elementd5
4x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2006
Posts: 4,084
|
Post by elementd5 on Mar 5, 2016 16:27:59 GMT -5
Her career can "withstand such" chart manipulation so that it doesn't matter whether she peaks at #1, #2, etc. Which isn't necessarily true for other artists who "need" that #1 hit so their record label can promote their radio/single success, which they likely hope will translate to success in other areas.
That makes sense/was clear, no?
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,422
|
Post by matty005 on Mar 5, 2016 16:32:26 GMT -5
Her career can "withstand such" chart manipulation so that it doesn't matter whether she peaks at #1, #2, etc. Which isn't necessarily true for other artists who "need" that #1 hit so their record label can promote their radio/single success, which they likely hope will translate to success in other areas. That makes sense/was clear, no? No. Because she does hit #1 (but on Mediabase) so they can promote the same way. I would love an example where a song being #1 instead of #2 has helped ANY artist EVER over a career.
|
|
elementd5
4x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2006
Posts: 4,084
|
Post by elementd5 on Mar 5, 2016 16:37:02 GMT -5
Her career can "withstand such" chart manipulation so that it doesn't matter whether she peaks at #1, #2, etc. Which isn't necessarily true for other artists who "need" that #1 hit so their record label can promote their radio/single success, which they likely hope will translate to success in other areas. That makes sense/was clear, no? No. Because she does hit #1 (but on Mediabase) so they can promote the same way. I would love an example where a song being #1 instead of #2 has helped ANY artist EVER over a career. That's preference, though the Billboard v. Mediabase distinction matters to some people (not me personally, but surely to some people). And I'd offer that being able to say "___ with the #1 hit ___" matters/helps, even if only a little bit, in some way, to someone. For an example, though: I figure any record of "__ consecutive #1s" has helped that artists career, promo wise, as oppose to the artist(s) who came up short.
|
|
Massikur2
New Member
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 139
|
Post by Massikur2 on Mar 5, 2016 16:57:22 GMT -5
Guys, I really just meant that Carrie will be successful IN ANY CASE, EVER. Please move on. This has nothing to do with Mediabase vs. Billboard and is just being blown way out of proportion.
|
|
ant
Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ant on Mar 5, 2016 17:00:35 GMT -5
I'm gonna re-post this here, it's an earlier post I made in the album thread:
I know this isn't quite reliable, but on the Storyteller Wikipedia page, I went to edit the list of singles to try and add "Chaser" since it's getting an international release. When I clicked "edit" it appears someone already added it as single #3 with a release date of March 7 in the UK. But below that, "Church Bells" was listed as single #4 (3rd single in the US) with a release date of March 21.
You can only see this if you try to edit the page, so does that mean it's under review still?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 21:26:22 GMT -5
On one hand, we can consider Sony's 'generosity' on the charts a bad thing, as it appears that they continuously sacrifice Carrie's potential #1s; conversely, I guess it just goes to show that they know her career has the longevity to withstand such and she can still sell records regardless. Obviously she's meeting or exceeding the record company's standards, otherwise they wouldn't take such a lax approach. For what it's worth, I took Massikur2's post above as more of an indictment against chart manipulation as opposed to a "poor Carrie, she continually gets stuck at #2" post (and for what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with being disappointed when a song gets stuck at #2, especially if it was looking like a surefire #1). I think it's pretty apparent from Massikur2's post here that she acknowledged Carrie's incredibly successful career, but I don't think acknowledging Carrie's