Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 11:23:40 GMT -5
Please. Everyones gets to #1on merit. No, the charts were never ever manipulated in the good old days before downloading and remixes. I don't have any problem with remixes per se. I have a problem with the timing of the release of some of these remixes. Anyway, I said my peace, I'm done with it, but I really do hope Billboard chooses to address this issue soon.
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Aug 17, 2011 11:25:06 GMT -5
No, the charts were never ever manipulated in the good old days before downloading and remixes. Yes they were. In many ways it was worse. Sales and AirPlay was a function of people saying it happened. Additionally the artists didn't have to deal with illegal downloading etc.... Yeah, I know, that's why I put the big smiley face at the end of that comment. If Billboard changes policy, artists and labels will just try to game the charts some other way, people will complain and they'll change it again, labels will find new tactics, and so on and so forth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 11:25:07 GMT -5
Oh and she did Re-Write history. Michael had the record for most weeks at #1 from an album with 5 #1s, but now Katy has it. ;)
|
|
Scotty
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by Scotty on Aug 17, 2011 11:25:45 GMT -5
To a normal person this song definitely feels like a number one record. I believe if you took a poll of random pop music listeners and told them Last Friday Night peaked at number 1, very few if not nobody would be surprised.
IMO, you're using "tactics" to undermine Perry's achievement. Very few artists, even if they released one hundred remixes, would be able to achieve the single success Perry has had from this album. And for a fifth single off of an album with four prior #1s and albums sales approaching 2 million, as well as the competition being as heavy as it is, I am astonished it was able to reach number 1 under ANY condition.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 17, 2011 11:26:44 GMT -5
No, the charts were never ever manipulated in the good old days before downloading and remixes. I don't have any problem with remixes per se. I have a problem with the timing of the release of some of these remixes. Anyway, I said my peace, I'm done with it, but I really do hope Billboard chooses to address this issue soon. don't hold your breathe for that.
|
|
|
Post by Peaches. [Ch, r. is] on Aug 17, 2011 11:27:15 GMT -5
OMG, it's the "We Belong Together" discussion all over again. Or the Born This Way selling 1m+ discussion. Or the Beyonce only got to #1 because of promo discussion. People need help, I swear. Oh and she did Re-Write history. Michael had the record for most weeks at #1 from an album with 5 #1s, but now Katy has it. ;) No she made history, didn't rewrite it. Re writing it would be saying something like "Michael never did it"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 11:32:47 GMT -5
Oh and she did Re-Write history. Michael had the record for most weeks at #1 from an album with 5 #1s, but now Katy has it. ;) No she made history, didn't rewrite it. Re writing it would be saying something like "Michael never did it" ??? Then wouldn't the fact that she is the first female to get 5 #1s be rewriting history? This is too confusing lol.
|
|
Cory | Alan
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2007
Posts: 1,637
|
Post by Cory | Alan on Aug 17, 2011 11:37:22 GMT -5
stay pressed, y'all, stay pressed.
Katy Perry snatched they weaves, they wigs and they checkbooks!
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Aug 17, 2011 11:39:02 GMT -5
I personally don't think the song deserves #1 and I do think that it getting there was based on sneaky, cheaty ways. But to suggest that the charts were based on merit is ridiculous. Labels have being taking different approaches to win for a long time. This is the latest tactic. Should Billboard decide to change their rules to reflect this, the labels will come up with something else. That's what they do. This #1 may not be "legitimate" but I bet most of the songs to hit #1 in the not so recent past have had some sort of controlled aspect of them on behalf of their label. Discounts, remixes, planned strategic last-minute public appearances, tragedy, whatever. No more of these "what-ifs". This is how it's been done and how it will continue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 11:39:03 GMT -5
I'm a fan of the Beatles. The Beatles have 20 Hot 100 #1 hits. More than anybody else. They have held that record since 1970. Trust me, I am SOOOO not pressed about Katy and her 6 #1 hits. ;)
|
|
₫anny Jerz ♔
Diamond Member
Irrelevant
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 10,939
|
Post by ₫anny Jerz ♔ on Aug 17, 2011 11:50:43 GMT -5
Various strategies (promotion, discounts, remixes) have always been used in order to get the highest possible chart peak. This is nothing new. None of those tactics would have worked anyway if there wasn't enough interest in the song. Given its huge airplay and sales, this is an unsurprising #1 no matter how you slice it. Kudos to her and her team. They've played this chart game flawlessly and handled the era, overall, perfectly.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Aug 17, 2011 11:52:35 GMT -5
How can it not deserve No. 1, when it achieved No. 1 peaks on both airplay and sales?
