ericNY2002
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 1,363
|
Post by ericNY2002 on Nov 26, 2008 13:37:11 GMT -5
I got an e-mail back from Wade Jessen about the recurrent rule, starting this week there are 2 ways a song can go to recurrent status. 1) desecending songs will be moved to recurrent below #10 in spins or audience if the song is over 20 weeks old (same rule as before).
2)However, the new wrinkle is songs posting audience losses 3 consecutive weeks will be removed on the 3rd week REGARDLESS of # of weeks on chart if the song is under or falls below #10.(basically the mediabase rule, but the song has to fall out of the top 10 before going recurrent).
|
|
Ten Pound Hammer
9x Platinum Member
Banned
I watched it all on my radio
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 9,595
|
Post by Ten Pound Hammer on Nov 26, 2008 14:20:43 GMT -5
YES! Somebody at Billboard read my mind. This is exactly what I wanted them to do with the recurrent rule. It might also explain why Kenny fell off this week.
|
|
someguy
Diamond Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 16,031
|
Post by someguy on Nov 26, 2008 15:35:53 GMT -5
That's much better than a 15 week rule, since songs take so long to peak at country radio. This way, a still climbing song that has a bad 17th week won't get pulled.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Nov 26, 2008 15:37:27 GMT -5
so "love story" could eventually go from top 10 straight to recurrent after only 12 weeks on the chart ?
for example: #1 - #3 - #6 - recurrent.
thats seems screwy too.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Nov 26, 2008 15:47:52 GMT -5
Yes, based upon the 'wrinkle' Eric cited in rule #2.
This move is way overdue; it should help unclog the charts, and make it a little bit easier for a lot of songs which have crawled into the upper teens very slowly possibly snag a week or two in the top ten, given the format's overreliance on its superstars.
|
|
kw9461
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 3,765
|
Post by kw9461 on Nov 26, 2008 16:24:41 GMT -5
I agree that this change was much needed and it will be much welcomed by me. It was ridiculous having #1 after #1 falling into the mid-20's before falling off the charts. I still would've preferred a 15-15 rule (because it makes chart runs easier to compare), but this will do. I just hope BB airs on the side of caution this holiday season and doesn't pull any struggling bottom-half songs before they have a chance to rebound after New Year's.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Nov 26, 2008 16:35:55 GMT -5
Yes, based upon the 'wrinkle' Eric cited in rule #2. eh im not a fan then....a #1 song on the chart for only 12 weeks....what is this 1982 ?
|
|
Ten Pound Hammer
9x Platinum Member
Banned
I watched it all on my radio
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 9,595
|
Post by Ten Pound Hammer on Nov 26, 2008 17:45:17 GMT -5
Yes, based upon the 'wrinkle' Eric cited in rule #2. eh im not a fan then....a #1 song on the chart for only 12 weeks....what is this 1982 ? How is this any less favorable than what Mediabase does? I think "All I Want to Do" only got 12 or 13 weeks on that chart.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Nov 26, 2008 19:32:55 GMT -5
eh im not a fan then....a #1 song on the chart for only 12 weeks....what is this 1982 ? How is this any less favorable than what Mediabase does? I think "All I Want to Do" only got 12 or 13 weeks on that chart. dont like that either.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Nov 26, 2008 21:24:15 GMT -5
One reason why I suspect that some of you aren't too thrilled about this is because it shortens the number of weeks that a song can stay on the charts, which is partially why this change was implimented.
The fact that Billboard doesn't include recurrent spins when tabulating their year-end charts is probably something else that some of you folks aren't too thrilled about, but the differences between BB & Country Aircheck/Medfiabase as it relates to recurrent spins, the recurrent rules, the differences in the size of their respective reporting panels, and the difference in their airplay weeks pretty much guarantees that the two trades may not agree with each other.
