crystalphnx
Platinum Member
Joined: December 2010
Posts: 1,500
|
Post by crystalphnx on Mar 14, 2013 11:45:46 GMT -5
Yes I would agree if someone watches a lyrics video then the song is more important then the visual. I still would not rate it very highly because it is free (I am convinced that charging even a nominal fee would greatly reduce viewing on YouTube). The points you made regarding radio airplay are all valid, that is why it is not weighted very heavily on the HOT 100 (it is 7,500:1 which is around 1/625th of sales). I wish BB had kept it at 10,000:1 and downloads at 10:1, but they seem determined to maintain a certain % of total points consisting of radio airplay. I am looking forward to the HOT100 issue date in which "Harlem Shake" passes 52 weeks in the top10. It could be to the HOT 100 what "Dark Side Of The Moon" is to the Billboard 200 (sounds improbable but 8-10 million Youtube views a week might be enough, not including any sales or radio airplay). I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that listening to a song for free should automatically be weighted less. on one hand, I get that paying money for a song shows a certain degree of personal investment, even if that investment is only $1.29 on the other hand, something free like YouTube means that it can reach an even greater audience and reflect the tastes of a wider population than something that costs money. would a lot of people consider $1.29 a LOT of money? maybe not, but to use iTunes or Amazon you still need that $1.29 and a credit card - some people simply don't have access to that. whereas most public libraries have computers on which anyone can access YouTube (you might need a library card, but I think those are always free). since the explosion of music piracy, there's been the increasing mentality of "I shouldn't have to pay for music", so I don't think the fact that someone isn't willing to pay $1.29 (even if they can afford to pay it) means they don't really love a song. more and more people EXPECT music to be free, so I think the idea that putting down money = greater commitment to a song needs to be re-evaluated in today's world of music consumption.
|
|
|
Post by Quixotic Music Lover on Mar 14, 2013 13:36:48 GMT -5
Actually BB weighs so-called "free music" less than paid music (on-demand streaming is from music subscription services). I am quibbling with the free Youtube viewing being so much more than airplay (about 20x more), and not that much less than on-demand (1/2 as much) or digital sales (1/33rd).
I don't think BB wants to accept the view of "I shouldn't have to pay for music" even if that might be very true. If they really wanted to have an accurate HOT 100 then they would include music file swapping data as well as YouTube streaming.
|
|
allow that
Diamond Member
Fall into the atlas
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 14,849
|
Post by allow that on Mar 14, 2013 14:00:32 GMT -5
Does anyone know how Billboard counts performances and/or mashups? What about performance mash ups? The Maroon 5/Alicia Keys Grammy performance is a good example. If someone watches that performance on YouTube, does it assist "Daylight," "Girl on Fire," both, neither, or go towards some kind of third entity? So many shades of gray imo.
|
|
Ballroom Blitzed
Charting
It doesn't really mean anything!
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 409
|
Post by Ballroom Blitzed on Mar 14, 2013 19:23:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trumandare on Mar 14, 2013 19:40:08 GMT -5
muse madness # 42 digital tracks
radio audience impressions 36million
i mean out there people buy download for 1,29 $ but the song was removed from hot 100, even more and more radio stations add it
on the other hand, bauer has # 1 hit on the hot 100, youtube free and they don't watch the video as the song is awesome good but as they find it funny how several people dance
a shame for music
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,976
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Mar 14, 2013 19:41:53 GMT -5
So many shades of gray imo. And knowing Billboard, probably more than 50.
|
|
velaxti
2x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2013
Posts: 2,014
|
Post by velaxti on Mar 14, 2013 19:50:04 GMT -5
Hardly anybody I know in real life legally downloads. Does anyone know how Billboard counts performances and/or mashups? What about performance mash ups? The Maroon 5/Alicia Keys Grammy performance is a good example. If someone watches that performance on YouTube, does it assist "Daylight," "Girl on Fire," both, neither, or go towards some kind of third entity? So many shades of gray imo. I agree. But I think Billboard doesn't combine them. A couple of weeks before they added Youtube they changed the rules about remixes didn't they? It was the week the Scream & Shout remix came out, and Justin Bieber released his acoustic album, where the acoustic version of As Long As You Love Me charted separately on the Hot 100. So I believe the plan is that live versions would be separate too. I agree, it's seems messy though. In most other charts they combine acoustic versions, rap remixes, dance remixes, live versions, etc. all into one, and I would prefer Billboard to do it that way too. In the UK chart Mirrors by Justin Timberlake is currently #1, and its sales are that of the studio version and a live version combined.
