Billboard Hot 100: 11/26/11

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Nov 12, 2011 15:22:12 GMT -5 @2m said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:18:23 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

That's Billboard's criteria for what's the bigger hit on the HOT 100. Look it up. Send billboard a trivia question or something. For their books they use a different methodology for compilation.

My point is there are a bunch of different measurements. Weeks at #1 is only one of them and I believe not the most definitive

I didn't just come up with my thoughts out of thin air. I am going by the Billboard HOT 100 for what's a bigger hit....that's the bottom line. They muddy things up so they can sell books. Faith Hill had like the #1 song of the year yet still didn't have a bigger hit than others. It had a hit that lasted longer but it wasn't bigger. I responded to you but I was also responding to another poster who said I was being stupid for using the BB method of what's the biggest HOT 100 hit. Not some special method used to for one of their many many one off books.

[Scotty]

That's Billboard's criteria for what's the bigger hit on the HOT 100. Look it up. Send billboard a trivia question or something. For their books they use a different methodology for compilation.

I guess that's Billboard's criteria then, but we shouldn't translate it here. It's a stupid system. Because by that note, Bad Romance (peak #2) or Need You Now (peak #2) were not bigger hits than Hold It Against Me (peak #1), which we all know isn't reasonable.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your criteria was not the criteria I was judging with.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Nov 12, 2011 15:23:43 GMT -5 @2m said:

Billboard magazine doesn't produce any books that I am aware of.

Joel Whitburn has a license for the data and he does his own thing with it but he is not an employee

Then why site a book that has no relation to billboard other than the guy took the data and did his own thing with it. The bottom line is Billboard defines the rules for what the biggest hit is for it's own chart. If you want to know who has amassed the most chart points, that's a different question altogether.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2011 15:27:05 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:22:12 GMT -5 @2m said:

My point is there are a bunch of different measurements. Weeks at #1 is only one of them and I believe not the most definitive

I didn't just come up with my thoughts out of thin air. I am going by the Billboard HOT 100 for what's a bigger hit....that's the bottom line. They muddy things up so they can sell books. Faith Hill had like the #1 song of the year yet still didn't have a bigger hit than others. It had a hit that lasted longer but it wasn't bigger. I responded to you but I was also responding to another poster who said I was being stupid for using the BB method of what's the biggest HOT 100 hit. Not some special method used to for one of their many many one off books.

Billboard doesn't have books. Joel Whitburn does (he does not work for Billboard)

I think the point is there is only one clear cut way being used to measure popularity within a week. But lots of different ways and opinions on what is the "correct" way to compare overall popularity of songs that did not chart at the same time.

There is no one right answer - in my opinion.

Of course, in your opinion, there probably is only one right answer.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Nov 12, 2011 15:29:31 GMT -5 Scotty said:

That's Billboard's criteria for what's the bigger hit on the HOT 100. Look it up. Send billboard a trivia question or something. For their books they use a different methodology for compilation.

I guess that's Billboard's criteria then, but we shouldn't translate it here. It's a stupid system. Because by that note, Bad Romance (peak #2) or Need You Now (peak #2) were not bigger hits than Hold It Against Me (peak #1), which we all know isn't reasonable.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your criteria was not the criteria I was judging with.

It was a bigger hit though than Need You Now. It amassed more chart points in a single week than Need You Now did in a single week. You guys are confusing bigger with longer.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Nov 12, 2011 15:34:59 GMT -5 @2m said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:27:05 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

I didn't just come up with my thoughts out of thin air. I am going by the Billboard HOT 100 for what's a bigger hit....that's the bottom line. They muddy things up so they can sell books. Faith Hill had like the #1 song of the year yet still didn't have a bigger hit than others. It had a hit that lasted longer but it wasn't bigger. I responded to you but I was also responding to another poster who said I was being stupid for using the BB method of what's the biggest HOT 100 hit. Not some special method used to for one of their many many one off books.

Billboard doesn't have books. Joel Whitburn does (he does not work for Billboard)

I think the point is there is only one clear cut way being used to measure popularity within a week. But lots of different ways and opinions on what is the "correct" way to compare overall popularity of songs that did not chart at the same time.

