Craig Campbell - "Keep Them Kisses Comin'"

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2014 21:34:50 GMT -5 rsmatto said:

It's not naive. And honestly, I don't personally care about "chart integrity" or whatever that is. To me they're measurements of popularity with programmers, corporate aided or not.

This is my problem: it shouldn't be about which programmers or radio stations are the most 'popular', or about which artists are the most popular because they've (or their label has) done more brown-nosing. It should be about the song and whether it is popular with listeners or not. Corporate country radio takes all of that out of the equation. Manufactured charts are ridiculous. If radio stations and labels pre-decide which songs are going to be hits, then why even bother making charts at all, if they know what the end results are going to be anyway?

That's all I have to add to the conversation. If anyone is able to look away from these tactics that the big corporate companies are applying to radio and the charts, then hey, I guess more power to you. I can't do that. Doesn't matter if it's a song I like or not. I don't think what the Clear Channel & Cumulus gate-keepers and bean-counters are doing is right, and I never will, and that's that.

[rsmatto]

^ Fair enough.

[43dudleyvillas]

Feb 24, 2014 22:06:02 GMT -5 jhomes87 said:

Feb 24, 2014 21:34:50 GMT -5 rsmatto said:

It's not naive. And honestly, I don't personally care about "chart integrity" or whatever that is. To me they're measurements of popularity with programmers, corporate aided or not.

This is my problem: it shouldn't be about which programmers or radio stations are the most 'popular', or about which artists are the most popular because they've (or their label has) done more brown-nosing. It should be about the song and whether it is popular with listeners or not. Corporate country radio takes all of that out of the equation. Manufactured charts are ridiculous. If radio stations and labels pre-decide which songs are going to be hits, then why even bother making charts at all, if they know what the end results are going to be anyway?

Well, from the label point of view, the chart peaks exist for PR purposes, enabling them to create or further the perception of career momentum by hyping a #1 hit or a top-5 hit or a top-10 hit, etc. Not to justify the tactics, but this is, increasingly, a perception business, after all.

I agree with jhomes87, obviously, about what the charts ought to reflect. But I actually want to back up a bit and ask a few questions. If it is really true that "On the Verge" has nothing to do with listener popularity, then of course I'm rolling my eyes with nearly everyone here. I'm already not a fan of the hourly debut days for the format's highest profile artists, but Clear Channel justifies the practice by saying these are core artists on the format and it wants radio to create an "event" out of the new single release day. I still don't like it, the practice has made me even less likely to listen to terrestrial radio, etc., but fine -- I get it. Now, with "On the Verge," is selection definitely pre-negotiated, or does Clear Channel select certain songs based on early response to them at certain stations? Perhaps Craig Campbell's single met whatever threshold at early supporters in its first few weeks out to make the program gatekeepers believe that it had legitimate potential to become a hit if given a few weeks of top-30 exposure? I would imagine, too, that no single can be "On the Verge"-d into the top-20. So this is a case where a single will get a few weeks of accelerated exposure at select Clear Channel stations, but eventually, it will again have to sink or swim based on its local/national sales and callout, etc. after that extra exposure, right? In other words, is this Clear Channel's answer to Sirius/XM's ability to break certain singles and certain artists through?

I can imagine "On the Verge" not being such a bad thing *IF* there is a legitimate, early public response-based selection process (as opposed to a deal with a label that wants to promote one of its artists), with legitimate re-evaluation after a few weeks of accelerated exposure. Moreover, *IF* this program is used as a sort of equalizer for potentially popular but otherwise disadvantaged singles on the format, i.e., those being promoted by smaller indie labels (as Craig Campbell's single is) or even those from female artists who would otherwise struggle to gain the minimal amount of exposure needed to have the chance to catch on, it could even prove to be an asset to the format.

Maybe I'm being naive about how this program is supposed to work and how it's going to work. I'm just throwing out some hypotheticals and some questions because I don't know how "On the Verge" is designed to work, and a quick Google search didn't turn up any interviews or press releases to clarify the matter. Does anyone know?

ETA: I have absolutely no idea why I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt to a Clear Channel program.

