dbhmr
Diamond Member
>
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 23,485
|
Post by dbhmr on Aug 21, 2013 13:41:44 GMT -5
...but at the same time Blurred Lines has like 1.5x as much airplay as any song in the past 6 years. And it BARELY held on. yeah, but the airplay gap was only like what, 200 or so million audience impressions? I know, that's a lot, but the sales gap is still 266,000 downloads. That's $343,000 more money the individuals were willing to pay for the song than BL. Imo, radio and streaming are way too weighted considering the people listening to them aren't even paying for the song, and especially in radio's case because the listener doesn't get to choose what song they're listening to there. This is extremely faulty logic. What makes you think that every person who bought Katy's song this week didn't buy Robin's? It's not like Robin is #214 on iTunes. He's #2 in digital sales after a 10-week (or 9-week? Can't remember) stay atop digital sales behind Katy's massive debut week.
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Aug 21, 2013 13:51:02 GMT -5
^ except if Robin slays harder (does a way hotter performance) lol. Nah, her team haven't missed a beat. They know what theyre doing and even if the performance is so so it'll still get a boost PLUS the video I'm sure is being fast tracked 200 mph this very second. The thing I can't help but wonder about is that Katy is closing the show. Award shows have been getting increasingly more viewers in recent years but even still, the numbers dwindle as the show goes on so arguably, the last performer could have one of the lowest views of them all. Though I'm sure MTV will constantly mention "coming up soon: a performance by Katy Perry!!!!" throughout the show and with the lineup they have this year, I can't imagine people actually tuning out (unless they're going to bed).
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Aug 21, 2013 13:54:13 GMT -5
yeah, but the airplay gap was only like what, 200 or so million audience impressions? I know, that's a lot, but the sales gap is still 266,000 downloads. That's $343,000 more money the individuals were willing to pay for the song than BL. Imo, radio and streaming are way too weighted considering the people listening to them aren't even paying for the song, and especially in radio's case because the listener doesn't get to choose what song they're listening to there. This is extremely faulty logic. What makes you think that every person who bought Katy's song this week didn't buy Robin's? It's not like Robin is #214 on iTunes. He's #2 in digital sales after a 10-week (or 9-week? Can't remember) stay atop digital sales behind Katy's massive debut week. No kidding. Plus, the people who bought Blurred Lines months ago aren't going to buy it again. If I like a song and can contribute to the chart, I'm going to, and that means streaming it every week.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 13:55:30 GMT -5
yeah, but the airplay gap was only like what, 200 or so million audience impressions? I know, that's a lot, but the sales gap is still 266,000 downloads. That's $343,000 more money the individuals were willing to pay for the song than BL. Imo, radio and streaming are way too weighted considering the people listening to them aren't even paying for the song, and especially in radio's case because the listener doesn't get to choose what song they're listening to there. This is extremely faulty logic. What makes you think that every person who bought Katy's song this week didn't buy Robin's? It's not like Robin is #214 on iTunes. He's #2 in digital sales after a 10-week (or 9-week? Can't remember) stay atop digital sales behind Katy's massive debut week. I meant to say that they aren't paying to hear the song on the radio. If try WY purchased the song already, those chart points belong to the week in which they purchased the song. People can't control what radio plays. I cannot stand "Blurred Lines," so I didn't buy it, but it's still being shoved down my throat every time I turn on the radio. I, the listener/consumer, have no control over that (or to command a station to play a song like "Burn"), so I don't think that it should be as heavily weighted as a service that the consumer can control at his or her will.
