layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 12:31:19 GMT -5
layne I don't agree with your support of the new methodology Billboard will be using, but you are obviously knowledgable and make your argument in a thoughtful way, so more power to you. I agree that the folks in the industry could rebel and take Mediabase to heart as their official chart. But, I, and I suspect you, don't think that will happen. Instead, I wonder if you agree this is the more likely scenario: The labels will now see three sources for number-one songs rather than two: Mediabase, the Hot 100 chart and the Airplay chart. Sure, topping the airplay chart won't qualify as an official number-one in Billboard's historical record, but the PR people will tout it as a number-one none-the-less, and fans will eat it up. (Actually, I hope this does happen, starting with Arista's handling of Carrie's song next week). The problem, and here's where we won't agree, is that PR people don't create the historical record, and I feel Billboard has made a huge mistake replacing the airplay chart with the new methodology to create that record. Billboard has also put me in an awkward position re: Mediabase. I follow MB daily because they make the daily chart available. But, in my heart, I always felt it was a bit too gimmicky and secretive, making it easier to manipulate. I always said Billboard just made sense: If your song is heard by more people than mine, you win. Now, I find myself looking at Mediabase as the more sensible chart, and that requires some eating of words. Never a tasty treat. I don't think this chart is great or perfect. I don't agree with sales being given so much weight or airplay from other genre's being included. I am totally against having the main two charts being radio airplay only though. The industry already recognizes mediabase so I feel like there needed to be another official chart that factored in more than just what radio decides is a hit or will be a hit. I understand your feelings on the historical records and most here know that I'm a huge Carrie Underwood fan so I'm upset with that as well. I'll be honest, I do think if the industry is upset with this enough that they will and should make it known by ignoring the chart and issuing a statement declaring that they intend on using the mediabase system for their "Official" records from here on forward. Why aren't all the label heads and official people speaking out about this if it's so bad and unfair? Those are questions I have. Just to clarify, I'm not at all saying this is the greatest chart and the best chart, but I am saying the other system was flawed moreso than maybe people here want to admit. For example: I'm upset the Jason Aldean song was released after Blown Away, got a CC deal, was allowed to race up the charts first and spend 3 weeks at #1. There will never be the perfect chart. It's all subjective. On your mediabase/Billboard comparison doesn't it bother you that "if your song is heard by more people than mine you win" this is being determined solely by the radio PD's? I mean who are they to determine that Leann Rimes and the Dixie Chicks can't have Hits anymore if people want to hear their music and buy it.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 12:31:54 GMT -5
Hi, I'm a lurker here also and enjoy reading all the comments and learning about the charts. I'm with the majority here in thinking this chart is not good for the genre. I somehow hope we're all proved wrong, but right now it's not looking good. I read one of the comments in the country universe.net article mentioning Bill Werde of Billboard being best friends with Scott Borchetta and this chart having something to do with Big Machine and Bill Werde being in "cahoots". Does anyone think this comment has any truth in it or is she/he just an angry fan? I read that comment and wondered the same thing. I usually don't buy into these conspiracy theory remarks, BUT the timing of this chart does look extremely suspicious. I always kinda chuckle to myself about the Carrie/ Taylor fan wars but this is seriously going to fan that. I'm trying to stay out of the Taylor thread all together as some of her supporters actually taking this weeks BB "achievements" to heart actually made my head hurt.
|
|
Kanenrá:ke
Moderator
ethereal eternal nonexistent
she left her briquettes out in typical heaux fashion.