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2014 23:09:57 GMT -5 43dudleyvillas said:

I agree with jhomes87, obviously, about what the charts ought to reflect. But I actually want to back up a bit and ask a few questions. If it is really true that "On the Verge" has nothing to do with listener popularity, then of course I'm rolling my eyes with nearly everyone here. I'm already not a fan of the hourly debut days for the format's highest profile artists, but Clear Channel justifies the practice by saying these are core artists on the format and it wants radio to create an "event" out of the new single release day. I still don't like it, the practice has made me even less likely to listen to terrestrial radio, etc., but fine -- I get it. Now, with "On the Verge," is selection definitely pre-negotiated, or does Clear Channel select certain songs based on early response to them at certain stations? Perhaps Craig Campbell's single met whatever threshold at early supporters in its first few weeks out to make the program gatekeepers believe that it had legitimate potential to become a hit if given a few weeks of top-30 exposure? I would imagine, too, that no single can be "On the Verge"-d into the top-20. So this is a case where a single will get a few weeks of accelerated exposure at select Clear Channel stations, but eventually, it will again have to sink or swim based on its local/national sales and callout, etc. after that extra exposure, right? In other words, is this Clear Channel's answer to Sirius/XM's ability to break certain singles and certain artists through?

I can imagine "On the Verge" not being such a bad thing *IF* there is a legitimate, early public response-based selection process (as opposed to a deal with a label that wants to promote one of its artists), with legitimate re-evaluation after a few weeks of accelerated exposure. Moreover, *IF* this program is used as a sort of equalizer for potentially popular but otherwise disadvantaged singles on the format, i.e., those being promoted by smaller indie labels (as Craig Campbell's single is) or even those from female artists who would otherwise struggle to gain the minimal amount of exposure to have the chance to catch on, it could even prove to be an asset to the format.

Maybe I'm being naive about how this program is supposed to work and how it's going to work. I'm just throwing out some hypotheticals and some questions because I don't know how "On the Verge" is designed to work, and a quick Google search didn't turn up any interviews or press releases to clarify the matter. Does anyone know?

This is exactly why I have issues with the program, because I don't know how it works either. There are so many things these days that aren't made public knowledge. It can be easy and fun to track the radio charts, but if I can't explain away something, I'm likely to call BS. We don't know how these deals come into place and it seems shady to me. We also don't know the formula for the Mediabase chart or the formula for Billboard's Hot Country Songs.

Anyway, if Clear Channel is selecting songs based off promising early feedback, I agree that it wouldn't bother me so much. Give the disadvantaged smaller labels and lesser-known artists a boost for a week or two (or however long they're gonna spotlight Craig's song with On The Verge) and see if those songs can catch on and then do better via natural promotion methods. Fine. But I just feel like the labels with the most power are going to find a way to manipulate this new program. So many different companies and labels are jumping into bed with one another, with labels striking royalty deals with certain corporations, and whisking big gate-keepers away to play golf (Warner Bros. & Frankie Ballard did this with Clear Channel execs prior to the launch of "Helluva Life") or giving out highly coveted tickets/prizes for concerts or whatnot if the radio stations will only play some of the label's newer artists..

With the business side of things dominating over artistic merit, I'm not likely to give any of the big labels or corporations the benefit of the doubt, either. I just really don't see Clear Channel blasting Craig's song up the chart out of the goodness of their hearts. Maybe it's based off strong early feedback from listeners, and if that's the case, I could maybe get on board. But if it's just Clear Channel picking a random song for the hell of it and turning to Sirius/XM and saying "hey, we can break artists too!", then there's no way I can be ok with that. That's just competition for the sake of competition, and it leaves the listeners out in the cold.

If a bunch of Clear Channel stations start reducing Craig's airplay in the next couple of weeks, and this song goes back to climbing at its pre-On The Verge pace, will it really have mattered? I'm inclined to say "no". For this On The Verge program to actually work, the songs receiving the special treatment will have to maintain that airplay. And for me to be ok with it, Clear Channel's selections will have to be based off early listener feedback. But we don't know if the decisions are based off anything like that, and I don't suppose we ever will. I've grown too pessimistic when it comes to today's country radio.

[Kanenrá:ke]

Just figured I'd like to clear something up, while I side more with Matt on this debate I'm also partial to the opposing view, having said that when we talk about "manufactured charts" there's really no such thing. What I mean by that is that the chart is reporting radio airplay, Billboard has no real say as to what's going on so blaming the chart or Billboard is placing the blame on the wrong people. Radio stations and the labels are to blame to be honest, so let's not question the chart's integrity, it's doing it's job just fine. (at least the airplay one, I still have issues with the Hot Country Songs chart.)

