sizable advantage due to sales, but by all accounts would bring them much closer to earth in relation to everybody else. WANEGBT, for example, would take a massive blow on the country chart as its airplay component would be all but obliterated, leaving only streaming and sales to give it buoyancy. With other songs then having a massive airplay advantage over her in this way, it would then mean that WANEGBT would cease to be an infallible roadblock at the top of the country chart.
If artists DID actually cross over, and their sales went up, then good for them - they would get a boost on the country chart because of people actually buying the song, and not arbitrarily because it's getting spam-played on Pop/Hot AC/AC/Whatever.
|
|
dawhite76
New Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 357
|
Post by dawhite76 on Oct 16, 2012 9:09:32 GMT -5
Here's something to ponder:
If Billboard had implemented this change several months ago, "Ever" would now be in its seventh week at No. 1 Country. Assuming it would remain No. 1 this and next week which is likely considering its sales and increasing airplay in other formats (it will be No. 2 at Mainstream Top 40 on this Thursday's chart), she would tie and then surpass Connie Smith's 48 year old record for having the longest running No. 1 ("Once A Day") by a female artist in the history of the Country Singles chart.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 16, 2012 9:34:58 GMT -5
Here's something to ponder: If Billboard had implemented this change several months ago, "Ever" would now be in its seventh week at No. 1 Country. Assuming it would remain No. 1 this and next week which is likely considering its sales and increasing airplay in other formats (it will be No. 2 at Mainstream Top 40 on this Thursday's chart), she would tie and then surpass Connie Smith's 48 year old record for having the longest running No. 1 ("Once A Day") by a female artist in the history of the Country Singles chart. Which I would consider to be just this side of blasphemous as even Borchetta has openly admitted that Taylor's song isn't a country song!
|
|
desertfloods
2x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by desertfloods on Oct 16, 2012 9:46:24 GMT -5
It's not that hard to set a minimum country airplay requirement/ratio for the new chart, Billboard. After all, you didn't do any hard work setting up the new chart anyway. I don't like a minimum airplay requirement. Say the Dixie Chicks reunite and release a new song that sells massively for weeks/months. I like that the (theoretical) song would chart well on Hot Country Songs now, where it really wouldn't before, since the group has been essentially blacklisted by country radio. I think that is what Billboard is trying to do in using downloads and streams in addition to airplay to capture what the most popular country song of the week is, on the official country chart. Sure, it matches up with the Hot 100 in a way, but the Hot 100 doesn't really matter, or it's at best a bonus, to the world of country (or R&B, Rap, etc.). What Billboard wants to do is move on from solely using the airplay chart as the "chart of record" for genres and in theory I think that is not a bad idea. I do agree that in practice that it's been extremely messy so far and could use a lot of tweaking. I should clarify my point a bit. I would like to see a minimum airplay ratio in comparison to the song's airplay in Pop/HAC/etc. This is basically to weed out "crossover" songs like WANEGBT. Instead of Billboard themselves trying to play the genre police, better to let the airplay make the decision. But then again, that doesn't solve the problem that you pointed out (Dixie Chicks). Perhaps there's another way to solve this issue as well.
|
|
joey2002
6x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 6,372
|
Post by joey2002 on Oct 16, 2012 12:27:57 GMT -5
The new chart is not a new chart at all...it's just the Hot 100 minus non-country songs. Bingo. This week: Hot Country Songs = Hot 100 — non-country songs + Jana Kramer
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,581
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 16, 2012 17:40:08 GMT -5
Here's something to ponder: If Billboard had implemented this change several months ago, "Ever" would now be in its seventh week at No. 1 Country. Assuming it would remain No. 1 this and next week which is likely considering its sales and increasing airplay in other formats (it will be No. 2 at Mainstream Top 40 on this Thursday's chart), she would tie and then surpass Connie Smith's 48 year old record for having the longest running No. 1 ("Once A Day") by a female artist in the history of the Country Singles chart. Wouldn't it be on more than 7 weeks at #1? I thought it went to #1 on the Hot 100 in its 2nd week on the chart. The chart released this week will mark its 10th week on the chart, so it would be hitting its 9th week at #1 on Country Songs under the new methodology. It has no end in sight, really, since it's still climbing at Top 40.