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 12,270
Staff
|
Post by Kanenrá:ke on Oct 12, 2012 12:41:35 GMT -5
Honestly take out the pop airplay part of the formula and I have absolutley no problem with this new system. Yes Taylor and other cross overs will have an easier time on the chart, but there's no way to seperate weather a country listener or a pop listener bought something so there's no way for sales to be seperated. Until the pop airplay has no factor in the new chart I'm going to mostly ignore it. I'll keep the historical data as whatever they post on the airplay chart as that will be the true representative of what Country is playing.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 12:45:05 GMT -5
layne I don't agree with your support of the new methodology Billboard will be using, but you are obviously knowledgable and make your argument in a thoughtful way, so more power to you. I agree that the folks in the industry could rebel and take Mediabase to heart as their official chart. But, I, and I suspect you, don't think that will happen. Instead, I wonder if you agree this is the more likely scenario: The labels will now see three sources for number-one songs rather than two: Mediabase, the Hot 100 chart and the Airplay chart. Sure, topping the airplay chart won't qualify as an official number-one in Billboard's historical record, but the PR people will tout it as a number-one none-the-less, and fans will eat it up. (Actually, I hope this does happen, starting with Arista's handling of Carrie's song next week). The problem, and here's where we won't agree, is that PR people don't create the historical record, and I feel Billboard has made a huge mistake replacing the airplay chart with the new methodology to create that record. Billboard has also put me in an awkward position re: Mediabase. I follow MB daily because they make the daily chart available. But, in my heart, I always felt it was a bit too gimmicky and secretive, making it easier to manipulate. I always said Billboard just made sense: If your song is heard by more people than mine, you win. Now, I find myself looking at Mediabase as the more sensible chart, and that requires some eating of words. Never a tasty treat. I don't think this chart is great or perfect. I don't agree with sales being given so much weight or airplay from other genre's being included. I am totally against having the main two charts being radio airplay only though. The industry already recognizes mediabase so I feel like there needed to be another official chart that factored in more than just what radio decides is a hit or will be a hit. I understand your feelings on the historical records and most here know that I'm a huge Carrie Underwood fan so I'm upset with that as well. I'll be honest, I do think if the industry is upset with this enough that they will and should make it known by ignoring the chart and issuing a statement declaring that they intend on using the mediabase system for their "Official" records from here on forward. Why aren't all the label heads and official people speaking out about this if it's so bad and unfair? Those are questions I have. Just to clarify, I'm not at all saying this is the greatest chart and the best chart, but I am saying the other system was flawed moreso than maybe people here want to admit. For example: I'm upset the Jason Aldean song was released after Blown Away, got a CC deal, was allowed to race up the charts first and spend 3 weeks at #1. There will never be the perfect chart. It's all subjective. On your mediabase/Billboard comparison doesn't it bother you that "if your song is heard by more people than mine you win" this is being determined solely by the radio PD's? I mean who are they to determine that Leann Rimes and the Dixie Chicks can't have Hits anymore if people want to hear their music and buy it. so you think WANEGBT deserves to be #1 when country FANS rejected it?? a ton of country fans love "take a little ride," which is why it hit #1! if there were enough country fans who despised "take a little ride" it would NOT have hit #1. i honestly don't believe hits on country radio are determined SOLELY by the radio PDs. fans DO have a say, which is why the outrage with WANEGBT stopped it from hitting even top 10.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 12:49:56 GMT -5
^I never said TALR didn't DESERVE to be #1. Country fans shouldn't have even been subjected to WANEGBT. Country radio forced it down our throats and played it until she offered them another song.