There is no one right answer - in my opinion.

Of course, in your opinion, there probably is only one right answer.

Billboard defines the rules for it's own chart. There is no if ands or buts about it. A bigger hit for the purposes of the HOT 100 means being the most popular song and spending the most amount of weeks at #1.

Now if there is a tie then what.....do you go by most points in a single chart week? How would that compare across time periods and chart methodology changes.

IMO, bigger hit should mean higher position and then it should go to higher point totals relative to the time period. So I agree with Billboard. Bigger hit means single week...not longer hit or being a hit for an extended period of time.

[Scotty]

Nov 12, 2011 15:36:18 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:29:31 GMT -5 Scotty said:

I guess that's Billboard's criteria then, but we shouldn't translate it here. It's a stupid system. Because by that note, Bad Romance (peak #2) or Need You Now (peak #2) were not bigger hits than Hold It Against Me (peak #1), which we all know isn't reasonable.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your criteria was not the criteria I was judging with.

It was a bigger hit though than Need You Now. It amassed more chart points in a single week than Need You Now did in a single week. You guys are confusing bigger with longer.

A longer-lived hit contributes to a bigger hit. At least IMO, I don't know if anybody here agrees with me.

But to say that NYN, a single that outsold HIAM by 3.5 million, has recieved a lot more total airplay and peaked higher in airplay as well, and has recieved 4 Grammy awards (including Song and Record of the year), making it a critical success, was not as big a hit as the other (in the U.S) only because its end peak was lower, surprises me.

TBH, I don't really have anything more to say about this. If that's your perspective then I suppose we can agree to disagree.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2011 15:58:21 GMT -5 Scotty said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:36:18 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

It was a bigger hit though than Need You Now. It amassed more chart points in a single week than Need You Now did in a single week. You guys are confusing bigger with longer.

A longer-lived hit contributes to a bigger hit. At least IMO, I don't know if anybody here agrees with me.

But to say that NYN, a single that outsold HIAM by 3.5 million, has recieved a lot more total airplay and peaked higher in airplay as well, and has recieved 4 Grammy awards (including Song and Record of the year), making it a critical success, was not as big a hit as the other (in the U.S) only because its end peak was lower, surprises me.

TBH, I don't really have anything more to say about this. If that's your perspective then I suppose we can agree to disagree.

I agree with you

However, everyone has their opinions, it looks like he is sticking with his.

I believe there is no overall definitive answer, especially when comparing songs that did not chart at EXACTLY the same time period.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Nov 12, 2011 15:58:21 GMT -5 Scotty said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:36:18 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

It was a bigger hit though than Need You Now. It amassed more chart points in a single week than Need You Now did in a single week. You guys are confusing bigger with longer.

A longer-lived hit contributes to a bigger hit. At least IMO, I don't know if anybody here agrees with me.

But to say that NYN, a single that outsold HIAM by 3.5 million, has recieved a lot more total airplay and peaked higher in airplay as well, and has recieved 4 Grammy awards (including Song and Record of the year), making it a critical success, was not as big a hit as the other (in the U.S) only because its end peak was lower, surprises me.

TBH, I don't really have anything more to say about this. If that's your perspective then I suppose we can agree to disagree.

Again confusing bigger hit with longevity, sales, airplay, bigger over all impact awards and other things.

Yeah we can agree to disagree but I'm sticking with the billboard definition of what constitutes a bigger hit for it's own chart.

[Rodze]

Nov 12, 2011 15:39:22 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Billboard defines the rules for it's own chart. There is no if ands or buts about it. A bigger hit for the purposes of the HOT 100 means being the most popular song and spending the most amount of weeks at #1.

Now if there is a tie then what.....do you go by most points in a single chart week? How would that compare across time periods and chart methodology changes.

IMO, bigger hit should mean higher position and then it should go to higher point totals relative to the time period. So I agree with Billboard. Bigger hit means single week...not longer hit or being a hit for an extended period of time.

Billboard's own rules are that the song that gets the most chart points is the bigger hit, not the one that spends more weeks at no. 1.