That's undoubtedly the case on both a weekly as well as a year-end basis, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The Mediabase/Country Aircheck rules for recurrents (ranked below #1 and down in spins or audience in three successive weeks isn't perfect either, but that's show biz, huh?
|
|
|
Post by zaclord on Nov 26, 2008 22:53:52 GMT -5
any rules they make, someone will not be happy. but for me, i love it. this will get the songs that are done on the charts out faster and give new songs a chance to peak a few spots higher.
|
|
k1465
New Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 17
|
Post by k1465 on Nov 27, 2008 4:21:08 GMT -5
Add me to the list of those who do not like the rule. Somehow it doesn't seem right that a song can peak at #17 and stay in 20+ weeks while a #1 only stays in 13-15 The problem with the clogged charts isn't the former #1's- it's the songs that continue to climb and climb. All this will do is to allow MORE new songs that clog up the charts.
|
|
edwin1961
Gold Member
Have a beer, let's talk.
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 914
|
Post by edwin1961 on Nov 27, 2008 8:21:30 GMT -5
Yes, based upon the 'wrinkle' Eric cited in rule #2. eh im not a fan then....a #1 song on the chart for only 12 weeks....what is this 1982 ? Yep! I was following the charts back then!
|
|
edwin1961
Gold Member
Have a beer, let's talk.
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 914
|
Post by edwin1961 on Nov 27, 2008 8:23:15 GMT -5
any rules they make, someone will not be happy. but for me, i love it. this will get the songs that are done on the charts out faster and give new songs a chance to peak a few spots higher. Too bad this wasn't enacted a few years ago., maybe Sugarland's Stay could have made number one? At least the CMA's gave it Song Of the Year!
|
|
edwin1961
Gold Member
Have a beer, let's talk.
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 914
|
Post by edwin1961 on Nov 27, 2008 8:27:15 GMT -5
Yes, based upon the 'wrinkle' Eric cited in rule #2. eh im not a fan then....a #1 song on the chart for only 12 weeks....what is this 1982 ? A thought: Have you ever thought about putting your own chart together? Take part in the Personal Chart Forum. It would be great if we had a few more country fans posting charts. My personal chart goes to a 25 week rule and many songs that do not od well on the national chart, does better on mine.
|
|
|
Post by zaclord on Nov 27, 2008 10:25:45 GMT -5
i need to start posting my chart again
|
|
|
Post by zaclord on Nov 27, 2008 12:06:10 GMT -5
so will "Tequila On Ice" go recurrent as well? its been slowly losing a little audience each week, but why would they cut out a song that new? or Julianne Hough, Jessica Simpson, etc way down on the bottom of the chart? will they go recurrent after 10 weeks and peak below #40?
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Nov 27, 2008 12:15:57 GMT -5
This might be a problem at top 40 radio as well, but the problem at country radio stems from the fact that the format's twelve most played artists through the end of August (Kenny Chesney/Toby Keith/Rascal Flatts/Tim McGraw/Brad Paisley/George Strait/Alan Jackson/Brooks & Dunn/Carrie Underwood/Montgomery Gentry/Keith Urban/Garth Brooks), aka 'The Dominant Dozen', as Lon Helton referred to them in Country Aircheck, accounted for an incredible 39% of all country airplay through August, with approximately 3.4 million spins between them.
When you add the acts ranked 13th-18th in spins (Taylor Swift/Rodney Atkins/Sugarland/Trace Adkins/Dierks Bentley/Gary Allan), those eighteen acts account for 50% of all airplay at country radio.