If fans had much of a say, Alan Jackson and Chris Youngs songs would be doing better.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 12:51:11 GMT -5
Why aren't all the label heads and official people speaking out about this if it's so bad and unfair? Those are questions I have. Just to clarify, I'm not at all saying this is the greatest chart and the best chart, but I am saying the other system was flawed moreso than maybe people here want to admit. For example: I'm upset the Jason Aldean song was released after Blown Away, got a CC deal, was allowed to race up the charts first and spend 3 weeks at #1. There will never be the perfect chart. It's all subjective. One of the big reasons this scares me is from a historical and record-keeping perspective as well, especially since, apparently Joel Whitburn is using a cut-off date for his next book that correlates to the introduction of this new chart. Some of the responses we've gotten from the suits at Billboard said that 'the industry was very favorable'. I have a hard time believing that. I can see them being favorable to a certain extent--after all, like others said, there may be 3 charts now where they can all go after a #1 ranking--but if this new Billboard chart is gonna be the main chart, I have a hard time believing all the main labels (corporate or independent) in Nashville would sign off on this chart, especially since it includes airplay from other formats, and the vast majority of country stars don't get airplay at Pop radio, AC/HAC radio, etc. Essentially, if the industry signed off on it, that means they're ok with Taylor and the occasional other cross-over hit dominating this chart most of the year. And I just don't see why anybody from Sony, Universal, Warner, etc...basically anyone who's not Scott Borchetta and Big Machine--would be ok with that, and sign off on making this new chart the "main" chart. As for the part in your quote, layne, about Jason vs. Carrie, I don't really feel that that's the best example to use. Not everyone sees Carrie's "Blown Away" as the greatest song ever. Jason's last album was the highest-selling country album since what, Lady A's "Need You Now"? So I am perplexed why people would think that his next lead single (TALR) would move slowly up the chart. It was his lead single...of course it was gonna explode up the chart. Now, I'm with you on the Clear Channel shenanigans...anyone who follows my posting record knows I am against that and too much power being held at corporate radio. But, to be honest, with or without the Clear Channel deal, Jason would've almost certainly peaked at about the same time anyway...and that's ahead of Carrie. If they still tout Billboard Airplay #1's as "#1's", I can be ok with that. Because maybe, like some of you have brought up, this new chart will just be another that they can all battle for #1...and maybe it'll be enough to satisfy certain labels (cough Big Machine) that, if they can see themselves at #1 on this new chart, they won't feel like they need an airplay #1, since people will be able to go online or look in the records and see this new chart showing them at #1. But then again, Big Machine has already made those exclusive deals with both Clear Channel and Entercom... Sigh...I don't like this new chart, but I can't get rid of it. Yes Taylor and other cross overs will have an easier time on the chart, but there's no way to seperate whether a country listener or a pop listener bought something so there's no way for sales to be seperated. I've got a suggestion...separate airplay and sales on to different charts, since they are two entirely different and un-related things!
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 12:56:21 GMT -5
Why aren't all the label heads and official people speaking out about this if it's so bad and unfair? Those are questions I have. Just to clarify, I'm not at all saying this is the greatest chart and the best chart, but I am saying the other system was flawed moreso than maybe people here want to admit. For example: I'm upset the Jason Aldean song was released after Blown Away, got a CC deal, was allowed to race up the charts first and spend 3 weeks at #1. There will never be the perfect chart. It's all subjective. One of the big reasons this scares me is from a historical and record-keeping perspective as well, especially since, apparently Joel Whitburn is using a cut-off date for his next book that correlates to the introduction of this new chart. Some of the responses we've gotten from the suits at Billboard said that 'the industry was very favorable'. I have a hard time believing that. I can see them being favorable to a certain extent--after all, like others said, there may be 3 charts now where they can all go after a #1 ranking--but if this new Billboard chart is gonna be the main chart, I have a hard time believing all the main labels (corporate or independent) in Nashville would sign off on this chart, especially since it includes airplay from other formats, and the vast majority of country stars don't get airplay at Pop radio, AC/HAC radio, etc. Essentially, if the industry signed off on it, that means they're ok with Taylor and the occasional other cross-over hit dominating this chart most of the year. And I just don't see why anybody from Sony, Universal, Warner, etc...basically anyone who's not Scott Borchetta and Big Machine--would be ok with that, and sign off on making this new chart the "main" chart. As for the part in your quote, layne, about Jason vs. Carrie, I don't really feel that that's the best example to use. Not everyone sees Carrie's "Blown Away" as the greatest song ever. Jason's last album was the highest-selling country