|
|
dajross6
Platinum Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 1,135
|
Post by dajross6 on Aug 21, 2013 13:59:50 GMT -5
Rumor has it Thicke is going all out for the VMAs. It will be very interesting on the Hot 100 next week, but given that sales of both songs will decrease this next week only helps BL a bit. Look for Katy to be #1 two weeks from today :)
|
|
SPRΞΞ
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2009
Posts: 22,075
|
Post by SPRΞΞ on Aug 21, 2013 14:04:32 GMT -5
Rumor has it Katy is going all out as well. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
|
|
Arrow
Gold Member
Imagine me if you must as someone you once knew
Joined: December 2012
Posts: 504
|
Post by Arrow on Aug 21, 2013 14:06:26 GMT -5
This is extremely faulty logic. What makes you think that every person who bought Katy's song this week didn't buy Robin's? It's not like Robin is #214 on iTunes. He's #2 in digital sales after a 10-week (or 9-week? Can't remember) stay atop digital sales behind Katy's massive debut week. I meant to say that they aren't paying to hear the song on the radio. If try WY purchased the song already, those chart points belong to the week in which they purchased the song. People can't control what radio plays. I cannot stand "Blurred Lines," so I didn't buy it, but it's still being shoved down my throat every time I turn on the radio. I, the listener/consumer, have no control over that (or to command a station to play a song like "Burn"), so I don't think that it should be as heavily weighted as a service that the consumer can control at his or her will. I agree with this, which is why I think active streaming should be weighted more than passive streaming (which is virtually what Airplay is for the most part). When Spotify, Last.fm and other sites that monitor listening become more popular than I think they should be used as the dominant airplay factor over radio, which has no real time consumer controls. Sales have their disadvantages too, but I think sales are a better indicator than airplay is in regards to what moves audiences.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 14:12:35 GMT -5
Roar/Katy slaying in Canada: - Biggest first week sales - Most #1 debuts - Most #1's Number-one debuts"Crack a Bottle" by Eminem, Dr. Dre & 50 Cent (February 21, 2009) "Today Was a Fairytale" by Taylor Swift (February 20, 2010) "Wavin' Flag" by Young Artists for Haiti (March 27, 2010)[8] "Not Afraid" by Eminem (May 22, 2010)[9] "California Gurls" by Katy Perry featuring Snoop Dogg (May 29, 2010)"Hold It Against Me" by Britney Spears (January 29, 2011) "Born This Way" by Lady Gaga (February 26, 2011) "Part of Me" by Katy Perry (March 3, 2012)"Boyfriend" by Justin Bieber (April 14, 2012) "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" by Taylor Swift (September 1, 2012) "Roar" by Katy Perry (August 31, 2013)Artists with the most number-one hitsKaty Perry (9) : ("I Kissed a Girl", "Hot N Cold", "California Gurls", "Firework", "E.T.", "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)", "Part of Me", "Wide Awake", "Roar") Rihanna (8) : ("Umbrella", "Take a Bow", "Love the Way You Lie", "Only Girl (In the World)", "S&M (Remix)", "We Found Love", "Diamonds", "Stay")
|
|
dajross6
Platinum Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 1,135
|
Post by dajross6 on Aug 21, 2013 14:14:10 GMT -5
I meant to say that they aren't paying to hear the song on the radio. If try WY purchased the song already, those chart points belong to the week in which they purchased the song. People can't control what radio plays. I cannot stand "Blurred Lines," so I didn't buy it, but it's still being shoved down my throat every time I turn on the radio. I, the listener/consumer, have no control over that (or to command a station to play a song like "Burn"), so I don't think that it should be as heavily weighted as a service that the consumer can control at his or her will. I agree with this, which is why I think active streaming should be weighted more than passive streaming (which is virtually what Airplay is for the most part). When Spotify, Last.fm and other sites that monitor listening become more popular than I think they should be used as the dominant airplay factor over radio, which has no real time consumer controls. Sales have their disadvantages too, but I think sales are a better indicator than airplay is in regards to what moves audiences. The only issue I could see Billboard having with this is that people could theoretically put a song on repeat (or similar) for the numbers and not be actively listening, which goes against the rest of the formula which is either purchasing music or seeing/hearing a song. At least with Vevo you need to hit play again every couple minutes instead of playing the song and going to bed to play for 8 hours.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 14:16:17 GMT -5
I agree with this, which is why I think active streaming should be weighted more than passive streaming (which is virtually what Airplay is for the most part). When Spotify, Last.fm and other sites that monitor listening become more popular than I think they should be used as the dominant airplay factor over radio, which has no real time consumer controls. Sales have their disadvantages too, but I think sales are a better indicator than airplay is in regards to what moves audiences. The only issue I could see Billboard having with this is that people could theoretically put a song on repeat (or similar) for the numbers and not be actively listening, which goes against the rest of the formula which is either purchasing music or seeing/hearing a song. At least with Vevo you need to hit play again every couple minutes instead of playing the song and going to bed to play for 8 hours. I think Soundscan has already worked out a way with YouTube to disqualify excessive plays by a single user. They could use the same for Spotify, Last.fm, etc.