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Oct 17, 2012 0:34:14 GMT -5
Since BB creates charts for the industry and they claim they received industry input, I have to wonder what country programmers (or industry executives) they spoke with? This was the rationale for changing the H100 in 1998 to allow airplay only tracks and then to allow any digital tracks to chart regardless of whether it had airplay or promotion. It just seems completely counter to include non-country airplay on this chart. As was noted above country airplay, all sales + streaming seems like better way to go. I'd be shocked if BB didn't make this switch in a few weeks. Just like BB weighs sales/airplay/streaming in different ways - it could do the same with this chart - like 60% airplay, 30% sales, 10% streaming or whatever. Something like that seems like a fair approach. Of course, like BB did a few years ago, it can adjust sales ratio (it was 2:1 and then because sales were booming it went to close 1:1), etc.
|
|
zinzi
New Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 16
|
Post by zinzi on Oct 17, 2012 6:38:26 GMT -5
Other then the obvious issues like songs charting because of pop airplay. I also dont understand why album songs and songs that where not released as singles should be charting.
Looking at itunes today, if we applied it directly to the new Billboard chart then we will see 5 Taylor Swift songs in the top 10, and 10 Jason Aldean songs in the top 50. How can this be labeled as being representative of the country community? Album tracks from the big stars could hang around for 2-3 weeks (or sometimes longer) and then fall away. This doesn't really tell you that song is a hit. While other smaller artists just gets pushed back on the chart, but they have actually been charting in that same position for weeks. Which one, would you really consider a hit? The song that has consistently remained in the same place for weeks, or the song that will only be there for 2 weeks? It is especially bad for new artists, someone like Greg Bates for example will properly lose a lot of positions this week because album tracks are suddenly allowed to chart. "Did it for the girl", didn't suddenly lose popularity in the country community this week, he is just being pushed out temporarily. But the problem is, this week it is Jason Aldean and next week it is Taylor Swift ext. ext. The system is heavily flawed, as in essence you will never really know how well the songs from new artists and medium artists are actually doing. Having album tracks chart is completely irrelevant it is not like PD are suddenly going to start pushing these songs because they are selling. If someone wants to see how their album tracks are doing then they could just look at itunes. The same principal applies to old songs as well, it just isn't representative of the latest country music.
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,648
|
Post by onebuffalo on Oct 17, 2012 9:35:26 GMT -5
Love their explanation: MIDWEEK UPDATE IS A HIT: Thanks to our readers for the overwhelmingly warm reception for the new Thursday edition of Billboard Country Update, which launched Oct. 11. Many subscribers responded enthusiastically about editor Tom Roland’s new “Makin’ Tracks” feature, and the expanded menu of fresh Nielsen SoundScan charts and BDS features also drew applause. We heard cheers for the new country-specific On Demand Songs list, which ranks the top on-demand play requests and plays from listener-controlled radio channels at leading music subscription services. Although we responded to a number of concerns from consumer readers regarding the new Billboard Hot 100-style Hot Country Songs chart methodology that includes an all-inclusive radio panel, digital downloads and streaming data, our business-to-business readers unanimously praised the new rankings. Most of the comments we received from non-industry chart watchers dealt with a perceived worry that certain core country artists—and other country acts that only occasionally enjoy crossover airplay—might be disadvantaged by the new rankings. While we’re sensitive to that perception and genuinely appreciate the passionate fans who voiced it, technology-based charts have historically been accepted incrementally following some initial doubt. When Billboard, Nielsen BDS and SoundScan pioneered such charts in the early 1990s, we heard plenty of impassioned pleas to reconsider. This and other reader feedback has always been crucial to the mission of these charts to always tell the truth, even when it hurts. We’re confident that all of our beloved artists, along with the industry and fans who support them, will benefit from the broader view that only this new chart can provide. WADE JESSEN Senior Chart Manager wade.jessen@billboard.com
|
|
mikem
New Member
Gillian Welch 'The Harrow and the Harvest'
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 242
|
Post by mikem on Oct 17, 2012 10:07:14 GMT -5
^ In other words, fans don't know squat and should shut up and like it. I call bull crap.
|
|
lsujules
New Member
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 30
|
Post by lsujules on Oct 17, 2012 11:52:41 GMT -5
is the mid week update out yet?
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,648
|
Post by onebuffalo on Oct 17, 2012 11:53:41 GMT -5
is the mid week update out yet? Thursdays for Hot Country Songs, Mondays for Country Airplay.
|
|