album since what, Lady A's "Need You Now"? So I am perplexed why people would think that his next lead single (TALR) would move slowly up the chart. It was his lead single...of course it was gonna explode up the chart. Now, I'm with you on the Clear Channel shenanigans...anyone who follows my posting record knows I am against that and too much power being held at corporate radio. But, to be honest, with or without the Clear Channel deal, Jason would've almost certainly peaked at about the same time anyway...and that's ahead of Carrie. If they still tout Billboard Airplay #1's as "#1's", I can be ok with that. Because maybe, like some of you have brought up, this new chart will just be another that they can all battle for #1...and maybe it'll be enough to satisfy certain labels (cough Big Machine) that, if they can see themselves at #1 on this new chart, they won't feel like they need an airplay #1, since people will be able to go online or look in the records and see this new chart showing them at #1. But then again, Big Machine has already made those exclusive deals with both Clear Channel and Entercom... Sigh...I don't like this new chart, but I can't get rid of it. Yes Taylor and other cross overs will have an easier time on the chart, but there's no way to seperate whether a country listener or a pop listener bought something so there's no way for sales to be seperated. I've got a suggestion...separate airplay and sales on to different charts, since they are two entirely different and un-related things! jhomes87: I know not everyone sees Carrie's song as the greatest song ever, but not everyone see's Jason's as the greatest song ever. Carrie's song wasn't even her lead single and it is every bit as big of a hit as Jason's and I don't agree his song should have moved quicker than hers just because it was a lead single/ he sold a ton of Albums etc. She is just as big of a Star in this industry as Jason and that's where you and I seem to disagree with the way radio does things. If Taylor was removed from the equation Carrie's song would have been #1 and not Jason's on the new chart. Maybe not fair, but this is my point on having two different charts to be able to pull from. I am not one of these people that think Taylor Swift will be a dominate force forever.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 13:18:20 GMT -5
^I never said TALR didn't DESERVE to be #1. Country fans shouldn't have even been subjected to WANEGBT. Country radio forced it down our throats and played it until she offered them another song. If fans had much of a say, Alan Jackson and Chris Youngs songs would be doing better. i don't think you're taking into consideration the opinions of ALL country fans though. not ALL country fans love what alan jackson is putting out on radio. a lot of country fans don't necessarily even care about him anymore, especially with people saying how country fans are younger these days. and by changing this new chart, it will make songs by people alan jackson do EVEN WORSE than they are now. is that really the direction you think things should be headed??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 13:21:55 GMT -5
Layne: So you think this new chart would make Jason's song move slower? No, not at all. He exploded out of the gate with sales and would've been ahead of Carrie from week #1. Like you said, it's all subjective...no one can ever say one song or one artist is always better than another, because those are opinions.
Let me be clear...I like Carrie's song a LOT more than I like Jason's. But it has been like this for decades, and it makes sense...brand new songs move faster than songs that are on already released albums. It's all about the hype. When Jason's song came out, it was the first song from an album that no one knew anything about. Carrie released BA after the album was out. I'm sorry, but a lot of these examples don't make any sense to me. If it was Jason's 2nd single and Carrie's lead single, she would've gone up faster, so I don't see what the big deal is about that.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 13:26:13 GMT -5
^I never said TALR didn't DESERVE to be #1. Country fans shouldn't have even been subjected to WANEGBT. Country radio forced it down our throats and played it until she offered them another song. If fans had much of a say, Alan Jackson and Chris Youngs songs would be doing better. i don't think you're taking into consideration the opinions of ALL country fans though. not ALL country fans love what alan jackson is putting out on radio. a lot of country fans don't necessarily even care about him anymore, especially with people saying how country fans are younger these days. and by changing this new chart, it will make songs by people alan jackson do EVEN WORSE than they are now. is that really the direction you think things should be headed?? The opinions of ALL country fans include the Taylor Swift fans you do realize?
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 13:28:26 GMT -5
i don't think you're taking into consideration the opinions of ALL country fans though. not ALL country fans love what alan jackson is putting out on radio. a lot of country fans don't necessarily even care about him anymore, especially with people saying how country fans are younger these days. and by changing this new chart, it will make songs by people alan jackson do EVEN WORSE than they are now. is that really the direction you think things should be headed?? The opinions of ALL country fans include the Taylor Swift fans you do realize? not the taylor swift fans who only listen to pop radio or who are fans of her because of her POP songs, which there are A LOT of.