successful career and being disappointed by continuously peaking at #2 (often due to chart manipulation) are mutually exclusive. I've been following the charts for quite some time now and "Heartbeat" is one of the surest future #1's I've seen recently, and yet it's not getting there (at least not yet) on account of radio allowing Keith and Randy to jump ahead, despite the fact that both "Break On Me" and "We Went" haven't sold nearly as much as "Heartbeat" has. "Heartbeat" is also testing better with listeners, and its streams are much higher as well. And then when you consider the fact that, in just the past few months alone, Sony has fought vigorously for multi-week #1's with Kenny Chesney's "Save It For A Rainy Day", Old Dominion's "Break Up With Him", and Chris Young's "I'm Comin' Over", I think it's only expected that there would be some disappointment here. "Heartbeat" arguably had an easier path to a 3-week stay at #1 than "Save It For A Rainy Day" and "I'm Comin' Over" did, and yet here Sony has been content to sit back and let the competing labels persuade radio to push their songs ahead. Last week, Sony deliberately hit the brakes to allow Keith Urban smooth passage to #1. Furthermore, other indicators, notably sales and streams, support the notion that "Heartbeat" is at least as big of a hit as "I'm Comin' Over" and "Break Up With Him" were, if not bigger, and it's easily out-performed "Save It For A Rainy Day" in sales and streams. When it comes to female artists, Sony is doing better than all other labels -- they already had Carrie and Miranda, and now they have some potential breakout artists in Cam and Maren Morris. "Burning House" was probably the biggest hit of the year from a Sony artist (female, male, or group), and yet it didn't get to #1 on Billboard, although in that case Sony at least fought for the #1 spot (they simply lost out to an even bigger hit from Thomas Rhett). But aside from Miranda being featured on Keith Urban's #1 hit "We Were Us", none of the female artists on Sony Nashville have hit #1 on Billboard since 2012. Miranda's last solo #1 was "Over You" in May 2012, and Carrie's was "Blown Away" in October 2012. So I think it's completely possible for someone to be disappointed when his/her favorite artist repeatedly gets stuck at #2, while still acknowledging that that artist has had an incredibly successful career, no? I don't want to speak for anybody else, but it seems to me that the tone of a few posts got misinterpreted today, and then the ensuing dialogue got unnecessarily catty as a result. Anyway, back to chart discussion...today's update makes me think Randy Houser will take the #1 spot on Billboard as well (in addition to Mediabase), assuming that the studio version of "We Went" gets an additional spin on Lon Helton's countdown tomorrow. I still think "Heartbeat" can top both charts at the conclusion of next weekend, but it's not as much of a sure thing now, given that radio felt the need to push Keith and Randy to #1, which clearly came at Carrie's expense. Whether "Heartbeat" peaks at #1 or #2 won't matter much when it comes to Carrie's career, but I think it's only logical to be disappointed if an obvious future #1 gets denied the #1 spot due to label and radio politics. And the logic is especially true in this case, because Sony didn't step up to the plate the way they did with the aforementioned singles from Kenny Chesney, Old Dominion, and Chris Young.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,919
|
Post by sabre14 on Mar 5, 2016 21:56:29 GMT -5
I never said anybody should not be frustrated at their favorite artist getting stuck at #2. I also don't see anyone's post today in this thread as a blanket statement as "poor Carrie, she's getting screwed over" -- most here make good and constructive arguments when it comes to explaining their reasoning. I do however think it's ridiculous to believe she's overcoming anything in regards to chart manipulation (which is what I viewed at language such as "withstand" and "selling records regardless"), of any kind, when her songs reach massive airplay levels that reach millions upon millions of fans.
