carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,588
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 14, 2012 7:51:13 GMT -5
I apologize, I was always under the impression that it was an all genre chart. My bad.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 14, 2012 8:11:13 GMT -5
A lot of us on this message board have been following the Hot 100 weekly for 30 or more years.
I suggest we get our facts straight before we start getting huffy with each other, and jump to incorrect conclusions.
Most of the late 60s and early 70s the Hot 100 did NOT include airplay at all in its top 40. Wikipedia be damned.
|
|
jmd1961
New Member
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 7
|
Post by jmd1961 on Oct 14, 2012 8:17:04 GMT -5
I found this on the AT40 messageboard, where someone when to the Google Books archive and looked at actual Billboard Magazines: at40fg.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=classic&action=display&thread=2680&page=1 Also, even with the change in 1991, the Hot 100 was only based on CHR airplay, as has been noted above. On Nov 30 1991 the Hot 100 used the "Top 40 Radio Monitor" chart as the airplay part of the formula. That chart was later renamed Hot 100 Airplay. You can see a scan of the description of the chart AT40 used when it switched to this chart: www.at40fan.info/at40/chart.htmlWow. This is something that I never knew. That would also explain the reason for their changing to listing both sides of a two-sided hit as one position in 1969. Interesting. (But not really the point of this thread, so I'll drop it.)
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,588
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 14, 2012 8:32:44 GMT -5
A lot of us on this message board have been following the Hot 100 weekly for 30 or more years. I suggest we get our facts straight before we start getting huffy with each other, and jump to incorrect conclusions. Most of the late 60s and early 70s the Hot 100 did NOT include airplay at all in its top 40. Wikipedia be damned. I already apologized, no need for the overkill. Like I said, I was always under the impression that the Billboard Hot 100 was historically an all genre inclusive chart. When I went to post my original post, I couldn't find anything to prove otherwise. When people contested my post, all I asked was to see some sources. I admittedly said I couldn't find anything to prove otherwise, and for my benefit, I wanted to see it in literature. I don't doubt, nor did I ever that you and 2m didn't know this, but for myself, I wanted to see something more convincing than "I've followed the chart for decades, therefore I know". Again, I apologize for posting incorrectly, I try my best not to, and this was just a slip of ignorance on my part. I think this would have been a better, less condescending discussion had people not assumed the Billboard Hot 100's history was common knowledge, and provided sources for their facts. I know my original post having been sourceless contradicts this very point, so for that I am sorry too. I also would like to thank Hot AC Guru for the source that pretty much said it all. Again, I apologize. In regards to my original post, I don't think this serves to disprove it mostly because the main purpose of the chart has stayed constant throughout the years, and that was to measure overall music popularity. The inclusion of more genres conformed with the expansion of popular music. Now one could argue this is the same thing motivating the change in the genre charts. However, the argument against this still stands that these changes contradict the premise of having genre-specific charts anyway.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,667
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 14, 2012 8:35:59 GMT -5
www.countryuniverse.net/2012/10/11/the-day-the-music-chart-died/#comment-1189642That article reminds me of something I've asked twice before, but I assume no one has the answer to; how are recurrents decided on these genre charts? If a song has crossover play, not only will it chart higher after being a success on its genre chart, but its recurrent play from all of its formats will make it chart higher than genre-only hits. Some songs could literally never fall off the chart, at the expense of true genre hits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2012 23:05:12 GMT -5
^Interesting that you ask that question jenglisbe b/c that was what I was coming in here to complain about next. I was examining the r&b/hip-hop songs and airplay charts and it's obvious that BB has also drastically altered the recurrent rules there. Before, a song had to chart for 20+weeks and drop below #50 before going recurrent on the Songs chart. Wiki gives conflicting information on how many weeks a song had to have to go recurrent on airplay; the page for Billboard charts says 20 but the page specifically for R&B/Hip-Hop airplay says 26. Both pages say songs will go recurrent once it drops below #20.
But now, it seems that on Airplay, a song if a song has charted for 15+ weeks and drops below #20, it will go recurrent. On Songs, dropping below #20 will put you in recurrent territory, though I'm not entirely certain if the week cutoff is also 15, or a slightly more lax 20. I cannot speak for the other genre charts and their recurrent rules, except that I believe on Pop Songs it's a 20/20 rule. Anyway, BB didn't make an announcement for this, but it's obvious that the change took place, so I'm pissed not just at the change itself but the lack of transparency about it, because it makes them seem rather shady for it. This is problematic for urban, and especially r&b, because a lot of r&b songs grow slowly and thus take quite a while to build up. By the time they hit the 20's or teens range they could have been out for three or more months. In the meantime big-name acts and catchy hip-hop jingles are whizzing right by them. So if the timing is just right (or wrong, rather) they could break the top 20, only to get leapfrogged by a handful of hip-hop songs and pushed back out, even if they're not losing actual spins. And then they're effectively punished for not moving faster, and sent recurrent.