|
|
McCreerian
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 9,087
|
Post by McCreerian on Oct 12, 2012 13:29:33 GMT -5
www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/re...007978862.storyBillboard's Genre Chart Policy Changes: A Letter From the Editor October 11, 2012 | By Bill Werde (@bwerde), Editorial Director I've been watching the feedback online regarding the Billboard chart policy changes that went into affect today. If you're unaware of these changes, you can read this. An excerpt: "Billboard unveils new methodology today for the long-standing Hot Country Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot Latin Songs charts. Each receive a major consumer-influenced face-lift, as digital download sales (tracked by Nielsen SoundScan) and streaming data (tracked by Nielsen BDS from such services as Spotify, Muve, Slacker, Rhapsody, Rdio and Xbox Music, among others) will now be factored into the 50-position rankings, along with existing radio airplay data monitored by Nielsen BDS. The makeovers will enable these charts to match the methodology applied to Billboard's signature all-genre songs ranking, the Billboard Hot 100." While we discussed these changes at length with the music industry, and the feedback from that quarter has been supportive, there is some confusion -- and yes, occasional foaming-at-the-mouth outrage -- from fan camps who have seen some of their favorite stars drop down the charts. I hear you, fans, and I'm really gratified that our charts are so very meaningful to you. I wanted to take a few minutes to engage on your points, which seem to fall into a couple of baskets. If you'd like we could schedule a Google Hangout to discuss this further. I really love the dialogue. Basket 1: I really like Brandy, and she just dropped from no. 3 to no. 16 on your Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Chart Obviously, this isn't just about Brandy. And if it is, for you, let me assure you, I really like Brandy too! I had a chance to speak with her at the Billboard Music Awards afterparty in May, and I assure you, I walked away thinking there couldn't possibly be a more lovely person. But here's the way I think about this: the former R&B/Hip-Hop Chart was effectively 100 percent based on radio. And basing the primary chart on radio play only feels out of touch with what's actually happening with music. The fans have no direct voice with radio. It's a push format -- someone else decides what you're going to listen to, and with what frequency. Are those of you upset about this rule change suggesting that what fans are streaming on Spotify or buying at iTunes shouldn't count? Fans have the power today -- more than they have ever had in the history of the recorded music business -- and these chart changes honor that reality, above all else. Basket 2: Now the country chart will only ever be topped by Tay Tay Alternate Basket 2: Now the R&B chart will only ever be topped by Ri Ri I have empathy for fans of deeper genre cuts that will likely slide down the charts a bit, to make room for the juggernaut digital-track sales of more mainstream stars. This week, for example, Taylor Swift's "Red" debuts at no. 2 on the Country Songs chart, based largely on the strength of her digital downloads. Truth? A hit doesn't just look like one thing anymore. Mumford and Sons are getting some nice Triple A and Alt Rock radio play, but they are setting streaming records on Spotify. That's a hit. Psy - like Cee-Lo before him -- launched a song that was viewed more than 100 million times on YouTube before radio ever touched it. That's a hit. And if an established country act like Taylor Swift releases a song like "Red" that sounds like a country song, and that becomes the no. 2 selling digital track in the U.S., well that song is a hit, and yes, by our standards, a country hit, also. Radio remains an important part of the equation, but it's no longer the only part. A song isn't a genre hit ONLY if that genre's radio stations decide or are incentivized to play it. 3. But I love Carrie Underwood so much that it makes me hate anything that's good for Taylor Swift, even if it's only good for Taylor Swift in the short term and, at some point, will almost certainly be good for Carrie Underwood also. I suggest a deep breath and some therapy. I like chocolate (vegan) ice cream. It's never once made me launch a campaign against vanilla. Why can't we all just get along? 4. Psy as the top rap track?! You are a racist who is trying to gentrify the rap charts. I'll spare you my rap cred, and say this: every week, Billboard makes dozens of calls about the various charts a song should be eligible for. Take dance: what makes a track a dance track? Is it the BPM? Is it "electronic sounds"? Is it "I don't know, man, this just sounds like a dance track"? What is a song that is a ballad but then has an electro chorus? The point is: We make these calls. We've been doing it for 50+ years. We'll make a bunch more next week. We take it very seriously. We work at codifying the process, so that anyone who assumes the job of a genre chart manager can inherit guidelines for making these decisions. As for Psy, if you Google "Psy" and "rapper" you get millions of hits. No less an authority than Wikipedia identifies him this way: " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psy_(rapper)". So we're not going out on a limb here. In fact, I'd ask this: how is it anything but racist to exclude Psy from the rap chart? I'm always happy to engage further. Let me know in the comments if you'd like to take part in a Google Hangout on the topic. If there's demand, we'll get one scheduled. Thanks for reading! Bill Werde is Billboard's editorial director. Twitter: twitter.com/#!/bwerde Tumblr: billwerde.tumblr.com/Read more at www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/re...moIkTeEKP8rd.99