If that was all misinterpreted by me or anyone else than I apologize but I just see Carrie's radio career through vastly different spectacles than many here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 22:51:01 GMT -5
I do however think it's ridiculous to believe she's overcoming anything in regards to chart manipulation (which is what I viewed at language such as "withstand" and "selling records regardless"), of any kind, when her songs reach massive airplay levels that reach millions upon millions of fans. But isn't it fair to say that Carrie does sell (and will sell) a lot of records regardless of whether the song peaks at #1 or #2? That's what I took out of Massikur2's original post this afternoon, and I think elementd5 said it very well at the top of this page, too. If a Carrie song falls just short of #1, it doesn't really hurt her -- she's gonna sell a lot of singles/albums whether the single peaks at #1 or #2. Again, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I don't think anybody was saying anything more than that (if I'm wrong here, then hopefully the poster(s) I tagged will correct me). It seems to me that they were acknowledging that Carrie has been incredibly successful and will sell a lot even if her current single gets stuck at #2 due to radio politics, while simultaneously expressing disappointment that the song isn't a #1. It just seems to me that the back-and-forth in this thread this afternoon got a little more complicated than it needed to be, and I'm simply trying to see if we can come to some sort of understanding.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,919
|
Post by sabre14 on Mar 5, 2016 23:01:49 GMT -5
I do however think it's ridiculous to believe she's overcoming anything in regards to chart manipulation (which is what I viewed at language such as "withstand" and "selling records regardless"), of any kind, when her songs reach massive airplay levels that reach millions upon millions of fans. But isn't it fair to say that Carrie does sell (and will sell) a lot of records regardless of whether the song peaks at #1 or #2? That's what I took out of Massikur2's original post this afternoon, and I think elementd5 said it very well at the top of this page, too. If a Carrie song falls just short of #1, it doesn't really hurt her -- she's gonna sell a lot of singles/albums whether the single peaks at #1 or #2. Again, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I don't think anybody was saying anything more than that (if I'm wrong here, then hopefully the poster(s) I tagged will correct me). It seems to me that they were acknowledging that Carrie has been incredibly successful and will sell a lot even if her current single gets stuck at #2 due to radio politics, while simultaneously expressing disappointment that the song isn't a #1. It just seems to me that the back-and-forth in this thread this afternoon got a little more complicated than it needed to be, and I'm simply trying to see if we can come to some sort of understanding. If it doesn't hurt her (which I agree with) then I don't see any reason to get as bent out of shape about it as many here do in regards to missing #1, but again like I said before, I understand the frustration since they stan for Carrie and I don't. I just think it doesn't matter whatsoever (missing #1 on Billboard Airplay) when we're talking about Carrie. Again, I'm not balking at the idea that it isn't right in regards to chart manipulation, which Sony is content in happening. I just don't think Carrie being able to sell records regardless of peaking one spot lower on the chart is a worthy discussion. If artist A kept peaking below the top 30 yet sold incredibly well then yes, that would be a point I would single out, but not for an artist that has had every single peak inside the top 5. I really wish we were face-to-face to talk about this, lol.
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,422
|
Post by matty005 on Mar 5, 2016 23:11:40 GMT -5
I do however think it's ridiculous to believe she's overcoming anything in regards to chart manipulation (which is what I viewed at language such as "withstand" and "selling records regardless"), of any kind, when her songs reach massive airplay levels that reach millions upon millions of fans. B ut isn't it fair to say that Carrie does sell (and will sell) a lot of records regardless of whether the song peaks at #1 or #2? That's what I took out of Massikur2's original post this afternoon, and I think elementd5 said it very well at the top of this page, too. If a Carrie song falls just short of #1, it doesn't really hurt her -- she's gonna sell a lot of singles/albums whether the single peaks at #1 or #2. Again, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I don't think anybody was saying anything more than that (if I'm wrong here, then hopefully the poster(s) I tagged will correct me). It seems to me that they were acknowledging that Carrie has been incredibly successful and will sell a lot even if her current single gets stuck at #2 due to radio politics, while simultaneously expressing disappointment that the song isn't a #1. It just seems to me that the back-and-forth in this thread this afternoon got a little more complicated than it needed to be, and I'm simply trying to see if we can come to some sort of understanding. But wouldn't this go for anyone too? What I believe sabre14 was saying was that ANYONE who has the success that Carrie has had at radio would not be hurt (or helped) by a song being #1 or #2. That's not saying they would sell the same amount as Carrie, but that isn't the point. The point is, if a song peaks at 1 or 2, the sales won't change. Look at all the #2 songs Kenny Chesney has had in career. Does anyone here think for one minute that if half of those went to #1 instead, his career would be any different? Of course not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 23:16:00 GMT -5