[strikeleo]

Nov 12, 2011 19:48:56 GMT -5 Rodze said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:39:22 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Billboard defines the rules for it's own chart. There is no if ands or buts about it. A bigger hit for the purposes of the HOT 100 means being the most popular song and spending the most amount of weeks at #1.

Now if there is a tie then what.....do you go by most points in a single chart week? How would that compare across time periods and chart methodology changes.

IMO, bigger hit should mean higher position and then it should go to higher point totals relative to the time period. So I agree with Billboard. Bigger hit means single week...not longer hit or being a hit for an extended period of time.

Billboard's own rules are that the song that gets the most chart points is the bigger hit, not the one that spends more weeks at no. 1.

Exactly. And in they year end charts, Billboard uses the sales + audience criteria, not the most weeks at #1. I really don't know where they use the most weeks at #1 that Adonis is claiming.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Nov 12, 2011 19:48:56 GMT -5 Rodze said:

Nov 12, 2011 15:39:22 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Billboard defines the rules for it's own chart. There is no if ands or buts about it. A bigger hit for the purposes of the HOT 100 means being the most popular song and spending the most amount of weeks at #1.

Now if there is a tie then what.....do you go by most points in a single chart week? How would that compare across time periods and chart methodology changes.

IMO, bigger hit should mean higher position and then it should go to higher point totals relative to the time period. So I agree with Billboard. Bigger hit means single week...not longer hit or being a hit for an extended period of time.

Billboard's own rules are that the song that gets the most chart points is the bigger hit, not the one that spends more weeks at no. 1.

No they do not. It's position then weeks because it's relative to the week you are in. That's why weeks at #1 matter. Take ttwlg vs ta and billboard states that ttwlg is Janet's biggest hit yet together again spent more than twice as long on the charts as ttwlg did even after starting its chart life in the top ten of the hot 100.

[Deleted]

Hypothetical example:

What is the bigger hit:

The #1 song on February 2 or the #2 song on the 26th of December.?

By your logic it would be the February song. But what if everyone and their brother are cashing in on Santa's itunes cards in December and sales of the #1 in February are only abut 1/4 of what they are Christmas week

Do you still say the February song is the bigger hit?

You can't compare the weeks equally, all weeks are different. That is the reason for the point system

[leoapp]

It's hard actually
For example, i'll consider Obsessed a bigger hit than Touch My Body, it only made #7 Hot 100 and #6 Hot 100 Airplay, #8 Digital Sales, compared to TMB which hit #1 Hot 100, #2 Hot 100 Airplay, #1 Digital Sales. But Obsessed sold more digitally, had a very strong longevity on the chart (both sales and airplay), didn't fall out the chart very quick like TMB.

[Rodze]

Nov 12, 2011 20:11:41 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Nov 12, 2011 19:48:56 GMT -5 Rodze said:

Billboard's own rules are that the song that gets the most chart points is the bigger hit, not the one that spends more weeks at no. 1.

No they do not. It's position then weeks because it's relative to the week you are in. That's why weeks at #1 matter. Take ttwlg vs ta and billboard states that ttwlg is Janet's biggest hit yet together again spent more than twice as long on the charts as ttwlg did even after starting its chart life in the top ten of the hot 100.

No, it's chart points.

Whether those points are direct sales and airplay or weighted positions depends on what they are compiling and the information available, but whenever Billboard is ranking the biggest hits, they compare chart points, not simply most weeks at no. 1. Obviously, staying more weeks at no. 1 gives you a lot of points (and there probably is a correlation between weeks at no. 1 and more overall points), but it's not the only deciding factor. Every week count.

For example, using a simple inverse point system.

Song A: 5 weeks at no. 1 + 20 weeks at no. 30 = 5*100 + 71*20 = 1920

Song B: 1 weeks at no. 1 + 24 weeks at no. 20 = 1*100 + 81*24 = 2044

Billboard would rank song B as the biggest hit.

See Beyonce's biggest hits: www.billboard.com/#/features/beyonce-30-biggest-billboard-hits-1005335392.story?page=3

"Jumpin' Jumpin'" is higher than "Say My Name", even though the former peaked at no. 3 and the latter spent 3 weeks at no. 1.

Now, if you wanna say HIAM was the biggest hit in the single week of January 29 (magazine date), then by all means. But you can't simple say it was bigger hit than any song that peaked at no. 2.