Ultimately, each genre has different nuances and issues which is what keeps this situation from being either completely 'right' or 'wrong.' The concerns that urban fans have don't necessarily apply to country, while country has one or two issues that I don't think would occur with r&b/hip-hop. And rock doesn't seem to be affected much at all except that they have to worry BB will improperly classify some songs as rock. A lot of it simply comes down to the fact that just b/c BB needed to tweak more than one chart doesn't mean they needed to tweak each chart in a one-size-fits-all manner. Maybe country could benefit from the addition of sales, but for urban music including sales is still a very slippery slope that would give an unfair advantage to crossover acts. I think the old recurrent rules for urban were a much better fit than the new one now in place, but country may need that stricter recurrent rule to make sure certain songs don't linger forever and stagnate the chart. If streaming sources can be properly tracked, both genres can benefit from that and I really have no objection to this addition. Of course, NONE of these charts need to be including crossover airplay. Again, we have the Hot 100 for that now (and that is irrespective of the Hot 100's previous history; in its current form it already accomplishes everything these new genre charts purport to do).
That really is my foremost complaint with these charts: by making their genre charts model the Hot 100 formula, they actually just made the genre charts either redundant or (if the weights are somewhat different) contradictory. The first option makes the charts pointless, the other renders them absolutely useless, and in the meantime we now have no 'official' chart which at least gives us the information that the old chart formulas did. It's very unlikely that a majority of people will go digging for airplay stats. Allow That touched on this several pages ago, but we might be amazed at how many PDs (particularly urban) won't actually examine the BB data thoroughly, instead just taking the main charts at face value and then unwittingly altering the airplay chart so that it mimics the Songs chart, and eventually pushing out many noncrossover songs that people would like to hear.
I said before that it's telling that none of the people who seem okay or even partially okay with this seem to be hardcore urban followers, and I still hold to that opinion, because the people in support of this have completely different needs and desires than urban does. The same applies to country. So naturally, this will result in a stalemate of an argument because we're all looking at this with a different set of priorities in mind. It is a shame that BB can't figure out how, ore just refuses to, create a set of charts to serve each of those individual priorities, adjust each chart individually to best fit its respective genre, and then give each chart an equal amount of official status/attention.
edited to correct a mistake and try to be more clear on something.
|
|
|
Post by cause_for_celebration on Oct 15, 2012 0:12:38 GMT -5
Although I like that Billboard is finally incorporating digital sales and streaming into its genre charts, there does not yet seem to be an effective way to determine if audiences which are loyal to certain genres are the people who are buying certain singles (i.e. are country listeners the ones who are buying Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"?)
It would be very beneficial if Billboard was able to come up with a system of assigning genre categories to different users (of iTunes, Spotify, etc.) If the company could track each customer’s buying/listening habits, they could assign them to certain categories, such as pop, country, urban, or rock.
For instance, if customer A primarily buys music that is deemed “pop” (as per Billboard), and chooses to buy Swift’s “Never Ever,” his/her purchase would only count towards the data for the Hot 100 and not the country chart. On the other hand, if customer B primarily buys “country” music, his/her purchase of the same track would be allocated to the data for the country genre chart.
Some flaws that this method would include are that fans of certain genres do not solely buy/listen to tracks inside that genre (i.e. if enough “country” customers bought “Gangnam Style,” that could be a “Billboard country hit.”) Also, Billboard would have to determine what genre tracks fit into, which is pretty subjective.
Has anyone else thought about this method or think that it could work in the future?
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 15, 2012 0:14:53 GMT -5
Can you explain Kirko Bangz and Be Without you being on as long as they were?