If it doesn't hurt her (which I agree with) then I don't see any reason to get as bent out of shape about it as many here do in regards to missing #1, but again like I said before, I understand the frustration since they stan for Carrie and I don't. I just think it doesn't matter whatsoever (missing #1 on Billboard Airplay) when we're talking about Carrie. Again, I'm not balking at the idea that it isn't right in regards to chart manipulation, which Sony is content in happening. I just don't think Carrie being able to sell records regardless of peaking one spot lower on the chart is a worthy discussion. If artist A kept peaking below the top 30 yet sold incredibly well then yes, that would be a point I would single out, but not for an artist that has had every single peak inside the top 5. Right, but I don't think anybody was saying that Carrie will sell less if she peaks at #2 instead of #1. I think they're just saying that they want the #1 in addition to good sales, and I think everybody wants that when it comes to their favorite artists. I think we're all pretty much saying the same thing but...for some reason not agreeing? (if that makes sense) Some people (including you) might not care all that much if this song misses #1, but others will, and I think their disappointment would be understandable. For example, when "Burning House" and "Buy Me A Boat" missed the #1 spot on Billboard last year, I was really disappointed. Those two songs went #1 on Mediabase so the record labels probably din't care all that much (although I'm sure they would have liked the Billboard #1 too). Another example of a song that didn't go #1 on either chart, which resulted in a lot of disappointment, is "Girl Crush". The disappointment was understandable then and I think it's understandable now, but I don't think anybody was saying that Carrie can't still sell a lot if she routinely peaks at #2 instead of #1. I really wish we were face-to-face to talk about this, lol. You're right, that would certainly help! But wouldn't this go for anyone too? What I believe sabre14 was saying was that ANYONE who has the success that Carrie has had at radio would not be hurt (or helped) by a song being #1 or #2. That's not saying they would sell the same amount as Carrie, but that isn't the point. The point is, if a song peaks at 1 or 2, the sales won't change. Look at all the #2 songs Kenny Chesney has had in career. Does anyone here think for one minute that if half of those went to #1 instead, his career would be any different? Of course not. And I think this proves my point that we're all pretty much saying the same thing, but for some reason not seeing eye to eye. I agree with you and sabre14 that anyone who has seen the amount of success that Carrie has had wouldn't be hurt or helped much if one (or a few) of their songs peaked at #2 instead of #1. But I didn't interpret any of today's posts in this thread as saying "Carrie potentially peaking at #2 will mean she can't sell as much as she could if the song goes #1". I think a couple of the posters were simply saying that they wished the song could go to #1 and that they'd be disappointed if it doesn't, but that if it does fall short it wouldn't really affect her sales either way.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,566
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 6, 2016 10:17:58 GMT -5
If anything the fact that someone of Carrie's stature - who people are correct in saying won't necessarily be hurt if a specific song goes to #1 or not - repeatedly gets passed over due to label/radio politics is evidence of the sexism that exists in country music. That is where my disappointment stems from.
|
|
spencer
New Member
Joined: January 2012
Posts: 379
|
Post by spencer on Mar 6, 2016 12:15:53 GMT -5
Chart watchers and chart gurus, like some on this thread, are aware of the chart manipulations and so they know that a song sitting at number one on any chart, doesn't necessarily proclaim that song to be the best vis-a-vis said song's performance on sales and listeners' interest and other measures. The unsuspecting listener is not privy to this information and as such believe the song is the best, and shares that information with others as do reporting entertainment newscasts and awarding bodies. To me this is more than 'pulling the wool over peoples' eyes'. It's more than just enhancing something, more than misleading. It's simply criminal.
To add to this. I can understand the vested interest the record label has with its' artists, but what interest does radio have in blatantly pushing a song listeners aren't that interested in listening to and according to sales not generating interest there either?t The answer to this can't just be, 'because the label asks radio to play this or that record',?
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,639
|
Post by onebuffalo on Mar 6, 2016 15:35:19 GMT -5
Not even Luke Bryan and Blake Shelton have shared her success as long as she has.
But Blake Shelton currently has country music's consecutive #1 streak at sixteen. As a matter of fact, all of his singles that have peaked this decade have been #1 (since 2010's Hillbilly Bone with Trace Adkins). Sure, Shelton STARTED his career with four consecutive top 20s, then a trio of top 40s, back to a trio of top tens, and then two more top 20s. It's been all top ten since 2008's Home (#1).