Also while I dislike the practices because I believe radio should play what the listeners want to hear based on feedback and not money from the label; I also believe that they're buisnesses, both the stations and the labels, and they're doing what they believe is best for them. I have a hard time shaming these companies for doing their job, and really if you think about it their job is to get their artists heard. It's annoying to us because we were used to the charts working a certain way and now the rules are changing and we might not like how the game is played anymore. I'm sure people who were watching the charts back in the 80's can probably attest to it that the charts back then were worse in terms of labels and radio controlling the airplay. Back then it was extreamly rare for any label but the majors to score hits or even chart. Along with that was the fact that the songs all moved up together pretty uniformily and it was obviously orchestrated so that there'd be a new #1 every week. My point here is that for me the charts are still fascinating because it's always been about how good the labels were at getting their artists to the top, now they don't depend on listener feed back is all and they just focus on the other side of the equation. Let us not be naive and think that the money game is a new thing; it's not and it's been going on for as long as there's been a music industry.

Finally we as country fans shouldn't be worried how radio or the charts works so much as we should be worried about what they play. Jhomes' opinion that she'd be just as mad if it was a song she liked getting the special treatment illustrates my point of misplaced worry pretty well I feel. Why should we care about a song we like getting heard more and more airplay? I can't be the only one who feels this focuses on the wrong issue, right?

P.s. Sorry Jhomes for using you as an example but yours was the best one I could find. lol

[43dudleyvillas]

Feb 25, 2014 1:16:23 GMT -5 Kanenrá:ke said:

Finally we as country fans shouldn't be worried how radio or the charts works so much as we should be worried about what they play.

The thing is, "what they [radio programmers] play" is inextricably tied to the issue of how radio works at the moment. The way things work is so tilted toward a very narrow lane of formulaic lifestyle songs by one gender in what has become a self-reinforcing cycle, and so systemic issues explain country radio's content issues.

As jhomes87 points out (and as Gary Allan mentioned in that Larry King interview from a few months ago), corporate consolidation of radio station ownership has had a major impact on the nature of what gets played on country radio (all formats of radio, really). One stark example: the Cumulus block removal of Dixie Chicks music from country radio station playlists in March/April 2003, an action taken without consideration for local listener/programmer feedback, earned Cumulus a bipartisan reprimand from the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee.

I don't think there's a lot of naivete here at Pulse about the charts or how radio works. If anything, I think the discussion here shows a hyper-awareness of what goes into a song becoming a hit. I also don't think there's much pretending here that the charts have ever been "pure." Personally, I've given up on radio. My music discovery takes place online or on my phone, and I do my music listening digitally. So sure, it is interesting on some level to see what corporate country is getting behind, but I've said for a while that corporate country radio has lost its ability to define country music not only for me, but increasingly, for the media and for an increasing number of country music fans.

That said, terrestrial radio remains, for the moment, the most effective engine to drive a music career to the national level, and radio prospects continue, for the moment, to dictate whether an album gets released and whether an artist gets signed and holds onto a major label record deal. The era of corporate ownership, as Gary Allan mentioned, has tilted radio's business focus to demographic chasing. The demographic chasing attitude enabled a corporate-level decision in the early 2000s to foster an image for country radio that caters largely to the socially conservative. To be clear, the issue here is not social conservatism -- it is the narrowing that has come with targeting any one attribute, relative to pre-early 2000s country radio playlists. In other words, country radio should be a playing field where, for example, "Follow Your Arrow" would thrive alongside "Automatic." But it isn't, and the reason for that rests up in corporate offices that have made decisions about country radio imaging. Demographic chasing is, of course, multi-pronged effort, and it's also what is pushing traditional country off country radio in favor of a barrage of songs that combine hip-hop beats and '80s arena pop/rock sounds with trite rural lifestyle lyrics. Demographic chasing is also what is pushing females from Lee Ann Womack to Trisha Yearwood to countless less established country females off the radio in favor of a cavalcade of wannabe frat boys objectifying "girls" and getting drunk in their trucks.

Demographic chasing has also meant trying to maximize each format's target audience by giving that target audience the safest and most familiar fare in an effort to minimize tuneout. In recent years, that has combined with a decline in the average time individuals spend listening to the radio, as listeners turn to Spotify, Pandora, their personal music collections, etc. The decline in TSL (Time Spent Listening) has gotten to the point that instead of trying to give its target audience the songs it is most likely to recognize and like spaced out over a couple of hours, radio formats program with the expectation that their listeners are only tuning in for nine to ten minutes at a time. You can see how that has freed up/motivated programmers to play the biggest hits more frequently and less familiar songs less frequently, how that has led to such slow chart movement for less established artists, and how once again that has contributed to the narrowing of playlists.