|
|
dbhmr
Diamond Member
>
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 23,485
|
Post by dbhmr on Aug 21, 2013 14:16:26 GMT -5
This is extremely faulty logic. What makes you think that every person who bought Katy's song this week didn't buy Robin's? It's not like Robin is #214 on iTunes. He's #2 in digital sales after a 10-week (or 9-week? Can't remember) stay atop digital sales behind Katy's massive debut week. I meant to say that they aren't paying to hear the song on the radio. If try WY purchased the song already, those chart points belong to the week in which they purchased the song. People can't control what radio plays. I cannot stand "Blurred Lines," so I didn't buy it, but it's still being shoved down my throat every time I turn on the radio. I, the listener/consumer, have no control over that (or to command a station to play a song like "Burn"), so I don't think that it should be as heavily weighted as a service that the consumer can control at his or her will. I get what you're saying, I just think the logic is faulty. Why shouldn't radio constantly play a song that's been number one on iTunes and streaming--the mediums under individual people's control? Radio still feeds the masses and exposes people to music, and I think a song that has broken such a tremendous barrier on radio should be rewarded. Especially since it's number two on digital and streaming--it's not like radio is playing a song the public is rejecting.
|
|
popbox
3x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 3,493
|
Post by popbox on Aug 21, 2013 14:27:12 GMT -5
For my money the Hot 100 has always been one of the few country's charts that does it right. You can't judge a song' popularity solely by one week of sales, especially when a song can have a fluke week of big sales (not saying that about Roar). There are other factors involved in how big a song is, and one of those is radio. And nowadays streaming too. Radio deserves to be included in a song's popularity. People act like the airplay chart is full of songs that the general public doesn't buy, but by and large that's not true. 90% or more of radio hits are sales hits too, meaning radio obviously does play what the public likes for the most part. Something like Justin's Take Back the Night is the exception. BL deserves to still be #1.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 21, 2013 14:30:49 GMT -5
You wish.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 21, 2013 14:34:15 GMT -5
For my money the Hot 100 has always been one of the few country's charts that does it right. You can't judge a song' popularity solely by one week of sales, especially when a song can have a fluke week of big sales (not saying that about Roar). There are other factors involved in how big a song is, and one of those is radio. And nowadays streaming too. Radio deserves to be included in a song's popularity. People act like the airplay chart is full of songs that the general public doesn't buy, but by and large that's not true. 90% or more of radio hits are sales hits too, meaning radio obviously does play what the public likes for the most part. Something like Justin's Take Back the Night is the exception. BL deserves to still be #1. Well then clear channel deals and things of that nature should be excluded. Radio is corrupted so much by the genre and the politics behind it that I think sales is a better measure of popularity. If a song is only popular for a week than so be it. The record industry is in the business of selling music to the masses. If they were in the business of generating radio airplay then I could agree with you. However, popularity should be measured in the context of what the end goal is. With streaming the people are going online and listening for themselves. With radio a few people pick for the masses and based on if you fit their format or "balance" out their play list. So songs that are the most agreeable but not necessarily the most liked tend to do better at radio.
|
|
popbox
3x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 3,493
|
Post by popbox on Aug 21, 2013 14:37:40 GMT -5
For my money the Hot 100 has always been one of the few country's charts that does it right. You can't judge a song' popularity solely by one week of sales, especially when a song can have a fluke week of big sales (not saying that about Roar). There are other factors involved in how big a song is, and one of those is radio. And nowadays streaming too. Radio deserves to be included in a song's popularity. People act like the airplay chart is full of songs that the general public doesn't buy, but by and large that's not true. 90% or more of radio hits are sales hits too, meaning radio obviously does play what the public likes for the most part. Something like Justin's Take Back the Night is the exception. BL deserves to still be #1. Well then clear channel deals and things of that nature should be excluded. Radio is corrupted so much by the genre and the politics behind it that I think sales is a better measure of popularity. If a song is only popular for a week than so be it. The record industry is in the business of selling music to the masses. If they were in the business of generating radio airplay then I could agree with you. However, popularity should be measured in the context of what the end goal is. I guarantee you that radio is how people know and probably even like Blurred Lines way more than its sales are. Look at the massive audience it's reaching over the course of a week! You can't tell me that kind of exposure has nothing to do with how huge the song is. Songs would never be able to sell 5m+ copies on iTunes without radio exposure. That's why radio matters. And clear channel deals do not own the entire airwaves for the record. You make it sound like every single thing radio plays is a corrupt "deal" made.
