Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Feb 8, 2005 18:40:09 GMT -5
Given recent history, the #1 single of 2005 is almost certainly on the charts now.
With 'Some Beach' & 'Back When' out of the running (although Tim will still challenge Kenny Chesney & Keith Urban for the top singles artist of the year), this should be REALLY interesting!!!
This Rscal Flatts song is certainly in the running; there's no doubt about that.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Feb 15, 2005 18:09:33 GMT -5
This song has now established itself as THE song to beat to wind up as #1 for the year, so let's see if either 'Anything But Mine' or 'Drugs Or Jesus' can overtake 'BTBR'.
Since Tim has released at least four singles from his last several CDs, dating back to the SIX from 'Everywhere', including FIVE which hit #1, he's certainly not done yet with having more singles from his current CD.
|
|
Topay
Gold Member
Virginia Tech: 2002-2006
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 786
|
Post by Topay on Feb 15, 2005 21:15:00 GMT -5
This song has now established itself as THE song to beat to wind up as #1 for the year, so let's see if either 'Anything But Mine' or 'Drugs Or Jesus' can overtake 'BTBR'. Since Tim has released at least four singles from his last several CDs, dating back to the SIX from 'Everywhere', including FIVE which hit #1, he's certainly not done yet with having more singles from his current CD. I agree with this. Keith Urban's done, so he's out with "Better Half". I don't think "Anything But Mine" has the strength to become a long-lasting hit for Kenny. Tim could contend with "Drugs or Jesus". I know you would love that, Marv, and I can't say I blame ya. Not too many artists who were having huge hits as far back as 1995 (and have been consistently knocking them out since that time) can claim to be big in 2005. It'll have to overcome several RF spins/impressions, but it's definitely not out of the question.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Feb 19, 2005 0:37:00 GMT -5
Some one made a point on another thread (wish I could remember which one!!) about a 'three singles from a single CD' limit, which I've never heard of.
The biggest culprit would have to be one the format's MAJOR stars, one George Strait, who has rarely placed more than 10 or 11 songs on several of his most recent CDs, dating back to 'Carrying Your Love With Me' & 'Blue Clear Sky'.
I'm glad that Tim, Kenny, Brooks & Dunn, Shania & quite a few others have ignored that 'rule', and had no problem isssuing CDs with 13-16 cuts on them.
I certainly wish many more artists would do likewise; it can only help the industry as a whole, both in terms of retail sales and at radio.
|
|
musicbuff78
5x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 5,280
|
Post by musicbuff78 on Feb 19, 2005 3:22:10 GMT -5
I've read b4 though where it costs $200,000 per single after 10. 3 used to be the standard amount of singles released but that has since increased as the total number of tracks on a CD has increased as well.
|
|
bamafan2102
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 1,780
|
Post by bamafan2102 on Feb 19, 2005 3:59:26 GMT -5
This song is like the energizer bunny. I like it but I didn't think it would be this huge. There is nothing even close to it on mediabase and at last count it is still gaining spins(although very small +40 something). Josh Gracin is the closest song with a bullet and it's over 1000 spins back. How long can this stay number 1??
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Feb 20, 2005 0:36:37 GMT -5
This makes five weeks so far @ R&R, doesn't it?
|
|
Topay
Gold Member
Virginia Tech: 2002-2006
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 786
|
Post by Topay on Feb 20, 2005 0:45:49 GMT -5
This makes five weeks so far @ R&R, doesn't it? I think it's about to see its 5th week at #1 on R&R. I remember it hit #1 there a week before it topped Billboard, and it's currently in its 3rd week at #1 on BB. Biggest hit of the group's career so far...I wonder what lies ahead.
|
|
Zazie
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,144
|
Post by Zazie on Feb 20, 2005 3:11:22 GMT -5
A few comments:
1. It's not impossible for Urban's song to get to #1 next week on Billboard, if not on R&R. RF's audience number has dropped quite a bit, while Keith's is holding steady. Whether Urban can be #1 on R&R depends on the famous formula, which is beyond our ability to understand.
2. Even if he does get to #1, Urban probably won't out-spin RF for the year, so in all likelihood RF will have #1 on R&R for the year. I don't care for the R&R method of choosing a #1 song, because it always goes to an early-year release, but I'm sure they don't care what I think. (Any formula that results in a song other than Live Like You Were Dying being #1 for 2004 is a very silly formula.)
3. On Billboard I expect something else to come along and surpass RF's performance, as their method of counting allows late-year songs to do fine. On American Country Countdown, which has the most logical way of choosing a #1 song (but which doesn't publish an industry magazine), Blake Shelton will be stronger than RF but probably neither will be #1.