So, with the systemic impact of consolidated corporate ownership so clear, it's only natural to focus on the latest corporate maneuvers. To bring this back to "On the Verge," the main questions are whether the program will address the slow chart issue described in the previous paragraph for less-established artists by trying to identify hit potential early in a song's chart run, and whether it will do so in a way that alleviated existing inequities within the system. And, of course, as jhomes87 says, there's the additional question of whether and how the program will be abused by the largest players within the system.

Bottom line: I don't think this is a case of misplaced worry at all. I think the discussion of what radio plays is inseparable from the issue of how radio and the charts work, because the nature of and incentives within the system have impacted the content that gets broadcast.

[layne]

Not to rehash the argument of the mongrel chart, but this manipulation is the biggest reason I like having a chart that incorporates streaming and sales into the equation. The airplay only charts just don't give a true reflection of what a "Hit" song really is. IMO

[onebuffalo]

Anyone wanting a #30 to #1 move next week?

[tim]

I came here to comment that this past week I kept hearing this song and thought it sounded great and wondering why I hadn't heard it before. I thought for sure this was something new I had missed recently.

After reading the thread above, I now see this is not only not a new song, but has recently gotten a big push by corporate (which explains why I've been hearing this nonstop recently).

Still enjoying this tune, but as stated above I don't like the blood of corporate radio all over what I get to hear or not hear.

[Deleted]

I found this link online that gives a little bio of the On The Verge program, and apparently Clear Channel is doing it with other genres as well.

iheartradio.com/onair/on-the-verge-52262/craig-campbell-country-artist-on-the-verge-12059750/

Unfortunately it doesn't really shed light on any possible criteria they might use to select songs/artists.

Craig also posted this to his Facebook page on February 20:

Wow!!! Trust me when I say, being selected as iHeartRadio's "On The Verge" artist is a pivotal moment in my career and wouldn't have been able to achieve it without your support! Thank you!! Please SHARE the exciting news and take a look at the feature. bit.ly/1crCPpp

[Ten Pound Hammer]

Anyone know the difference between the original and "hot radio mix"? They both sound the same to me.

[rsmatto]

Probably just slight tweaks

[Ten Pound Hammer]

The lyric video apparently uses the "hot radio mix". The main difference I hear now is that the radio mix has echoed vocals on the bridge (the "killin' me baby" part) and a slightly heavier beat.

[Deleted]

I've heard this on Clear Channel KNIX a couple times this past week, and each time they've intro-ed the song with different audio clips of Craig talking about the song. And when the song is done it always says "iHeartRadio On The Verge, sponsored by Bigger Picture Group".

[sabre14]

Mar 28, 2014 21:40:15 GMT -5 jhomes87 said:

I've heard this on Clear Channel KNIX a couple times this past week, and each time they've intro-ed the song with different audio clips of Craig talking about the song. And when the song is done it always says "iHeartRadio On The Verge, sponsored by Bigger Picture Group".

Luckily I haven't heard that yet, but when this came on the radio today on my drive home, I couldn't help but to think about "On The Verge". I just can't help it. That's the only thing I can think about when I hear this song now. It's really unfortunate because I love the song itself, but because of Clear Channel, the corporate side of country radio is always in the back of my mind when this comes on the dial.

[Ten Pound Hammer]

^ Hey, it got him up the charts way, way, WAY faster than the typical slow-ass Bigger Picture climb, and it's a really good song. I don't like the manipulation very much, but for a song this far-removed from the "bros", I'll take an artificially inflated #21 over eternal lingering at #44 any day.

[sabre14]

Mar 30, 2014 17:35:32 GMT -5 Ten Pound Hammer said:

^ Hey, it got him up the charts way, way, WAY faster than the typical slow-ass Bigger Picture climb, and it's a really good song. I don't like the manipulation very much, but for a song this far-removed from the "bros", I'll take an artificially inflated #21 over eternal lingering at #44 any day.

If it was any song I would have a problem with it really, whether I liked or disliked it. If for some miraculous reason this turns out to be a one off kinda thing, then it's fine. But I suspect more of this to be coming our way in the future.

Though you bring up a great point about Bigger Picture's usual chart climbs. Ironic that this happens to Craig Campbell of all artists, who's last single happened to be the second longest charting single in history. 