|
|
popbox
3x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 3,493
|
Post by popbox on Aug 21, 2013 14:44:49 GMT -5
For example, Pink always talks about how important she learned radio was to an artist's success (especially a pop artist's) when she had her radio drought and didn't sell anything. Then radio got behind U+Ur Hand, and for the first time in several years she was able to start selling significantly again (in the US I mean). You'll hear several artist's preach the importance of radio in the success of their career. Radio's around for a reason.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 14:46:43 GMT -5
I meant to say that they aren't paying to hear the song on the radio. If try WY purchased the song already, those chart points belong to the week in which they purchased the song. People can't control what radio plays. I cannot stand "Blurred Lines," so I didn't buy it, but it's still being shoved down my throat every time I turn on the radio. I, the listener/consumer, have no control over that (or to command a station to play a song like "Burn"), so I don't think that it should be as heavily weighted as a service that the consumer can control at his or her will. I get what you're saying, I just think the logic is faulty. Why shouldn't radio constantly play a song that's been number one on iTunes and streaming--the mediums under individual people's control? Radio still feeds the masses and exposes people to music, and I think a song that has broken such a tremendous barrier on radio should be rewarded. Especially since it's number two on digital and streaming--it's not like radio is playing a song the public is rejecting. Which is exactly why I don't think we should completely get rid of radio counting , but I do think that the stress that the Hot 100 puts on it for its formula is far too much in comparison to user-controlled variables such as digital sales and on-demand streaming (like Spotify and YouTube, not Pandora mobile because Pandora mobile doesn't let you choose exactly what songs you want to listen to).
|
|
Gold Soundz
5x Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by Gold Soundz on Aug 21, 2013 14:46:55 GMT -5
|
|
SPRΞΞ
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2009
Posts: 22,075
|
Post by SPRΞΞ on Aug 21, 2013 14:49:13 GMT -5
I love the radio! (but probably cuz I'm too lazy to buy an adapter) I've got CHR, Hot AC, AC, classic rock, and oldies stations. Haven't heard Roar yet on Hot AC tho.
|
|
popbox
3x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: January 2013
Posts: 3,493
|
Post by popbox on Aug 21, 2013 14:58:51 GMT -5
And one other big example of radio's importance before I shut up on this subject. If radio wasn't important to a song's success, then how come it's only the singles of artists that sell millions of downloads? Aside from the lead single, the general public doesn't pay attention to what an artist releases as a single, so why is it that singles are the songs that sell? It's because people hear them on radio, and that exposure leads them to iTunes to buy. Otherwise 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th singles would never sell anything. They don't just magically sell because everyone knows they're the single. They sell because of radio and video exposure.
Singles would be irrelevant and people wouldn't buy albums as much because they wouldn't know if they were gonna like more than one song. And a lot of people don't wanna buy a whole album to figure out what they like from it. Radio is a huge outlet to get exposed to music and learn if you might like a lot of songs from an album, which in turn helps album sales too. People need to stop kidding themselves on the importance of radio to the industry. The music industry wouldn't be the giant it is without radio.