I don't think Billboard will address this"tactics" issue- they don't always ensure a No. 1, after all (i.e. "Till the World Ends"). The single has to be THAT strong in overall points to challenge for No. 1, prior to the tactic.
If this was, say, Missy Elliott's team's idea to get a No. 1, then it failed in that respect, as Elliott will not receive credit on the chart.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,959
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Aug 17, 2011 11:56:37 GMT -5
If this was, say, Missy Elliott's team's idea to get a No. 1, then it failed in that respect, as Elliott will not receive credit on the chart. Well, it won't be new. She wasn't credited on "Lady Marmalade" though MTV did credit her when the clip won Video Of The Year 10 years ago at the VMAs.
|
|
SPRΞΞ
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2009
Posts: 21,743
|
Post by SPRΞΞ on Aug 17, 2011 12:00:11 GMT -5
stay pressed, y'all, stay pressed. Katy Perry snatched they weaves, they wigs and they checkbooks! Isn't it wonderful?
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Aug 17, 2011 12:01:24 GMT -5
^But that was not a "remix, but the original album version. I know what ya mean, though. :)
In essence, the charts are a game- the Elliott "remix" just gave LFN the little nudge it needed to top the chart; it's not the overwhelming share of the single's chart points.
|
|
|
Post by neverduplicated on Aug 17, 2011 12:14:57 GMT -5
Billboard should say something because what's going to happen now? Will ALL artists now release remixes if they don't like where their single looks like it's going to peak? If someone wants a top 10 record, but it looks like they are just going to miss getting one, will they release a remix to try to boast their song into the top 10? And it's too bad all those artists from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's never had the chance to have another go at getting a #1 hit when their songs peaked short of the top spot. If only they had known that all they had to do was release remixes. Who knew? I miss the days when a single was released and peaked wherever it peaked based solely on its own merit, whether that was at #1 or #2 or whatever. Do you not remember how tons of singles in the 50's, 60's, and 70's were two-sided and thus when a song reached number 1, it was actually because of two different singles both pulling in sales? How is that more fair than releasing a remix which is practically the same as the original version? Also, this song reached number 1 on both digital sales and airplay WITHOUT the help of ANY remixes, even the standard dance remixes, so yes, this song is definitely a deserving number 1. Also, no one seems to mind that for the past however many weeks LMFAO has had a remix version of their song selling very well. Perhaps LFN would have hit number 1 if PRA didn't have any remixes. Is everyone going to start saying that LMFAO cheated to get to number 1 as well?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 12:18:49 GMT -5
I just wish Missy could have gotten some credit. Even though the remix didn't sell the original, she definitely deserves credit the same way Britney did for S&M and Nicki & Kesha do for TTWE.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 17, 2011 12:22:21 GMT -5
I just wish Missy could have gotten some credit. Even though the remix didn't sell the original, she definitely deserves credit the same way Britney did for S&M and Nicki & Kesha do for TTWE. Not hardly. I think the record company could've just released the dance mixes instead of the Missy remix and accomplished the same thing.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Aug 17, 2011 12:25:32 GMT -5
Well, REV, for what it's worth, Paul Grein and Record Research will not be counting "S&M" as a top 10 for Spears. As for LFN dance mixes, all of them combined probably would not have sold as much as the "remix"- dance mixes just don't move significant units compared to other versions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 12:26:05 GMT -5
Billboard should say something because what's going to happen now? Will ALL artists now release remixes if they don't like where their single looks like it's going to peak? If someone wants a top 10 record, but it looks like they are just going to miss getting one, will they release a remix to try to boast their song into the top 10? And it's too bad all those artists from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's never had the chance to have another go at getting a #1 hit when their songs peaked short of the top spot. If only they had known that all they had to do was release remixes. Who knew? I miss the days when a single was released and peaked wherever it peaked based solely on its own merit, whether that was at #1 or #2 or whatever. Do you not remember how tons of singles in the 50's, 60's, and 70's were two-sided and thus when a song reached number 1, it was actually because of two different singles both pulling in sales? How is that more fair than releasing a remix which is practically the same as the original version? Also, this song reached number 1 on both digital sales and airplay WITHOUT the help of ANY remixes, even the standard dance remixes, so yes, this song is definitely a deserving number 1. Also, no one seems to mind that for the past however many weeks LMFAO has had a remix version of their song selling very well. Perhaps LFN would have hit number 1 if PRA didn't have any remixes. Is everyone going to start saying that LMFAO cheated to get to number 1 as well? Not from Aug 1958 (the Hot 100's inception) through Nov 1969. Previous to Aug 1958 and after Nov 1969 it is true that if both sides of a single proved popular, they would be counted as a double sided single and their points would be added together. However, between Aug 1958 and Nov 1969 (when Billboard changed their policy) different sides of a hit single would chart in TWO different positions on the Hot 100, and their points were NOT added together. For instance "Penny Lane" by the Beatles peaked at #1 in 1967, but it's "B" side "Strawberry Fields Forever," while also a hit, only managed to peak at #8 on the Hot 100, which is still pretty high for a "B" side. So you are partially right, but as you can see, the policy did not exist in the late 50's and for most of the 60's.