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and country radio actually decided to make up the year long chart run for "Outta My Head" with a E-Z pass for "Keep Them Kisses Comin'".

[Deleted]

This one has received prolonged support from Clear Channel and of course other stations have jumped on board as well...since it essentially 'skipped' a good deal of its chart climb, this may very well turn out to be a big (top 10) hit. But I still don't know how I feel about this whole On The Verge thing, especially because, like sabre14, I worry that more and more artists/labels will turn to this 'program', and the charts are already pretty inorganic in terms of natural chart movement.

[.indulgecountry]

If they made that a thing for female country artists (anyone not named Carrie, Taylor, and Miranda) only to help get them up the chart, then I'd be totally on board with it.

[Marv]

I share the prevailing opinion on this thread that any song in its sixteenth week on the Billboard chart certainly doesn't need a huge dose of saturation airplay at this point in time, since there's no doubt in my ind that every MD and PD at every reporting station @ both BB & Mediabase has heard this since it was sent to radio some four months ago, my point being that while it's made its way to the upper 20s so far, it remains to see how long it can hold off the likes of the rousing 'Chainsaw' which is right behind it, with Brad & Lee Brice among others in hot pursuit, not to mention Blake's new single, which will undoubtedly scream up the charts as usual.

I do like the song, and it's a heck of a lot better than other tunes from Taylor, Tim and other format megastars which have assaulted our eardrums in a similar manner over the past 12-18 months, but now the song is essentially starting over at radio after 4 months on the air, which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Like everyone else, I have no idea how this tune was chosen for this type of launch at this stage of its chart life and I don't really care, but this practice still infuriates the heck out of me.

At least this concept wasn't around when superstinkers such as' Bob That Head' or 'Bobbi With An I' were released---thank goodness!!

[sabre14]

Official Lyric Video:

[zaclord 🌈]

I haven't really liked any of his singles thus far ("Outta My Head" was decent) but I am really enjoying this one. Glad its finding success!

[josephmorgan]

This is now his biggest hit, this week moving from 16 to 13. "Family Man" peaked at #14.

[churchchoir]

^It's also his most generic, disposable hit. Funny how that works. This would probably not have gotten nearly as high without the "On the Verge" business considering Craig's biggest hit up until this point barely scraped the top 15. I'm happy for Craig but this certainly isn't the song that I would have chosen to be his breakthrough hit. Sounds just like everything else on the radio these days.

[rjz]

^^^ I'm not a Craig fan at all-haven't liked any of his singles, but I agree, this song seems like a traditional 'lay me down' song a la Chris Young, etc.

It grates on me in a way because the lyrics are so generic, theme so unimaginative-it is a song that is 'been there, done that'.

But perhaps it is radio's nod to this type of throw back music; although I do hear pop elements, not a pure traditional sound.

His voice sounds very nice and it is catchy so I'm not surprised it is doing well. Certainly isn't a channel changer like so many other songs right now.

[churchchoir]

A song doesn't need to have bro country cliches to be generic and disposable. He sings about getting his buzz on, sipping on something, laying around "tangled up" with his lover, and kissing. Sounds just like everything else on the radio to me. I don't see how this could stand out in a crowd when "Outta My Head" didn't. This isn't a particularly bad song, but there's nothing about it that makes it worthy of being a breakout hit. It has far less substance than Craig's previous singles. Even "Fish" was pretty creative and witty. This seems totally pandering to me. I agree with rjz that this reminds me of a Chris Young song, particularly "I Can Take It from There," which was a total flop in terms of listener interest and only climbed to #4 based on name recognition. (If you look at the official audio video for that song on YouTube, it still hasn't reached a million views and the song didn't even make the top 15 on the mongrel chart.)

[Deleted]

Apr 22, 2014 5:44:44 GMT -5 churchchoir said:

^It's also his most generic, disposable hit. Funny how that works. This would probably not have gotten nearly as high without the "On the Verge" business considering Craig's biggest hit up until this point barely scraped the top 15. I'm happy for Craig but this certainly isn't the song that I would have chosen to be his breakthrough hit. Sounds just like everything else on the radio these days.

I agree that this is a pretty generic and disposable song, but I disagree that it sounds like everything else on the radio these days. Perhaps lyrically it isn't too far-removed from some other songs, but sonically? Craig Campbell and producer Keith Stegall are among the few in town who haven't forgotten what a fiddle is. Like @brian said, there are a lot of traditional elements to this song, and that makes it sound quite a bit different than most other songs, even if the theme of it isn't exactly 'fresh' or original.