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 15, 2012 0:18:51 GMT -5
Although I like that Billboard is finally incorporating digital sales and streaming into its genre charts, there does not yet seem to be an effective way to determine if audiences which are loyal to certain genres are the people who are buying certain singles (i.e. are country listeners the ones who are buying Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"?) It would be very beneficial if Billboard was able to come up with a system of assigning genre categories to different users (of iTunes, Spotify, etc.) If the company could track each customer’s buying/listening habits, they could assign them to certain categories, such as pop, country, urban, or rock. For instance, if customer A primarily buys music that is deemed “pop” (as per Billboard), and chooses to buy Swift’s “Never Ever,” his/her purchase would only count towards the data for the Hot 100 and not the country chart. On the other hand, if customer B primarily buys “country” music, his/her purchase of the same track would be allocated to the data for the country genre chart. Some flaws that this method would include are that fans of certain genres do not solely buy/listen to tracks inside that genre (i.e. if enough “country” customers bought “Gangnam Style,” that could be a “Billboard country hit.”) Also, Billboard would have to determine what genre tracks fit into, which is pretty subjective. Has anyone else thought about this method or think that it could work in the future? it doesnt solve the problem you attempted to solve.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2012 1:31:10 GMT -5
Although I like that Billboard is finally incorporating digital sales and streaming into its genre charts, there does not yet seem to be an effective way to determine if audiences which are loyal to certain genres are the people who are buying certain singles (i.e. are country listeners the ones who are buying Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"?) It would be very beneficial if Billboard was able to come up with a system of assigning genre categories to different users (of iTunes, Spotify, etc.) If the company could track each customer’s buying/listening habits, they could assign them to certain categories, such as pop, country, urban, or rock. For instance, if customer A primarily buys music that is deemed “pop” (as per Billboard), and chooses to buy Swift’s “Never Ever,” his/her purchase would only count towards the data for the Hot 100 and not the country chart. On the other hand, if customer B primarily buys “country” music, his/her purchase of the same track would be allocated to the data for the country genre chart. Some flaws that this method would include are that fans of certain genres do not solely buy/listen to tracks inside that genre (i.e. if enough “country” customers bought “Gangnam Style,” that could be a “Billboard country hit.”) Also, Billboard would have to determine what genre tracks fit into, which is pretty subjective. Has anyone else thought about this method or think that it could work in the future? I don't know if anyone has thought of this. It is a good idea but I don't know if it could be done with enough accuracy to warrant the effort. ex. - If you sign up for a site like Hit Predictor, they ask you while you're creating your account what your most favorite genres are (I think they give you up to three choices...can't recall if you're asked to rank). iTunes could do something similar, require that all users fill in a preferred genre section. The problem though is people who use gift cards don't have to log in to buy something. I suppose iTunes could create some one-question survey for people like this, where they have to answer the 'what's your preferred genre(s)' question before completing their purchase, but that might be really hard to do/require some kind of website redesign Apple has no interest in undertaking. This also goes for Amazon's mp3 store. Likewise, for streaming websites, if a person has an account then they can fill in their preferences. But someone just listening as a 'guest' doesn't have to do that, so there's no way of knowing what they're a fan of. So whether or not this can work it depends on the proportion of people whose tastes can be verified vs. those who cannot be determined. I do like this idea though, at least in theory.
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Oct 15, 2012 6:21:03 GMT -5
Determining what genre a fan prefers prior to making a purchase and then factoring that into Billboard decisions? I don't think that's a good idea and I doubt it would ever happen. What happens if someone who is only a verified R&B fan happens to flip by the CMAs or watches American Idol and is blown away by a Sugarland song? Does that purchase suddenly count towards the R&B charts? Does it only count towards tabulating the Hot 100 and nothing else? That doesn't seem fair. I think sales of any country song should count toward the country charts, an R&B song towards the R&B charts, etc. even if it comes from someone who isn't primarily a fan of that genre. I don't mind Billboard trying to capture "what is the most popular R&B song in America" even if that differs somewhat from the R&B airplay charts. But I do I think the line should be drawn at pop mixes, deeming a song "R&B" just because the singer has done some R&B in the past and happens to be black, or, like, say Adele had topped the rock charts just because she had gotten some airplay on formats that fall under the rock umbrella.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,588
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 15, 2012 11:09:49 GMT -5
Although I like that Billboard is finally incorporating digital sales and streaming into its genre charts, there does not yet seem to be an effective way to determine if audiences which are loyal to certain genres are the people who are buying certain singles (i.e. are country listeners the ones who are buying Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"?) It would be very beneficial if Billboard was able to come up with a system of assigning genre categories to different users (of iTunes, Spotify, etc.) If the company could track each customer’s buying/listening habits, they could assign them to certain categories, such as pop, country, urban, or rock. For instance, if customer A primarily buys music that is deemed “pop” (as per Billboard), and chooses to buy Swift’s “Never Ever,” his/her purchase would only count towards the data for the Hot 100 and not the country chart. On the other hand, if customer B primarily buys “country” music, his/her purchase of the same track would be allocated to the data for the country genre chart. Some flaws that this method would include are that fans of certain genres do not solely buy/listen to tracks inside that genre (i.e. if enough “country” customers bought “Gangnam Style,” that could be a “Billboard country hit.”) Also, Billboard would have to determine what genre tracks fit into, which is pretty subjective. Has anyone else thought about this method or think that it could work in the future? I mentioned an idea a few pages back, but I think it was overlooked... Similar to you, I think it's important to know which genre each consumer favors when buying a song. I thought maybe having a drop-down menu before purchasing a song that asks which genre each person generally favors. Say I'm going to buy, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together", I would chose Country music as my preferred genre, and thus that sale would count towards Country. If I had said "Pop", it would count there. Now if I said R&B, I'd say that should count towards Pop as well. Now if someone doesn't know, I would provide that option as well, and count that towards Pop. There are obviously loopholes in that people may select whatever they want, and chose something randomly to rush the purchase. However, this could help the issue. Until something that determines who's buying what can be implemented, sales should not be so heavily weighted in the formula for these so-called genre-specific charts.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 15, 2012 13:22:09 GMT -5
I think streams should be weighted higher than sales or the same as sales for the genre charts IMO. I don't necessarily agree that the R&B chart should be the HOT 100 - the other formats outside of R&B.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2012 22:04:22 GMT -5
Biggest threads in General Music News (this forum - not the archive)
Thie would be actual news items and exclude, chart analysis threads, itunes threads, award shows and Bilboard threads during diva release week.