|
|
KMJ1
2x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by KMJ1 on Aug 17, 2011 12:31:32 GMT -5
damn! good for her. I really didnt think shed do it this week- if at all. Im feeling REALLY bad for Mimis ceramic plates right now :(.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 12:31:33 GMT -5
Well, REV, for what it's worth, Paul Grein and Record Research will not be counting "S&M" as a top 10 for Spears. As for LFN dance mixes, all of them combined probably would not have sold as much as the "remix"- dance mixes just don't move significant units compared to other versions. IIRC the E.T. remixs sold 20-25k for weeks. The LFN remixes with a discount could have gotten the #1 too, imo.
|
|
|
Post by neverduplicated on Aug 17, 2011 12:31:54 GMT -5
Do you not remember how tons of singles in the 50's, 60's, and 70's were two-sided and thus when a song reached number 1, it was actually because of two different singles both pulling in sales? How is that more fair than releasing a remix which is practically the same as the original version? Also, this song reached number 1 on both digital sales and airplay WITHOUT the help of ANY remixes, even the standard dance remixes, so yes, this song is definitely a deserving number 1. Also, no one seems to mind that for the past however many weeks LMFAO has had a remix version of their song selling very well. Perhaps LFN would have hit number 1 if PRA didn't have any remixes. Is everyone going to start saying that LMFAO cheated to get to number 1 as well? Not from Aug 1958 (the Hot 100's inception) through Nov 1969. Previous to Aug 1958 and after Nov 1969 it is true that if both sides of a single proved popular, they would be counted as a double sided single and their points would be added together. However, between Aug 1958 and Nov 1969 (when Billboard changed their policy) different sides of a hit single would chart in TWO different positions on the Hot 100, and their points were NOT added together. For instance "Penny Lane" by the Beatles peaked at #1 in 1967, but it's "B" side "Strawberry Fields Forever," while also a hit, only managed to peak at #8 on the Hot 100, which is still pretty high for a "B" side. So you are partially right, but as you can see, the policy did not exist in the late 50's and for most of the 60's. My point is that you and so many others act like there was this golden age of charts where everything ranked exactly where it was supposed to with no tricks and whatnot, and yet actually it's always been just as bad if not worse in the past. Not to mention now we actually have highly accurate ways of detecting airplay, sales, and streaming, so in some ways, number 1 is more accurate and meaningful now than it was in the past. I'd also like to point out that singles being available for download from the moment an album is released means it's exceptionally hard for 4th and 5th singles to hit number 1, probably moreso now than in the past (of course re-releases are a glaring exception).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 12:36:29 GMT -5
Not from Aug 1958 (the Hot 100's inception) through Nov 1969. Previous to Aug 1958 and after Nov 1969 it is true that if both sides of a single proved popular, they would be counted as a double sided single and their points would be added together. However, between Aug 1958 and Nov 1969 (when Billboard changed their policy) different sides of a hit single would chart in TWO different positions on the Hot 100, and their points were NOT added together. For instance "Penny Lane" by the Beatles peaked at #1 in 1967, but it's "B" side "Strawberry Fields Forever," while also a hit, only managed to peak at #8 on the Hot 100, which is still pretty high for a "B" side. So you are partially right, but as you can see, the policy did not exist in the late 50's and for most of the 60's. My point is that you and so many others act like there was this golden age of charts where everything ranked exactly where it was supposed to with no tricks and whatnot, and yet actually it's always been just as bad if not worse in the past. Not to mention now we actually have highly accurate ways of detecting airplay, sales, and streaming, so in some ways, number 1 is more accurate and meaningful now than it was in the past. I'd also like to point out that singles being available for download from the moment an album is released means it's exceptionally hard for 4th and 5th singles to hit number 1, probably moreso now than in the past (of course re-releases are a glaring exception). Actually I think it's just the opposite; I think having the #1 position has become less meaningful in more recent years. It used to be something special, and now it seems that everybody is able to pull off multiple #1's, never more so than now. But admittedly, that's JMO.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 17, 2011 12:52:23 GMT -5
My point is that you and so many others act like there was this golden age of charts where everything ranked exactly where it was supposed to with no tricks and whatnot, and yet actually it's always been just as bad if not worse in the past. Not to mention now we actually have highly accurate ways of detecting airplay, sales, and streaming, so in some ways, number 1 is more accurate and meaningful now than it was in the past. I'd also like to point out that singles being available for download from the moment an album is released means it's exceptionally hard for 4th and 5th singles to hit number 1, probably moreso now than in the past (of course re-releases are a glaring exception). Actually I think it's just the opposite; I think having the #1 position has become less meaningful in more recent years. It used to be something special, and now it seems that everybody is able to pull off multiple #1's, never more so than now. But admittedly, that's JMO. That's not true. Rihanna and Katy are the only one's currently who are getting multiple #1s from the same album. Plus back then people released an album or an EP every other week and a single's shelf life back then was much shorter so it was easier to get multiple hits from one album on multiple levels.