Look at all the #2 songs Kenny Chesney has had in career. Does anyone here think for one minute that if half of those went to #1 instead, his career would be any different? Of course not.
Of course not, either. Kenny Chesney currently has 26 #1s and ten #2s. If we were to convert just five of those pesky #2s to #1, Chesney would have 31 chart toppers, enough to place him at #6 on the list of those artists with the most #1s. He would have two more than Charley Pride and two less than Alabama. Just bragging rights there.
Someone at another website (now defunct) explained it to me this way: If you were to take every five positions of the chart (12 blocks total), ALL of the top five songs would be equally just as popular as the other. Which means Break On Me is just as popular as the other top five songs: Heartbeat, We Went, Beautiful Drug, and Backroad Song. It's just a matter of timing, a program director's whims (in which songs to play at what times), and even politics. Why Arista continues to slow Carrie Underwood's songs once they reach the top five is a mystery to me when they (Sony) can push other artists to the top and let other artists from other labels get to the top as well.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,566
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 6, 2016 20:09:48 GMT -5
Chart watchers and chart gurus, like some on this thread, are aware of the chart manipulations and so they know that a song sitting at number one on any chart, doesn't necessarily proclaim that song to be the best vis-a-vis said song's performance on sales and listeners' interest and other measures. The unsuspecting listener is not privy to this information and as such believe the song is the best, and shares that information with others as do reporting entertainment newscasts and awarding bodies. To me this is more than 'pulling the wool over peoples' eyes'. It's more than just enhancing something, more than misleading. It's simply criminal. To add to this. I can understand the vested interest the record label has with its' artists, but what interest does radio have in blatantly pushing a song listeners aren't that interested in listening to and according to sales not generating interest there either?tThe answer to this can't just be, 'because the label asks radio to play this or that record',? They probably get exclusive interviews, premieres, etc. as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 21:00:18 GMT -5
If there is one thing that is impressive with Carrie Underwood chart performance is the simple fact that, outside of "Something Bad" which I count as a Miranda Lambert single. Carrie Underwood has gotten no lower than #3 on the radio AirPlay charts. The only other acts so far who have managed that with 2 or more singles are FGL, Kelsea Ballerini has so far, Cole Swindell, Sam Hunt, and I think that's it. The fact that it's gone on since 2006 when "Jesus Take The Wheel" peaked is simply impressive and amazing to say the very least. Carrie Underwood also looks like she has no plans to slow down and given the fact that she doesn't usually if ever send out cliché songs, and instead uses her superstar power to release songs with some meat and some amazing writing, shows that Carrie Underwood will probably be one of the most recognized and respected musicians of country musics history when her career inevitably does wind down unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by brinkeronline on Mar 6, 2016 21:30:01 GMT -5
If there is one thing that is impressive with Carrie Underwood chart performance is the simple fact that, outside of "Something Bad" which I count as a Miranda Lambert single. Carrie Underwood has gotten no lower than #3 on the radio AirPlay charts. The only other acts so far who have managed that with 2 or more singles are FGL, Kelsea Ballerini has so far, Cole Swindell, Sam Hunt, and I think that's it. The fact that it's gone on since 2006 when "Jesus Take The Wheel" peaked is simply impressive and amazing to say the very least. Carrie Underwood also looks like she has no plans to slow down and given the fact that she doesn't usually if ever send out cliché songs, and instead uses her superstar power to release songs with some meat and some amazing writing, shows that Carrie Underwood will probably be one of the most recognized and respected musicians of country musics history when her career inevitably does wind down unfortunately. It's truly impressive. I think Sam and FGL will keep their #1/#2 streak for a while. I'm doubtful Kelsea or Cole will maintain. Stretching outside AirPlay on BB, EVERY Carrie song has reached #2 on at least one of the three main charts that country songs are charted on (BB AirPlay, Mediabase, or BB Hot Country Songs). I think the only song that didn't make it to #1 on one of the three was Mama's Song. Luckily Something in the Water and Somethin' Bad were digital heavy and got #1 on Hot Country Songs even if they didn't reach as high on radio.