In other words - news items:
#1 - Death of Whitney Houston (24 pages) #2 - Chris Brown assault charge (13 pages) #3 - Genre charts methodology change (12 pages)
Certainly this is bigger than the Chris Brown story? :o
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 16, 2012 7:05:50 GMT -5
You all realize that this policy change is going to have the effect of making the genre specific charts much more active. R&B acts are going to debut high. Brandy and many others would've debuted very high in the first weeks on the R&B chart. I'm in favor of these changes but this should've been done in the new chart year not off the cuff the way Billboard did this. Hopefully the increased volatility will influence radio to take notice of good records rather than ignoring records people are clearly connecting to like Put It Down and Thinking Of You.
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 875
|
Post by WolfSpear on Oct 16, 2012 19:34:12 GMT -5
The Hot 100 was not an all-genre chart prior to 1991. It only sampled mainstream top 40 stations. Only in 1998 did it become all- format. Right. The Hot 100's old panel was predominately Mainstream Top 40 stations, very similar to Pop Songs. This is why #1 country songs failed to even chart, along with the fact that retailers rarely listed country singles in the "pop" category. Then around 1998 there was an expansion with urban and country thrown into the mix. Now you know why all of a sudden George Strait has a string of Hot 100 hits. He and a number of others didn't become a pop sensation over night, BB just made it capable for them to crossover by fixing the panel. When Nielsen came along in 1991, they weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. But to say the least, Soundscan and BDS revealed major flaws in the old methodology. One major flaw was that songs were listed at #3 on the old Airplay chart, but they were realistically at the bottom of the barrell on the current Airplay chart (then known as the Top 40 Radio Monitor). A good example of a song that wasn't really a hit but was listed as one: "Real, Real, Real" by Jesus Jones.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,885
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 16, 2012 19:51:04 GMT -5
^That is true- but, it wasn't ranked THAT low. I believe it was ranked in the top 30 on the Radio Monitor. We saw a number of tracks that had notably different rankings on the Radio Monitor compared to their Hot 100 Airplay rank.
But, note that the two charts measured different things. Radio Monitor ranked tracks via their audience impressions; the old system ranked tracks based on a set number of points tracks received based on how stations ranked them on their playlist. Same with the old sales chart vs. SoundScan.
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 875
|
Post by WolfSpear on Oct 16, 2012 20:01:55 GMT -5
^That is true- but, it wasn't ranked THAT low. I believe it was ranked in the top 30 on the Radio Monitor. We saw a number of tracks that had notably different rankings on the Radio Monitor compared to their Hot 100 Airplay rank. But, note that the two charts measured different things. Radio Monitor ranked tracks via their audience impressions; the old system ranked tracks based on a set number of points tracks received based on how stations ranked them on their playlist. Same with the old sales chart vs. SoundScan. Yeah, the old airplay system was reasonable for its time though. Songs were given points for being on disk jockey's playlist. They had a weight system in which the most popular stations in the country would score more points versus those that were local or "in the middle of nowhere". But yeah, the turnover rate singles was pretty high due to that old system. But for albums, it reminds me of when I go to the grocery store and buy the same food every week, and then eventually I get tired of it and have leftovers. That's pretty much how the sales portion worked.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 17, 2012 6:32:40 GMT -5
In July 1993, Hot 100 Airplay added Rhythmic, Adult Top 40 (Hot AC) and Modern Rock to the airplay mix, forever changing the identity of the Hot 100 from simply a Top 40 chart. This was done as Top 40/Mainstream had seen an enormous collapse, as happens every ten years almost like clockwork (get ready, guys!)