The format needs to continue to develop new stars, and modifying the recurrent rules to unclog the charts and make it easier for newcomers (and especially females) to crack the top ten instead of barely missing (Danielle Peck and Kellie Pickler come to mind) is certainly a very good idea IMHO.
|
|
Zazie
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,144
|
Post by Zazie on Nov 27, 2008 12:28:07 GMT -5
so will "Tequila On Ice" go recurrent as well? its been slowly losing a little audience each week, but why would they cut out a song that new? or Julianne Hough, Jessica Simpson, etc way down on the bottom of the chart? will they go recurrent after 10 weeks and peak below #40? I don't think they will pull songs that never made the top 40. They did pull Billy Ray, who did make the 40, and they didn't pull Keith Anderson (at only 6 weeks). We'll see what they do with Randy Owens, who didn't make the 40 in a longish run, next week. (Except if he's gone, we won't be sure he didn't drop out anyway. But if he's on, and doesn't bullet, that tells us something.) They're trying to cut down on the long decline period for artists like Taylor and Kenny who climb so quickly, and I don't see why they would craft a rule that did more than that. I can't imagine they want songs to go recurrent in less than 10 weeks. But I'm not privy to their thinking. Would they let a song go recurrent straight from #1? The rule seems to allow for that -- even MB's old rule doesn't allow that to happen.
|
|
someguy
Diamond Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 16,031
|
Post by someguy on Nov 27, 2008 14:34:53 GMT -5
A song going recurrent from #1 would be very strange indeed, though I agree that the rule does seem to allow for that. We almost had that happen late last year, when "So Small" fell from #1 to #10. I wonder if they actually would have pulled it, had it fallen to #11.
I agree that having songs like "My Hallelujah Song" and "Tequila On Ice" go recurrent after only a few weeks below the top 40 would be bizarre. Hopefully that won't happen. There could also be scenerios where charting album tracks go recurrent, only to get released as a single later on, which would also be quite strange.
Overall, I'm against recurrent rules in general. However, if this change only does apply to older, already peaked songs, such as the recent #1s by Kenny and Taylor, then it will serve its purpose, which is to speed up the charts.
|
|
|
Post by zaclord on Nov 27, 2008 15:23:42 GMT -5
i didnt even think of album tracks. that would be really odd.
|
|
kw9461
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 3,765
|
Post by kw9461 on Nov 27, 2008 16:39:30 GMT -5
MB has some rules about songs that peak below a certain place don't go recurrent (50?). I assume that BB would have the same rule. I also wonder if BB will have the same rules about grace weeks, or if unbulleted grace weeks will count towards the 3 weeks. I would assume that Keith Anderson would have a grace week this week, and that Darryl would've had one last week.
|
|
|
Post by zaclord on Nov 27, 2008 21:11:56 GMT -5
well there wouldnt be any complaints from me if Keith Anderson and Darryl Worley went recurrent. but if Whitney Duncan, Jessica Simpson, or Julianne Hough did then i would be mad
|
|
EmersonDrive13Rocks
5x Platinum Member
Buy COUNTRIFIED today!!!!! Includes #1 HIT "MOMENTS" as well as "A Good Man" and "You Still Own Me"!
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by EmersonDrive13Rocks on Nov 28, 2008 2:35:33 GMT -5
I really like this new rule.
|
|
edwin1961
Gold Member
Have a beer, let's talk.
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 914
|
Post by edwin1961 on Nov 28, 2008 22:52:40 GMT -5
A song going recurrent from #1 would be very strange indeed, though I agree that the rule does seem to allow for that. We almost had that happen late last year, when "So Small" fell from #1 to #10. I wonder if they actually would have pulled it, had it fallen to #11. I agree that having songs like "My Hallelujah Song" and "Tequila On Ice" go recurrent after only a few weeks below the top 40 would be bizarre. Hopefully that won't happen. There could also be scenerios where charting album tracks go recurrent, only to get released as a single later on, which would also be quite strange. Overall, I'm against recurrent rules in general. However, if this change only does apply to older, already peaked songs, such as the recent #1s by Kenny and Taylor, then it will serve its purpose, which is to speed up the charts. Back in the early 1980's (I want to say around 1982), there was a #1 song that completely fell out of the T40 after peaking. (I don't remember the song though). Just a quick as More Than A Memory debuted at #1 last year (which I still find VERY suspicious), I still believe it IS possible for a #1 to go recurrent, we just hadn't had one yet ieth the new rule.
|
|
edwin1961
Gold Member
Have a beer, let's talk.