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 13:29:42 GMT -5
Layne: So you think this new chart would make Jason's song move slower? No, not at all. He exploded out of the gate with sales and would've been ahead of Carrie from week #1. Like you said, it's all subjective...no one can ever say one song or one artist is always better than another, because those are opinions. Let me be clear...I like Carrie's song a LOT more than I like Jason's. But it has been like this for decades, and it makes sense...brand new songs move faster than songs that are on already released albums. It's all about the hype. When Jason's song came out, it was the first song from an album that no one knew anything about. Carrie released BA after the album was out. I'm sorry, but a lot of these examples don't make any sense to me. If it was Jason's 2nd single and Carrie's lead single, she would've gone up faster, so I don't see what the big deal is about that. No, I don't think it would make his song go up slower. Last week though, Carrie's song would have been #1 instead of Jason getting a 3rd week because she had higher sales and as you can see the higher sales would have made up for the Audience difference Jason had over her on the Country chart. Carrie's lead single sat in the top 10 and waited until many songs that were 4th and 5th singles from Albums had their turn at #1. My examples don't make sense to you because you like the system and can't see why I don't like it. I may be the only person on Pulse that see's that it's not right but I assure you I'm not the only person with my views on radio airplay. I respect your opinion and I'm not close minded to your points but you and i just don't see this the same.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 13:32:00 GMT -5
Layne: So you think this new chart would make Jason's song move slower? No, not at all. He exploded out of the gate with sales and would've been ahead of Carrie from week #1. Like you said, it's all subjective...no one can ever say one song or one artist is always better than another, because those are opinions. Let me be clear...I like Carrie's song a LOT more than I like Jason's. But it has been like this for decades, and it makes sense...brand new songs move faster than songs that are on already released albums. It's all about the hype. When Jason's song came out, it was the first song from an album that no one knew anything about. Carrie released BA after the album was out. I'm sorry, but a lot of these examples don't make any sense to me. If it was Jason's 2nd single and Carrie's lead single, she would've gone up faster, so I don't see what the big deal is about that. No, I don't think it would make his song go up slower. Last week though, Carrie's song would have been #1 instead of Jason getting a 3rd week because she had higher sales and as you can see the higher sales would have made up for the Audience difference Jason had over her on the Country chart.that argument is pointless anyway because taylor would have been #1
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 13:36:42 GMT -5
"I hear you, fans, and I'm really gratified that our charts are so very meaningful to you."- Bill Werde is Billboard's editorial director.
Past tense dude, past tense.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 13:37:56 GMT -5
No, I don't think it would make his song go up slower. Last week though, Carrie's song would have been #1 instead of Jason getting a 3rd week because she had higher sales and as you can see the higher sales would have made up for the Audience difference Jason had over her on the Country chart.that argument is pointless anyway because taylor would have been #1 And I think I made that point to her by saying if you take Taylor out of the equation.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 13:46:22 GMT -5
Regardless , there is no alternate reality where this chart is going to ever help Alan Jackson, Chris Young or anyone else that doesn't have cross over appeal. It will harm them and encourage even more cross Polenating of genres which I would argue is already destroying Country musics identity.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 13:48:25 GMT -5
^Let's throw Justin Bieber into the equation! According to Billboard, they get to decide the genre of a song, according to discussions with a label. Here's a scenario...the 10/13 chart was the last chart without all this nonsense. Let's say George Strait had gotten #1 with a song. But this week, Bieber wants to release a country song, and gets Big Machine or some other label to promote just that one song, as a country song. Maybe it gets 5 curiosity spins on country radio, but it's highly unlikely (even if it was slightly country) that it does anything at country radio. But wait! Justin sold 400,000 downloads on iTunes this week! And the new Billboard Hot Country Songs #1 belongs to...Justin Bieber! Justin replaces George at #1. An extreme example, I know. But I'm trying to illustrate all the issues that this new chart has, and that's just one of them. Wait 'til release week for Taylor...she'll probably have almost the entire top 10. So, in 1 single week, she could score 10 top 10's...at that rate, she'll have all the records in a few short years.