4. The number of radio releases per CD has changed because songs are charting for more weeks than they used to. I don't think you need a more complicated explanation. Only in unusual circumstances (Tim, maybe) will an artist release 4 or more songs these days, unless the artist is Amy Dalley, in which case she may release every track.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Feb 21, 2005 1:49:24 GMT -5
One of the key reasons why both BB & R&R reduced their panel sizes was to speed up the charts, due to the fact that there werer LOTS of radio stations which were playing almost no new music; I read where one station had a 15% current airplay ratio, which is absolutely disgusting and unforgiveable.
While songs can reach the top 20 in as little as 3-4 weeks (quite a few more have done so since the panels were reduced 17 months ago), I see the point that 3-4 singles from any given CD is usually tops.
If Tim, Kenny, B&D or any other superstar can do so, then I'd have to think that almost anybody can.
I read somewhere that Garth Brooks released THREE CDs in less than 5 years in the early nineties because radio was racing singles up and down the charts, not allowing the audiences time to become familiar with the artists (or the songs), which wasn't good for the format, in spite of Brooks's off-the-charts sales accomplishments.
Most of you have undoubtedly noticed how few artists who were HUGE (or who came along) between 1989-1993 are still format staples today.
Now that any given single still can take 12-15 weeks to hit #1, at least positions 21-40 on the charts are not nearly as congested as they were eighteen months ago.
But the fact remains that there are still too many stations who rely too much on library cuts from the format's superstars as opposed to playing music from newcomers, but that comes when the format being as micro-managed and conservative as it is these days.
Lots of stations have also beefed up airing 'classic' cuts, according to an article in BB last summer, which is defined as anything prior to 1990.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing for the format, but after a stellar sales year in 2004, and new CDs expected this year from Toby, Brad & George, 2005 should be pretty awesome at radio AND at retail as well.
|
|
ericNY2002
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 1,363
|
Post by ericNY2002 on Feb 21, 2005 10:00:31 GMT -5
This may be Rascal Flatt's last week at #1 coming up as I wouldn't be surprised to See Josh Gracin post another +300 week and couple that with a reasonable drop by RF, could move Josh into #1. RF's long run at #1 is due to right place, right time in my opinion as this song isn't what I would deem a mega smash. Although its hard to define what is now, as a couple years ago a 6000 spin week would be defined as a smash, but with the panels trimmed down,I guess 5000 would be that magic number.
The next big #1 single will Be Craig Morgan's "That's What I Love About Sunday". This song has raced into the top 5, and is posied for at least a 2-3 week stay (probably longer) at #1. I usually like to slam Broken Bow records for not releasing commerical singles or have any singles available for download, but they are goin to hit a home run in album sales with the cd due out March 8th, the single should at least be top 3 by then.
|
|
musicbuff78
5x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 5,280
|
Post by musicbuff78 on Feb 21, 2005 15:54:02 GMT -5
I still don't understand how you guys think this is going to be the song of the year when it's just Feb. ???
|
|
Zazie
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,144
|
Post by Zazie on Feb 21, 2005 23:02:43 GMT -5
I still don't understand how you guys think this is going to be the song of the year when it's just Feb. ??? R&R determines its #1 song of the year on total spin count during the chart year, including recurrent spins. So a song that enters the chart in, say, June will have no spins for Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, April, May and therefore have little chance to catch an early-year song. All those zeroes are hard to offset. A huge late-year hit has virtually no chance to be #1 for the year on R&R, and even a mid-year song will lose to a strong hit from early in the year. For example, last year R&R had Remember When as the #1 song. Even as big a hit as Live Like You Were Dying couldn't catch up to the early-year song. Rascal Flatts has a big head start on anything that hasn't been released yet. So what's being discussed is #1 for the year on R&R, not song of the year or biggest hit of the year.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Feb 22, 2005 13:31:30 GMT -5
Zazie is correct; If 'Live Like You Were Dying' had come out in mid-February of 2004, it would have almost certainly wound up #1 for the year in R&R.
I don't know if it would have obliterated the record books insofar as spins-per-week & spins-per-station goes as it did in the first two weeks of August, but it would have almost certainly stopped 'Redneck Woman' from hitting #1.
On the other hand, 'I Go Back' would have also been #1 for at least a month; that song had the misfortune of peaking at the same time as 'LLYWD' did in early August.
On top of that, 'LLYWD' is losing spins at an EXTREMELY low rate despite being almost 11 months old; a peek @ Mediabase a few days ago showed a 7-spin INCREASE, and a VERY modest 45-spin decrease the previous week.