[Lozzy]

Whether or not Billboard uses it, judging which hit is bigger by looking at peak position and weeks at peak position is a really stupid system. It is Billboard's chart, but I just don't see why we have to use a system like that here. It's really obvious that there are so many more important factors, so can't we create our own kind of system, if we need a written formula of some sort? Just not by peak or weeks at peak.

Nov 12, 2011 15:36:18 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

It was a bigger hit though than Need You Now. It amassed more chart points in a single week than Need You Now did in a single week. You guys are confusing bigger with longer.

For the record, how do we know that 'Hold It Against Me' amassed more chart points in a single week than 'Need You Now' did? Just because one peaked higher doesn't mean it peaked with more points, and the last time I checked Billboard doesn't officially publish the point totals used to determine their chart.

[vantiboy3]

lol @ all this bickering.
That people are still debating how Billboard ranks songs.

It is chart points, not weeks @ no. 1!
The longer the song charts, the more points it has.
Just because a song was No. 1 for 8 weeks and than fell off doesn't mean it will rank as the biggest hit of the year.
Its very simple really.
A song that peaked at No. 3, and stayed in the Top 10 for 20 weeks AND stayed on the entirechart for 40 weeks in total, will OBVIOUSLY rank higher than a song that peaked at No. 1 for 8 weeks but was only on the chart for 28 weeks.
Hello?

[jebsib]

The practice of ranking songs via their weeks at number one, then weeks in the top 10, then by top 40, then weeks on Hot 100 - was started in the pre BDS era when chart runs were much faster than now and perhaps up to 35 songs were #1 for the year. You had to somehow differentiate all of them. Plus accuracy of RIAA certifications were always inconsistent and suspect. That system was in place for more than 30 years and served the time well. Now, as everyone points out, what with exact SS sales totals, accurate weekly audience cumes, etc., it IS a lot harder to agree on what are the biggest hits. So we'll have disagreements.

Agreed, a Glee song that reaches the Top 10 and is gone in 2 weeks doesn't FEEL like it's bigger than, say, a #11 peaking single with 48 weeks on the chart. But is there another straight forward and objective way to measure it?

[NeRD]

TOP 10
.
1. ADELE - Someone Like You: 145.302 (- 2.339)
2. MAROON 5 F/CHRISTINA AGUILERA - Moves Like Jagger: 140.778 (- 1.125)
3. GYM CLASS HEROES - Stereo Hearts f/Adam Levine: 121.308 (- 0.179)
4. RIHANNA - We Found Love f/Calvin Harris: 112.646 (+ 1.292)
5. DAVID GUETTA - Without You f/Usher: 100.119 (+ 0.198)
6. LMFAO - Sexy And I Know It: 94.831 (+ 1.028)
7. COBRA STARSHIP - You Make Me Feel... f/Sabi: 91.442 (- 0.178)
8. DRAKE - Headlines: 81.004 (+ 0.823) £
9. FOSTER THE PEOPLE - Pumped Up Kicks: 80.835 (- 1.726) ¥
10. DEV - In The Dark: 76.773 (- 1.020)
.
FILA
.
11. JAY Z & KANYE WEST - N***** In Paris: 70.298 (+ 1.187)
12. LMFAO - Party Rock Anthem: 62.689 (- 0.928)
13. LIL WAYNE - She Will f/Drake: 61.682 (- 0.680)
14. PITBULL - Give Me Everything f/Ne-Yo: 58.250 (- 1.499)
15. T-PAIN - 5 O'clock f/Wiz Khalifa: 57.864 (+ 1.092) £
16. KELLY CLARKSON - Mr. Know It All: 56.625 (- 0.178) ¥
17. J. COLE - Workout: 56.516 (+ 1.330)
18. LADY ANTEBELLUM - Just A Kiss: 53.933 (- 0.038)
19. BRUNO MARS - It Will Rain: 52.686 (+ 0.069)
20. KATY PERRY - The One That Got Away: 51.047 (+ 1.264) £
.
OUTRAS
.
NICKI MINAJ - Super Bass: 50.125 (- 0.617)
TAYLOR SWIFT - Sparks Fly: 49.178 (+ 0.144)
FLO RIDA - Good Feeling: 48.993 (+ 1.678)
NICKI MINAJ - Fly f/Rihanna: 48.541 (- 1.049)
ONEREPUBLIC - Good Life: 48.124 (- 1.660)
MIRANDA LAMBERT - Baggage Claim: 44.485 (- 0.022)
JASON DERULO - It Girl: 43.060 (- 0.243)
BEYONCE - Party f/Kanye & Andre: 37.884 (+ 0.728)
THE SCRIPT - Nothing: 29.580 (- 0.612)
RIHANNA - You Da One: 25.174 (+ 12.695)
DRAKE - Make Me Proud f/Nicki Minaj: 20.419 (+ 0.532)
SELENA GOMEZ & THE SCENE - Love You Like A Love Song: 18.802 (+ 0.577)
COLDPLAY - Paradise: 18.102 (- 0.005)
BRITNEY SPEARS - Criminal: 16.451 (- 0.215)
BEYONCE - Countdown: 14.858 (+ 0.278)
JESSIE J - Domino: 12.022 (+ 0.493)
LADY GAGA - Marry The Night: 8.672 (+ 0.925)
BREATHE CAROLINA - Blackout: 8.614 (+ 0.453)
JENNIFER LOPEZ - Papi: 6.604 (- 0.243)
EVANESCENCE - What You Want: 6.102 (- 0.085)
AVRIL LAVIGNE - Wish You Were Here: 4.542 (+ 0.398)
ADELE - Set Fire To The Rain: 2.307 (+ 0.572)