|
|
layne
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by layne on Oct 12, 2012 13:48:50 GMT -5
Regardless , there is no alternate reality where this chart is going to ever help Alan Jackson, Chris Young or anyone else that doesn't have cross over appeal. It will harm them and encourage even more cross Polenating of genres which I would argue is already destroying Country musics identity. The current radio airplay chart isn't helping them either. It's maddening to me that radio refuses to play Alan Jackson's new song.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 13:53:21 GMT -5
^Let's throw Justin Bieber into the equation! According to Billboard, they get to decide the genre of a song, according to discussions with a label. Here's a scenario...the 10/13 chart was the last chart without all this nonsense. Let's say George Strait had gotten #1 with a song. But this week, Bieber wants to release a country song, and gets Big Machine or some other label to promote just that one song, as a country song. Maybe it gets 5 curiosity spins on country radio, but it's highly unlikely (even if it was slightly country) that it does anything at country radio. But wait! Justin sold 400,000 downloads on iTunes this week! And the new Billboard Hot Country Songs #1 belongs to...Justin Bieber! Justin replaces George at #1. An extreme example, I know. But I'm trying to illustrate all the issues that this new chart has, and that's just one of them. Wait 'til release week for Taylor...she'll probably have almost the entire top 10. So, in 1 single week, she could score 10 top 10's...at that rate, she'll have all the records in a few short years. I dont think that is extreme at all. Looking at this weeks chart I think almost any pop star could score a # 1 country hit by simply releasing a "country remix". I could almost see it as a common place thing if it gave an artist bragging rights. Regardless , there is no alternate reality where this chart is going to ever help Alan Jackson, Chris Young or anyone else that doesn't have cross over appeal. It will harm them and encourage even more cross Polenating of genres which I would argue is already destroying Country musics identity. The current radio airplay chart isn't helping them either. It's maddening to me that radio refuses to play Alan Jackson's new song. As it does me, but I still fail to understand how this chart could ever help that in anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 13:58:20 GMT -5
Regardless , there is no alternate reality where this chart is going to ever help Alan Jackson, Chris Young or anyone else that doesn't have cross over appeal. It will harm them and encourage even more cross Polenating of genres which I would argue is already destroying Country musics identity. The current radio airplay chart isn't helping them either. It's maddening to me that radio refuses to play Alan Jackson's new song. So the new chart gives more people the opportunity to influence what is popular than some guy at a radio station. Songs that don't land at radio can become popular by other means now.
|
|
McCreerian
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 9,087
|
Post by McCreerian on Oct 12, 2012 13:59:59 GMT -5
I am in full agreement with the editior. Its great even he says radio, not fans, controls what people hear and its forced onto listeners. So this takes radio as the largest factor out of the equation and replaces it with sales, for the "official" record. Yes this in the short term will make Taylor the queen of the chart, but it won't last forever.
This has got to have radio PDs and Corporate heads spitting fire that their tight grasp of control and backroom deals (like Clear Channel) will not work anymore and they have to start from scratch! This has been coming for a long time and it pleases me beyond words to see it happening.
Layne is right, songs like Alans scored big on listener surveys but yet radio ignored it for the most part. His current single in radio practically does not exist. So radio may have listened to fans about Taylor's pop song but they sure didn't listen to fans about Alan's Country songs. Radio people listen to fans for their own convienence. Alot in Country radio hate Taylor and are looking for any excuse not to play her. Alot in Country radio don't care about Alan anymore and consider him old news. So fans gave them an excuse not to play Taylor and they chose to ignore fans and not play Alan. So Alan is doomed on either way the chart works.