|
|
d.t.m
6x Platinum Member
D.T.M.
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 6,437
|
Post by d.t.m on Aug 17, 2011 12:57:09 GMT -5
I just hate Missy got cheated out of all of this. Katy can tie MJ, but she better not step on Whitney's toes!
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,959
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Aug 17, 2011 13:00:18 GMT -5
I just hate Missy got cheated out of all of this. Katy can tie MJ, but she better not step on Whitney's toes! Of course, if we're charting all entries, as Katy had promo singles for "Circle The Drain" and "Not Like The Movies" out. For legit radio / video singles, she now ties Mariah I believe with 5.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 13:00:43 GMT -5
Video of the year is definitely hers then. What a shame Janet's "Come Back To Me" only made #2. :'( And Rhythm Nation! I am always surprised when I remember that Rhythm Nation actually did *not* get to number 1. That said, Rhythm Nation 1814 did make its own history by being the only album thus far to have seven singles all peak within the top five, which brings me to a crazy thought I just had. It's kind of mind-boggling when you consider this, but now that Katy has managed to tie one record she is in a very enviable position where she actually has multiple other records she can aim to tie or break, and as long as Capitol keeps their sh!t together this time it's almost impossible for her to not achieve at least one of those marks no matter which way they attempt to go: - they can try to break Michael's record rather than just tying it with a sixth #1 - they can aim to tie or break Janet's record with two or three more singles - they can aim to tie or break Whitney's record of seven straight #1's I've seen some say that she should close this era and aim for Whitney's record starting with the next era, but I'd argue that the safer bet is aiming for Janet's record because it's easier to push for just a top 5 peak than it is for a number one (which depends so much on timing, getting airplay and sales to peak at the same time, and how strong the competition is at the moment). So even if she shoots for another #1 from TD and misses - hell, even if she misses twice - she can still catch up to Janet. In fact she has three songs left that I think have top 5 potential, HH, Peacock, and TOTGA. That's only the would-be label executive in me speaking though. The diehard old-school music fan in me is already salty that she tied MJ as it is so I am not particularly rooting for her to pass him or anyone else. Still, it is fascinating to see the possibilities.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 13:09:52 GMT -5
My point is that you and so many others act like there was this golden age of charts where everything ranked exactly where it was supposed to with no tricks and whatnot, and yet actually it's always been just as bad if not worse in the past. Not to mention now we actually have highly accurate ways of detecting airplay, sales, and streaming, so in some ways, number 1 is more accurate and meaningful now than it was in the past. I'd also like to point out that singles being available for download from the moment an album is released means it's exceptionally hard for 4th and 5th singles to hit number 1, probably moreso now than in the past (of course re-releases are a glaring exception). Actually I think it's just the opposite; I think having the #1 position has become less meaningful in more recent years. It used to be something special, and now it seems that everybody is able to pull off multiple #1's, never more so than now. But admittedly, that's JMO. Not really, Rihanna and Mariah are the only artists to get 10+ number ones in Soundscan era, if anything the pre-Soundscan era was way easier to manipulate than today and just about everything went number 1 in the old days. Janet, George Michael, Whitney, Mariah's debut all had 4 number 1s off an album.
|
|
worldwide
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,145
|
Post by worldwide on Aug 17, 2011 13:18:03 GMT -5
Now that she reached this record it only goes to show how irrelevant it is.
|
|