The reason that the airplay chart was only top 40 mainstream before that time (ie - not All-Genre) was that record execs felt that Top 40 was a good enough representation of what was universally popular in the country. This despite not showcasing Country, Latin, Christian, or heavy rock songs. Those generes were considered too insignificant until Soundcsan revealed how much clout they truly had.
|
|
Lozzy
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 49,237
|
Post by Lozzy on Oct 17, 2012 6:37:39 GMT -5
This was done as Top 40/Mainstream had seen an enormous collapse, as happens every ten years almost like clockwork (get ready, guys!) When was the last time that happened? I wouldn't consider the rise of urban in the early '00s to be an enormous collapse.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Oct 17, 2012 6:52:50 GMT -5
I'd consider it a big collapse. Nothing like 1972, 1981 or 1991, true. But Mainstream Top 40 ratings were far down from the 1997 - 2000 pop bubble, and by 2002, PDs were desperate for a new direction to compete with the explosion of rhythmic / Urban ratings of the time. It took until the mid-late 2000s before Top 40 found its identity again, and concurrently ratings began to surge to their current very high levels.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,667
|
Post by jenglisbe on Oct 17, 2012 8:29:11 GMT -5
^That is true- but, it wasn't ranked THAT low. I believe it was ranked in the top 30 on the Radio Monitor. We saw a number of tracks that had notably different rankings on the Radio Monitor compared to their Hot 100 Airplay rank. But, note that the two charts measured different things. Radio Monitor ranked tracks via their audience impressions; the old system ranked tracks based on a set number of points tracks received based on how stations ranked them on their playlist. Same with the old sales chart vs. SoundScan. Well, stations removed tracks from their submitted playlists that were considered "recurrent." When actual BDS monitoring was done, those tracks were then still counted as they still received airplay even if they weren't technically on the playlist. In other words, BDS helped provide more accurate information. This current change is different; it's not that the information is more accurate, it's that Billboard is viewing charts in a whole new way/method. That isn't bad in and of itself. Again, I think most people agree downloads should count toward the genre charts. Where disagreement/displeasure is coming from has to do with whether non-genre airplay should count toward genre charts. That isn't anything a debate here will settle as it comes down to how people view the charts. If people view charts differently on a fundamental level, discussion won't change anything. It's like a liberal and a conservative talking. I do think the fears that this could lead to less focus by labels on genre music are valid, though.
|
|
michellef
New Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 104
|
Post by michellef on Oct 17, 2012 14:57:28 GMT -5
So "We Are Never Ever..." is the most popular COUNTRY SONG in America because Billboard tells me so just like "I Knew You Were Trouble." will be the most popular COUNTRY SONG next week because Tay Tay's previous history in the country charts. #DEALScott Borchetta and Bill Verde stay winning! :) LOL no. sit down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 15:31:24 GMT -5
The good news: Billboard ruled that "I Knew You Were Trouble" is not country and won't be eligible for the new country chart, otherwise it probably would have debuted at #1.
The bad news: "We Are Never..." is #1 on the new country chart for a second week.
|
|
|
Post by countrygirl918 on Oct 17, 2012 16:21:46 GMT -5
The good news: Billboard ruled that "I Knew You Were Trouble" is not country and won't be eligible for the new country chart, otherwise it probably would have debuted at #1. The bad news: "We Are Never..." is #1 on the new country chart for a second week. They also used the reasoning that "Trouble" is not being promoted to country radio. Well, neither was "Red," and that debuted at #2 last week. And I have no idea how they figure that a pop mix of "Never" counts as a country song. The way they are classifying these things is very confusing and contradictory.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Oct 17, 2012 16:48:58 GMT -5
|
|
Rodze
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,546
|
Post by Rodze on Oct 17, 2012 17:45:26 GMT -5
1) WAN is Country because the label said it should be.
2) Billboard didn't think there would be that much backlash from classifying it as country, and is now too late for them to backpedal (the damage is done)
Pick one or both.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 18:43:32 GMT -5
"The song initially peaked at #13"
Maybe that is why?
|
|
Rodze
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,546
|
Post by Rodze on Oct 17, 2012 19:06:02 GMT -5
^ That falls on "the label said it should be". =P
|
|
Sir Benji
Diamond Member
The One
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 13,356
|
Post by Sir Benji on Oct 21, 2012 13:02:58 GMT -5
I noticed that Billboard has the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart on the main header on their homepage. Interesting.
|
|