Country radio has derserved a shake up like that for a long time to knock a lot of people off their high horse. Yes it may hurt certain artists in the process but the old way was painful as well and in my view even more corrupt.
If Justin Bieber gets a Country #1 cause he had a Country label behind him and sales counted toward that, I see that as fair. Radio is old news and by the time I have grandkids they won't even know what a radio is just like kids of today don't know what an 8 track is. Things change and I say for the better!
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 12, 2012 14:12:40 GMT -5
i don't understand how you guys think that the "control" suddenly jumps from RADIO to FANS. i'd say it jumps more from RADIO to RECORD LABELS. how about they discount tracks on itunes so they can sell more and make it to #1? or they can release ALL songs off the album individually to itunes before they're released so each one can have a turn at #1? in fact, why even have country radio at all?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 14:19:58 GMT -5
i don't understand how you guys think that the "control" suddenly jumps from RADIO to FANS. i'd say it jumps more from RADIO to RECORD LABELS. how about they discount tracks on itunes so they can sell more and make it to #1? or they can release ALL songs off the album individually to itunes before they're released so each one can have a turn at #1? in fact, why even have country radio at all? Labels can release any thing any time they choose. The power to buy into it still rests with the fans. A discount track or a countdown single going to #1 just because there is such a thing means that the artist is in demand with the fans. The label for another artist could employ that trick and watch it fall flat.
|
|
McCreerian
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 9,087
|
Post by McCreerian on Oct 12, 2012 14:22:29 GMT -5
i don't understand how you guys think that the "control" suddenly jumps from RADIO to FANS. i'd say it jumps more from RADIO to RECORD LABELS. how about they discount tracks on itunes so they can sell more and make it to #1? or they can release ALL songs off the album individually to itunes before they're released so each one can have a turn at #1? in fact, why even have country radio at all? Fans still have to choose to buy the song that the record label will mark down. We are going back to the 40s and 50s when 45 records were the largest part of charting with radio being the new factor. Well now digital songs are the largest part with radio being the old factor. Everything comes in circles! I would not be surprised to see modern radio be gone in my lifetime. And I would not miss it one bit.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,590
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 12, 2012 14:24:02 GMT -5
Any clue how recurrent status will work? With crossover play added in, Taylor's songs might never drop below the top 10-20 when compared to true genre tracks.
|
|
Dustin J.
3x Platinum Member
90's country guru
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 3,088
|
Post by Dustin J. on Oct 12, 2012 14:24:33 GMT -5
Regardless , there is no alternate reality where this chart is going to ever help Alan Jackson, Chris Young or anyone else that doesn't have cross over appeal. It will harm them and encourage even more cross Polenating of genres which I would argue is already destroying Country musics identity.This, this, this! Could not have possibly said it any better.
|
|
Uncle Lumpy
3x Platinum Member
The poster formerly known as Lumpster
Joined: September 2005
Posts: 3,425
|
Post by Uncle Lumpy on Oct 12, 2012 14:31:34 GMT -5
If you want to stop corruption this chart will do nothing to fix that problem. The only thing that will fix that problem is busting up the conglomerates in radio and the labels. It used to be illegal to own more then a handful of radio stations & why that was deregulated I will never understand. Its a monopoly & makes it entirely to easy for only a handful of people to delegate if a song is a hit or not. Giving BB the power to decide what song belongs in what genre is only adding power to an organization that probabily already has to much power. You think its going to hurt some artists? I think it is going to destroy some artists.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2012 14:34:47 GMT -5
Giving BB the power to decide what song belongs in what genre is only adding power to an organization that probabily already has to much power. . BB does not make those decisions
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,590
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 12, 2012 14:35:02 GMT -5
The current radio airplay chart isn't helping them either. It's maddening to me that radio refuses to play Alan Jackson's new song. So the new chart gives more people the opportunity to influence what is popular than some guy at a radio station. Songs that don't land at radio can become popular by other means now. It swung it too far the other way, though. I haven't really seen anyone argue that sales shouldn't factor in; people are upset non-genre airplay is counting toward genre charts.
|
|