I don't dislike Craig but it is a little frustrating to me that radio will play this song but not something like Kacey Musgraves' current single. I was reading some of the most recent posts in Kacey's thread and as 43dudleyvillas points out, Kacey's album has easily out-sold many of the most recent albums from her male peers, from established stars like Keith Urban, Brad Paisley, and Billy Currington to 'hot' new acts like Tyler Farr, Brett Eldredge, Thomas Rhett, David Nail, Eric Paslay, Frankie Ballard, Dustin Lynch, Randy Houser, Parmalee, etc.

And Craig's Never Regret album is at the bottom of the pile in terms of sales. It hasn't even sold 50k copies total as far as I can tell. It's peak chart positions are a dismal #27 on Top Country Albums and only #96 on the Billboard 200.

Bigger Picture has certainly done a good job here, On The Verge aside, and yet in order for this to be a hit radio has to be willing to play it as well. Again, nothing against Craig--this song is pleasant enough (mainly for its sound), and I liked "Outta My Head" and some of his other songs as well--but why is it that radio is so willing to play a song like this, or singles from other new male artists who haven't sold many albums, yet they won't touch Kacey's song? I suppose it all goes back to the corporate radio gate-keepers and the demographic they're chasing after...Craig's music falls squarely into the narrow lane of music they're willing to play, but Kacey, her music, and her fans are "out of bounds", along with dozens of other promising new female acts...

[rsmatto]

Apr 22, 2014 8:01:55 GMT -5 churchchoir said:

A song doesn't need to have bro country cliches to be generic and disposable. He sings about getting his buzz on, sipping on something, laying around "tangled up" with his lover, and kissing. Sounds just like everything else on the radio to me. I don't see how this could stand out in a crowd when "Outta My Head" didn't. This isn't a particularly bad song, but there's nothing about it that makes it worthy of being a breakout hit. It has far less substance than Craig's previous singles. Even "Fish" was pretty creative and witty. This seems totally pandering to me. I agree with rjz that this reminds me of a Chris Young song, particularly "I Can Take It from There," which was a total flop in terms of listener interest and only climbed to #4 based on name recognition. (If you look at the official audio video for that song on YouTube, it still hasn't reached a million views and the song didn't even make the top 15 on the mongrel chart.)

Having chatted with Craig about the song and why he's recorded the songs he's recorded on his second album, he understood that he had to include songs like this and "Outta My Head" on his record and they had to be different from his previous record if he wanted to have any sort of sustained career. He knows he's a traditionalist type of guy working in an era when it's hard to be just that, especially for a newer or 'on the verge' artist. He definitely likes what he cut and released but I can guarantee he wishes he could have songs that aren't as 'generic' but then again, this is EXACTLY what radio programmers and to a similar degree, the average fan, wants.

[rbundy1987]

This has made it all the way to #11 and it's his biggest hit yet, but the question is now with the competition heating up right behind Craig on the top twenty, will he make it to to Top Ten?? I ask this as the only person who is falling right now is Brantley Gilbert and soon to be Eric Church, but to make room for Craig to enter the top ten, one of these has to fall below #10 to go recurrent and that won't happen this week that's for sure. Jake Owen is both closing in on Craig pretty fast and Jake has the greatest gainer honor this week on Billboard Country Airplay as he moves from #16 to #13 but is only like 1 mil in audience behind Craig. I am not ruling out The Band Perry from repassing Craig as they not too far behind him as he jumped over them this week. I see future threats coming from Chris Young as his airplay and gains are ramping up and you have Brad Paisley now in Top 20 as well with Blake Shelton/Gwen Sebastian coming up quickly as well. Craig is over 7 mil behind in audience from catching Justin Moore who is #10 and the gaps are just staggering to say the least. I am predicting a peak of #9 for this as the competition is really heating up behind Craig but then again I may be wrong, but hey it would be his first Top Ten hit.

[dajire4]

I have mixed feelings about Keep Them Kisses Comin' reaching the top 10. On the one hand, I'm happy for Craig for achieving his first top 10 (from the videos I've seen in his facebook page, he is such a nice genuine family guy and I usually enjoy his music)but, on the other hand, this is his most vanilla release so far. Outta My Head should have been his song to reach the top 10 imho. However, if Keep Them Kisses Comin' becoming a top 10 means his future releases will fare a little better, then I'm all for it