|
|
|
Post by Carriefan1190 on Mar 7, 2016 0:48:42 GMT -5
Randy Houser posted on his Facebook that he got his 4th #1, is he referring to a MB #1 since BB isn't official until tomorrow?
|
|
Mr. Thonk Eyes
4x Platinum Member
The great Mr. Eyes
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 4,614
|
Post by Mr. Thonk Eyes on Mar 7, 2016 1:04:57 GMT -5
Randy Houser posted on his Facebook that he got his 4th #1, is he referring to a MB #1 since BB isn't official until tomorrow? More than likely he is, as labels will take a #1 on any chart. However, Randy's label might still push for the Billboard #1 though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 1:14:13 GMT -5
Randy Houser posted on his Facebook that he got his 4th #1, is he referring to a MB #1 since BB isn't official until tomorrow? The Mediabase chart becomes official on Sundays, so that's what Randy was referring to.
|
|
dm2081
7x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 7,034
|
Post by dm2081 on Mar 7, 2016 11:15:33 GMT -5
Well Randy had the bigger update yesterday (Sunday), so it seems like Randy and his team went for the Billboard #1 as well. It should be pretty close on Billboard, but I'm expecting Randy to secure the #1 after seeing yesterday's update. Definitely not a guarantee though.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,919
|
Post by sabre14 on Mar 7, 2016 20:18:24 GMT -5
Arista Nashville has a "Max Spins for #1" in Aircheck tonight so they'll go for and likely get the one week atop both charts Sunday/Monday (13th/14th). ZBB is very far behind in both spins and audience and even though Arista can't grow too much this week, I don't think that Zac and the boys can mount an effort big enough.
Randy's promotion team was able to get over 6.5 million in audience gained in audience on Mediabase and 4.5 million in audience gained on Billboard and Carrie's song still only fell short by 400k in audience on the Billboard chart (she only fell short by 700 points on Mediabase, when I honestly thought it would be closer to an even 1000). Sony went for #1 this week but they knew that they had next week too, while Stoney Creek went all or nothing this week. It's a shame that "Heartbeat" will only get one week now at #1 on Mediabase and Billboard but it is what it is these days.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 20:28:05 GMT -5
Arista Nashville has a "Max Spins for #1" in Aircheck tonight so they'll go for and likely get the one week atop both charts Sunday/Monday (13th/14th). ZBB is very far behind in both spins and audience and even though Arista can't grow too much this week, I don't think that Zac and the boys can mount an effort big enough. Randy's promotion team was able to get over 6.5 million in audience gained in audience on Mediabase and 4.5 million in audience gained on Billboard and Carrie's song still only fell short by 400k in audience on the Billboard chart (she only fell short by 700 points on Mediabase, when I honestly thought it would be closer to an even 1000). Sony went for #1 this week but they knew that they had next week too, while Stoney Creek went all or nothing this week. It's a shame that "Heartbeat" will only get one week now at #1 on Mediabase and Billboard but it is what it is these days. Hold up, I think it's still possible for "Heartbeat" to get two weeks. Now hear me out, Zac Brown Band is really far behind and they have room to grow but I don't see any sign od them going to #1 anytime soon. If Sony tries to keep "Heartbeat" rather steady after this next week they could theoretically get that second week at the top, since I don't see Zac Brown Band moving torwards the top til this time two weeks from now. I'm more than confident that my theory is probably going to be wrong but it's entirely possible.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,919
|
Post by sabre14 on Mar 7, 2016 20:36:11 GMT -5
Arista Nashville has a "Max Spins for #1" in Aircheck tonight so they'll go for and likely get the one week atop both charts Sunday/Monday (13th/14th). ZBB is very far behind in both spins and audience and even though Arista can't grow too much this week, I don't think that Zac and the boys can mount an effort big enough. Randy's promotion team was able to get over 6.5 million in audience gained in audience on Mediabase and 4.5 million in audience gained on Billboard and Carrie's song still only fell short by 400k in audience on the Billboard chart (she only fell short by 700 points on Mediabase, when I honestly thought it would be closer to an even 1000). Sony went for #1 this week but they knew that they had next week too, while Stoney Creek went all or nothing this week. It's a shame that "Heartbeat" will only get one week now at #1 on Mediabase and Billboard but it is what it is these days. Hold up, I think it's still possible for "Heartbeat" to get two weeks. Now hear me out, Zac Brown Band is really far behind and they have room to grow but I don't see any sign od them going to #1 anytime soon. If Sony tries to keep "Heartbeat" rather steady after this next week they could theoretically get that second week at the top, since I don't see Zac Brown Band moving torwards the top til this time two weeks from now. I'm more than confident that my theory is probably going to be wrong but it's entirely possible. I do not see Arista's promotion staff keeping her airplay leveled for two weeks time (starting yesterday). They put the "Max Spins for #1" in Aircheck for a reason, they want it this week and that will be it. Sony had a quasi #1 push this week and then next week they will go for #1. I suppose Carrie could back into a second week at #1 but I expect "Beautiful Drug" to go for #1 next week and that will be enough to overtake Carrie by then in both spins and audience.