If Tim does reclaim the title of the year's #1 singles artist, the recurrent spins (and audience numbers) for 'LLYWD' will undoubtedly have an enormous impact on whether or not he's able to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2005 20:27:48 GMT -5
The live version with Carrie Underwood is instant impact at #57. It has 109 spins in the past two days and almost 2M in audience. It also has 12 AC spins, 3 Hot AC spins, and 9 CHR/Pop spins. Maybe, as big as this single has already been, it will get a second life.
|
|
musicbuff78
5x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 5,280
|
Post by musicbuff78 on May 27, 2005 20:37:16 GMT -5
I don't see that happening. Just celebrating the moment I think. Not gonna last long.
|
|
PT08
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2004
Posts: 1,874
|
Post by PT08 on May 28, 2005 20:06:06 GMT -5
I don't think it will last long either. Nice to see it happening though. A good sign for Carrie at country radio. And maybe a RF/Carrie collaboration in the near future
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Jun 1, 2005 12:43:05 GMT -5
I'm inclined to think that the race for the year's top single, at least @ Radio & Records, is over, and that 'BTBR' has clinched the honor.
|
|
Perp
2x Platinum Member
Joined: February 2004
Posts: 2,104
|
Post by Perp on Jun 1, 2005 17:31:05 GMT -5
Sales of the "Feels Like Today" CD are taking off again...
LW: 45,779 TW: 65.072 (42% increase!)
This came during a week when the country sales were down 23% overall.
Digtal sales of "Bless the Broken Road" increased by 79%! Fast Cars and Freedom digital sales were up 25%. Overall digital sales were down 3% for the week.
Looks like the extra exposure on American Idol has helped Rascal Flatts quite a bit, exposing them to new audiences.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Jun 1, 2005 19:54:21 GMT -5
I'm inclined to think that the race for the year's top single, at least @ Radio & Records, is over, and that 'BTBR' has clinched the honor. This could be a case where r&r/billboard recurrent rules change results. Broken Road spent 5 weeks #1 and 14 wks in top10 at billboard. Thats what i love about sunday spent 4 weeks #1 but is still spending its 16th weeh in the top 10 at billboard. If it holds the chart awhile yet, it might be #1 for the year on billboard )it will be close) while on the other hand Broken Road would be #1 at r&r - due to getting pulled for different recurrent rules.
|
|
musicbuff78
5x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 5,280
|
Post by musicbuff78 on Jun 1, 2005 20:03:51 GMT -5
Although it wasn't a #1, I will be anxious to see with the longevity it had where Baby Girl will end up on the year end chart.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Jun 1, 2005 20:16:53 GMT -5
On the R&R year-to-date chart:
1 - CRAIG MORGAN That's What I Love About Sunday 76,515 total spins. 2 - RASCAL FLATTS Bless The Broken Road 73,302 total spins.
Alot of spins after it fell off the r&r top50 chart though, but i thought it was just interesting to note that craig morgan actually has more spins and is still getting alot more - 2,669 this week compared to Road 1,816.
|
|
Topay
Gold Member
Virginia Tech: 2002-2006
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 786
|
Post by Topay on Jun 1, 2005 21:40:12 GMT -5
Although it wasn't a #1, I will be anxious to see with the longevity it had where Baby Girl will end up on the year end chart. I can't see it outranking Craig Morgan. Not only did Sugarland peak at #2 to Craig, but Craig is also still ahead by spins and audience. Taking December spins into consideration, RF may be slightly ahead of Craig. But even so, I'm sure Craig will pass RF soon enough with his tremendous spin/audience lead. I can't say I care for "Sunday", but it looks like it may end up being the one to be #1 for the year.
|
|
musicbuff78
5x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 5,280
|
Post by musicbuff78 on Jun 1, 2005 23:44:30 GMT -5
And that just doesnt make sense to me as it wasn't a #1 as long as Broken Road was.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Jun 2, 2005 11:57:11 GMT -5
Actually, there have been some instances where a song wound up #1 for the year despite the fact that there may have been a song (or two) which spent more weeks at #1.
The best recent example would be in 2002, where, in what must have been a EXTREMELY close race, 'My List' edged 'Drive (For Daddy Gene') for #1 for the year, despite the fact that 'My List' had four weeks @#1, vs. 5 for the Alan Jackson tune.
'My List' debuted on the charts a mere TWO weeks before 'Drive' did, and that wound up being the difference in R&Rs year-end survey.