[felipe]

Nov 12, 2011 20:26:22 GMT -5 @2m said:

Hypothetical example:

What is the bigger hit:

The #1 song on February 2 or the #2 song on the 26th of December.?

By your logic it would be the February song. But what if everyone and their brother are cashing in on Santa's itunes cards in December and sales of the #1 in February are only abut 1/4 of what they are Christmas week

Do you still say the February song is the bigger hit?

You can't compare the weeks equally, all weeks are different. That is the reason for the point system

Exactly. There are many instances where the #2 song has more points than some other song that hit #1 in another given week.
For example Just dance when it sold some 400k and was #2 behind Single Ladies. Even though it was #2 it still had more points than most #1 singles of that year.

[worldwide]

Rihanna team is doing absolutely everything to secure another#1. They are such mnipulators, clear channel is the new thing they're doing.

[keyboard]

Is that seriously a +12.695?
Has that ever happened before?

[1intelligentdude]

Nov 13, 2011 8:47:45 GMT -5 worldwide said:

Rihanna team is doing absolutely everything to secure another#1. They are such mnipulators, clear channel is the new thing they're doing.

I think "You da One" would get to #1 on its own however they want her to replace herself at #1. Most likely after it replaces WFL at #1 it'll fall off and probably return to the summit once it's AirPlay is at its highest

[Scotty]

Nov 13, 2011 9:15:20 GMT -5 keyboard said:

Is that seriously a +12.695?
Has that ever happened before?

Yeah, plenty. Born This Way's first day gain was 25 million. And a long time ago when the runs were shorter I believe is was not uncommon.

But YDA is still shocking me with that gain. Amazing! :o

[SPRΞΞ]

its clearly payola.

[Scotty]

Nov 13, 2011 11:05:02 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

its clearly payola.

Definitely not impossible.

[elementd5]

Nov 13, 2011 11:05:02 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

its clearly payola.

Clearly. But, that's cool since I want this to smash.

[falkos]

Rihanna tries to break one record

She's able to do anything for that

That's way she has just one classic song (in my opinion) and that's it "Umbrella"

She does fast food music .... music just for the charts

(it's not secret that her albums are not selling much enough even if her airplay (many of them payed i think) are really huge)

Imagine that Loud had 3 hits peaking about 150mil. audience and other 2 around 60 mil and has sold only 1,5 mil copies (including last christmass period)

[Push The Button]

Why did they need a huge Clear Channel deal for her second single?

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2011 11:05:02 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

its clearly payola.

She's had the most impressive run of singles in YEARS! Mad?