|
|
desertfloods
2x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by desertfloods on Mar 7, 2016 22:13:40 GMT -5
So, what was projected to be a natural 3-week reign at the top has now been cut to 1 week? Well done, country radio!
Sure, some will say fans should be grateful that radio still loves Carrie enough to send her songs to no.1 unlike how they snub other female artists, but... I'd argue that having multiple weeks at no.1 is a great promo for both the single and the album. A non-chart watcher casual listener will certainly pay more attention to a multi-week chart topper, as it has always been a sign of a song being a big hit.
|
|
leilamaurizia
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 6,760
|
Post by leilamaurizia on Mar 7, 2016 23:04:15 GMT -5
Me in 2006: *eagerly awaits the Mediabase update everyday, writes down in my notebook my own charting calculations, religiously reads all things chart-related, excitedly posts on Pulse*
Me in 2016: *blase* A says: "Looks like Heartbeat will get 3 weeks at #1!" Me: Yeah, right [/sarcasm] B says: "Oh, Keith overtook Carrie.." Me: Of course he did. C says: "Oh, and then Randy overtook Carrie..." Me: Of course he did. D says: "Carrie's next. She'll be #1 now for 1 week." Me: *eyeroll* "Whatevah. Don't get your hopes up. Charts suck."
(A,B,C,D refer to fictitious persons) (10 years have passed and the chart 'regressions' have reverted me back to a grumpy, indifferent but moody teenager)
|
|
desertfloods
2x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by desertfloods on Mar 7, 2016 23:58:22 GMT -5
Me in 2006: *eagerly awaits the Mediabase update everyday, writes down in my notebook my own charting calculations, religiously reads all things chart-related, excitedly posts on Pulse* Me in 2016: *blase* A says: "Looks like Heartbeat will get 3 weeks at #1!" Me: Yeah, right [/sarcasm] B says: "Oh, Keith overtook Carrie.." Me: Of course he did. C says: "Oh, and then Randy overtook Carrie..." Me: Of course he did. D says: "Carrie's next. She'll be #1 now for 1 week." Me: *eyeroll* "Whatevah. Don't get your hopes up. Charts suck." (A,B,C,D refer to fictitious persons) (10 years have passed and the chart 'regressions' have reverted me back to a grumpy, indifferent but moody teenager) LOL. This is EXACTLY me too.
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,639
|
Post by onebuffalo on Mar 8, 2016 17:49:38 GMT -5
O.K., Arista. Time to get this to #1 and announce the third single.
|
|
#brayden
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,571
|
Post by #brayden on Mar 8, 2016 17:49:55 GMT -5
So, what was projected to be a natural 3-week reign at the top has now been cut to 1 week? Well done, country radio! That's because there's nothing 'natural' about the country radio charts... especially when it gets to this point. EDIT: I'm sure you're aware of that, though. ;)
|
|
ant
Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ant on Mar 8, 2016 17:54:22 GMT -5
Okay, so is this going to be #1 next week?
|
|