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 914
|
Post by edwin1961 on Nov 28, 2008 22:53:29 GMT -5
so will "Tequila On Ice" go recurrent as well? its been slowly losing a little audience each week, but why would they cut out a song that new? or Julianne Hough, Jessica Simpson, etc way down on the bottom of the chart? will they go recurrent after 10 weeks and peak below #40? Zac, I think you'd my chart and where I've put those songs. ;)
|
|
edwin1961
Gold Member
Have a beer, let's talk.
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 914
|
Post by edwin1961 on Nov 28, 2008 23:02:00 GMT -5
MB has some rules about songs that peak below a certain place don't go recurrent (50?). I assume that BB would have the same rule. I also wonder if BB will have the same rules about grace weeks, or if unbulleted grace weeks will count towards the 3 weeks. I would assume that Keith Anderson would have a grace week this week, and that Darryl would've had one last week. With all these new rules (or the fact that the rules have been changing so much) how they can keep track of them. I found it rather peculiar that Melissa Lawson's What If It All Goes Right, peaked at #49 fell out, came back in one week, fell out and NOW re-entry at #47. Was this song pulled out in error and just placed back in to 'correct' it's true position. I like the song and really hopes it breaks into the T40 soon. (If everyone may recall this year, that Lee Brice's Happy Endings fell out at #32, gone for one week and then mysteriously re-entered back at #32. Then fell down and out. (Would that had been a sign of 'recorrcting a chart error)?
|
|
kw9461
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 3,765
|
Post by kw9461 on Nov 28, 2008 23:22:59 GMT -5
No, What If It All Goes Right didn't get pulled, it's just had very schizophrenic run thus far. It's original debut was aided by the buzz from her winning Nashville Star. Then it fell out and toiled in obscurity for a while, but managed to squeak out a week or two in the low 50's (if I remember correctly, she only had like 15 or 20 spins in those weeks though). I've been following the song on quick cuts, and it just keeps darting up and down, up and down, and so forth. I don't know what caused the big jump, but it jumped from .134 aud. on MB (97th) to .831 (56th) this past week.
|
|
Ten Pound Hammer
9x Platinum Member
Banned
I watched it all on my radio
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 9,595
|
Post by Ten Pound Hammer on Nov 29, 2008 10:34:09 GMT -5
No, What If It All Goes Right didn't get pulled, it's just had very schizophrenic run thus far. It's original debut was aided by the buzz from her winning Nashville Star. Then it fell out and toiled in obscurity for a while, but managed to squeak out a week or two in the low 50's (if I remember correctly, she only had like 15 or 20 spins in those weeks though). I've been following the song on quick cuts, and it just keeps darting up and down, up and down, and so forth. I don't know what caused the big jump, but it jumped from .134 aud. on MB (97th) to .831 (56th) this past week. Didn't she have, like, 47 spins this week too? That might have something to do with it.
|
|
smack
Gold Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 770
|
Post by smack on Nov 29, 2008 16:08:47 GMT -5
I don't like the new rules. Why is the country chart the only one that has been targeted over and over and over? We very likely will see a song between now and end of 2009 fall from #1 to recurrent. Keep in mind, based on these rules, Garth's total chart run w/ MTAM would have been about 6-8 weeks. I think they should keep them current at the top 15 or top 20, and still allow 20 weeks. Why should a chart NOT reflect the true top 15 or 20? A song that is still making top 20 spins is still one of the top played songs for the format, and definitely should reflect this. I'm so sick of BB's rules and cutting this, cutting that...I may not renew my subscription in the next 4 weeks when it expires. They offer less and less content in the print edition, but yet don't offer online only! Maybe if enough people expressed interest we could get that, but doubtful.
|
|