I can't find my printout of December 2004 spins, so I wouldn't be suprised if Craig Morgan does wind up #1 for the year. Also 'BTBR' has lost spins much quicker than 'TWILAS' has, specifically because of the way in which 'Fast Cars & Freedom' has streaked up the charts.
Having FIVE songs in the upper echelon of the charts (top 11) with ten weeks or less on the charts isn't too shabby either; hitting #1 in 9 weeks or less is also VERY exceptional as well.
Look for Rascals Flatts to wind up in the top 5 among the most played artists of this year, behind Kenny, Tim, Toby & Keith Urban, with Gretchen Wilson right behind all of 'em.
|
|
Zazie
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,144
|
Post by Zazie on Jun 2, 2005 15:52:11 GMT -5
I don't have the spin totals, but no doubt BTBR had a substantially bigger December than Morgan's song. Even if RF is actually ahead now, Sunday is losing spins so slowly -- I think that he has a better than even chance to outspin BTBR and be R&R's #1 song for 2005. It could be very close. Josh Gracin's song is also holding its spins very well, and he should manage a top 5 year-end position even without a long run at #1. But I think there are only 2 contenders for #1.
Billboard's #1 song doesn't have to be an early-year song, because they don't count recurrent spins. (This year, I don't know if they'll use spins or cumulative audience to determine their year-end rankings.) The song can't be so late that some of its current weeks fall in December, but there is a lot of room for a May or even a June release to get spins for Billboard. (July is too late.) I would expect Craig Morgan to outrank Rascal Flatts on BB, because his song has had more weeks as a current. But Keith Urban, RF's new one, George Strait, Faith Hill -- there are still contenders whose chart runs we don't know much about yet. Baby Girl had too many of its weeks in 2004, and too many weeks with small numbers, to be a contender for #1, despite their enormously long chart run.
|
|
musicbuff78
5x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 5,280
|
Post by musicbuff78 on Jun 2, 2005 18:32:46 GMT -5
Very interesting and thanks for the insight guys.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Jun 2, 2005 19:38:10 GMT -5
Question - talking song of the year here - does R&R give points to songs (for year-end-rankings) after they are not listed in the Wednesday Top 50 chart ? Example: "bless the broken road" and "thats what i love about sunday" fell of the top 50 chart (due to the recurrent rules) awhile back - do the points they are now still accumulating still count ? - i thought the only points that counted are when they are in the top 50 - once the song goes recurrent, the points no longer count, for year end rankings i mean...but i could be wrong on that.
Bottom line - It doesnt seem fair that if a song had a better top 50 run, it can still get beat by another song that does better in the weeks after it falls off the top 50.
|
|
Zazie
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,144
|
Post by Zazie on Jun 2, 2005 21:45:42 GMT -5
Let me try to clarify the method by which R&R determines the song of the year. There are no points given for anything (such as chart position). They just count up the total spins received from the stations on the R&R panel during the 52-week chart year (beginning in December and ending in November, and once in a while it's a 33-week year). I believe they track spins during their unpublished weeks but I'm not sure of that. In any case, that's all there is -- they don't care if the song is below the top 50 on the way up, they don't care if the song is recurrent and has left the top 50. They just tally the spins.
(I promise you, you're wrong about the recurrent issue. Spins while recurrent count. Billboard is the one that doesn't count recurrent weeks.)
I have some problems with their method, but I don't think there's a "fairness" issue here. They are a money-making publication and they try to provide what they believe music industry professionals want. They aren't trying to cater to the chart fans.
The best of the points-based systems I have seen is American Country Countdown's year-end top 50 (used to be top 100). I don't know what their exact system is, but I like the results of it a lot. But R&R has its reasons for running this the way it does.
|
|
Marv
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 6,308
|
Post by Marv on Jun 3, 2005 23:09:02 GMT -5
I remember rewading an article in BB a few months ago in which it was stated that if the charts were as slow in the early nineties, Garth Brooks would not have been releasing CDs so frequently, because several singles of his that went to #1 would never have been released.
He did release four singles from some of his CDs, but many of those would never have been released today, due to the much slower movement on the charts these days, for which you can blame an overreliance on research, and FAR too many PDs out there who cannot use (and trsut) their guts for fear of getting sacked.
Somone pointed out the fact that he had FOUR #1 singles in less than 9 months in 1997-98; to do the same thing to day would have taken at least twice as long.
Looking at the top dozen songs on the chart right now, there are several singles within the top 12 which have been on the charts for anywhere from 3-10 weeks, but those are all by established artists.
Therein lies the problem.
|
|