|
|
Keelzit
Diamond Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,815
|
Post by Keelzit on Mar 14, 2013 20:37:32 GMT -5
Hardly anybody I know in real life legally downloads. Does anyone know how Billboard counts performances and/or mashups? What about performance mash ups? The Maroon 5/Alicia Keys Grammy performance is a good example. If someone watches that performance on YouTube, does it assist "Daylight," "Girl on Fire," both, neither, or go towards some kind of third entity? So many shades of gray imo. I agree. But I think Billboard doesn't combine them. A couple of weeks before they added Youtube they changed the rules about remixes didn't they? It was the week the Scream & Shout remix came out, and Justin Bieber released his acoustic album, where the acoustic version of As Long As You Love Me charted separately on the Hot 100. So I believe the plan is that live versions would be separate too. I agree, it's seems messy though. In most other charts they combine acoustic versions, rap remixes, dance remixes, live versions, etc. all into one, and I would prefer Billboard to do it that way too. In the UK chart Mirrors by Justin Timberlake is currently #1, and its sales are that of the studio version and a live version combined. I agree. If a song is released in, let's say, 600k completely different versions and each one of them was downloaded once in a single week, with Billboard's methodology none of them would chart while in the UK it'd be the #1 single by far. A mess.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don't you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,623
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Mar 14, 2013 20:46:19 GMT -5
Billboard's recent change on remixes is a travesty and is by and large worse than what's going on with "Harlem Shake."
With these new rules, Katy's "E.T." would not have been a #1 hit, but rather have been two simultaneous top ten hits at one time.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,976
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Mar 14, 2013 20:50:55 GMT -5
Billboard's recent change on remixes is a travesty and is by and large worse than what's going on with "Harlem Shake." With these new rules, Katy's "E.T." would not have been a #1 hit, but rather have been two simultaneous top ten hits at one time. The thing is, Katy's remix didn't sound that radically different from the original. will.i.am's "Scream & Shout" hip hop remix, however did. We can all blame it on J-Lo who tried to pass off completely different sounding songs as "remixes" to their original tracks.
|
|
Keelzit
Diamond Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,815
|
Post by Keelzit on Mar 14, 2013 20:54:31 GMT -5
Billboard's recent change on remixes is a travesty and is by and large worse than what's going on with "Harlem Shake." With these new rules, Katy's "E.T." would not have been a #1 hit, but rather have been two simultaneous top ten hits at one time. The thing is, Katy's remix didn't sound that radically different from the original. will.i.am's "Scream & Shout" hip hop remix, however did. We can all blame it on J-Lo who tried to pass off completely different sounding songs as "remixes" to their original tracks. Not really. Her 'remixes' were actually Part 2's just like Keys's ESOM 2, Rih's LTWYL 2 and so on. Those should be separated since they weren't released to boost a song but rather being heard on their own.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don't you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,623
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Mar 14, 2013 20:55:36 GMT -5
Billboard's recent change on remixes is a travesty and is by and large worse than what's going on with "Harlem Shake." With these new rules, Katy's "E.T." would not have been a #1 hit, but rather have been two simultaneous top ten hits at one time. The thing is, Katy's remix didn't sound that radically different from the original. will.i.am's "Scream & Shout" hip hop remix, however did. We can all blame it on J-Lo who tried to pass off completely different sounding songs as "remixes" to their original tracks. Most remixes sound very different from their originals, though.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,976
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Mar 14, 2013 21:02:36 GMT -5
Most remixes keep the chorus of the original song. J-Lo's had completely different choruses compared to the original tracks.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Mar 14, 2013 21:06:24 GMT -5
Billboard didn't change any remix rules the past few months, though.
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381
|
Post by Arabella21 on Mar 14, 2013 21:06:32 GMT -5
The thing is, Katy's remix didn't sound that radically different from the original. will.i.am's "Scream & Shout" hip hop remix, however did. We can all blame it on J-Lo who tried to pass off completely different sounding songs as "remixes" to their original tracks.I'd forgotten all about that ridiculousness. Like how is this a remix of this? It's a totally new song with the same title! E.T. with or without Kanye was recognizably the same melody at least. If there's a new rule about acoustic versions and remixes not being included with the original song, maybe Billboard is trying to discourage artists from playing that particular chart game of throwing out a new remix to boost a song's chart peak.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 21:12:21 GMT -5
Billboard didn't change any remix rules the past few months, though. Yeah, I was wondering what rule change is being talked about. I don't remember one.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,918
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Mar 14, 2013 21:45:06 GMT -5
That rule regarding remixes took effect some time back.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Mar 14, 2013 22:18:25 GMT -5
People say that like it was new. The remix rule was totally valid. J.Lo was trying to manipulate the chart by putting out remixes that sounded nothing like the original song. This would allow the record company to essentially have two songs contributing to 1 song's popularity for the purposes of the Billboard Charts.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Mar 14, 2013 22:45:49 GMT -5
The tricky part about including video streaming in a song popularity chart, is that the video engages another sense (sight) as well as hearing. A person maybe watching the video for what they see as opposed to what they hear. I am sure we can all think of music videos we have watched that we enjoyed, even though we did not particularly like the song (eg. we found the act physically attractive). This is not the case with radio airplay. Listeners respond to the song by requesting it, or turning the station. It is true that radio stations act as a barrier (or gatekeeper) preventing songs that deserve a listen, to not be played. However, radio stations will not stay in business very long if they ignore what their core audience wants to hear. Looking at that way I would argue that video streaming if included, should not count for much (I personally would not give it more than 2x airplay, as opposed to the almost 20x it receives now). That's almost exactly the same point I was making. You just gave it even more ammunition. People aren't thinking logically....about the video content factor when considering youtube videos for chart points. That alone makes airplay more relevant especially when considering the fact that billboard doen't count music videos for the HOT 100.
|
|