|
|
Gold Soundz
5x Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by Gold Soundz on Aug 21, 2013 15:30:01 GMT -5
Radio could be policed. Moreover, stans that used to take to radio now take to YouTube. If the on-air DJ had a few brain cells, (s)he would spot the stanning through caller ID or calling behavior or voice recognition. Those requests wouldn't be factored in for testing purposes. If people got away with it, they at least spent actual time trying to get a song played on the radio, and those spins were likely negligible in calculations. Anyone that buys into Werde's spiel fail to realize that his job is to appease label heads and Silicon Valley. s**t is like the NSA. Dicey. Just like the few annoying stans of another that are suddenly interested in this topic. Does so and so count, Bill? How is it policed? "I'll get back to you tomorrow after I talk to so and so with this technical job title." Bill sends an email to public relations asking for a new way to phrase "we don't know because we're winging it for the sake of appearing ahead of the curve. Also, we get more ad revenue as a tabloid than we did as a data reporter." Point blank, the Hot 100 chart isn't based on reasonably reliable hard figures anymore. We don't know what it's based on. That will continue to piss me off until there's more transparency and a hard-line methodology disclosed.
|
|
Gold Soundz
5x Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by Gold Soundz on Aug 21, 2013 15:37:33 GMT -5
^ except if Robin slays harder (does a way hotter performance) lol. Nah, her team haven't missed a beat. They know what theyre doing and even if the performance is so so it'll still get a boost PLUS the video I'm sure is being fast tracked 200 mph this very second. The thing I can't help but wonder about is that Katy is closing the show. Award shows have been getting increasingly more viewers in recent years but even still, the numbers dwindle as the show goes on so arguably, the last performer could have one of the lowest views of them all. Though I'm sure MTV will constantly mention "coming up soon: a performance by Katy Perry!!!!" throughout the show and with the lineup they have this year, I can't imagine people actually tuning out (unless they're going to bed). People are more likely to catch it ten minutes late with its usual cold start than they are to stop watching. They save the most popular for last so they can keep ratings up for the duration of the show. They'll have N'Sync followed by Katy.
|
|
dzjx
Gold Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 933
|
Post by dzjx on Aug 21, 2013 15:47:52 GMT -5
I think the US is wrong, it should be totally by sales, there is a reason every other country in the world measures their charts solely on sales. That's because the songs that are selling the most are obviously the ones that are most popular at that moment in time. Here in the UK we get No.1's for one or maybe two weeks and it is replaced by another, I would hate for something to be number one for weeks on end (Rihanna's 10 weeks at number 1 in '07 was enough to send me off a cliff) Really when I look at billboard charts i just look at the digital chart to see what is number one. How can people think it is good for radio to be factored in, what this ends up doing is creating a sound in which people must 'pander' to and therefore is taking the artistic freedom away in fear that it might not get radio plays. Radio should play whatevers topping the charts but it should not be a factor in that.
|
|
ss8
Gold Member
Dupe
Joined: August 2013
Posts: 851
|
Post by ss8 on Aug 21, 2013 15:53:33 GMT -5
^ I def. agree w/ your last point/paragraph when you said we really dont know what the Hot 100 is based on right now due to lack of concrete/clean cut transparency. Its just all over the place and a mess (since they made the 'big change/additions' earlier this year). Prior to those changes, it was like 1+1 in knowing where a song would chart. People here would have it figured out days before Wed. Now its down to the wire due all the streaming, video views etc etc..No one in the public truly knows anymore- just those 'in the biz'.
I dont agree w/ some of the pro radio points made here. The first example I think of is Love Somebody. It sold so so at the very best, got lukewarm reception from most people since day one, and did next to nothing worldwide (a major indicator of a quality hit song) yet it's still MASSIVE on U.S. radio lol. Like someone else said, JTs Take back The Night (NOT a good song). Sounds barely B side quality. Yet, even with it's poor ranking on iTunes, it's still doing FINE on the radio. Those are just two examples of the corporate/shady side of radio (when it comes to NOT listening to the public).
Also, the US is usually way late with the program- far latching onto a song thats massive all over the world months before. Blurred Lines, Get Lucky and now Wake Me Up were all huge/peaking in many countries months before first exploding on US radio. If memory serves me right, BL was actually just 'floating' for several weeks on radio *until the Voice performance* when it instantly skyrocketed to #1. Before that, radio was def. reluctant prob. due to its retro/funk sound. I'm still way more pro sales only when it comes to what determines how a song charts. A few greedy/shady Program Directors and corporations who give them 'dividends' etc..shouldnt have as much power as they do. Even a song is a fluke/flash in the pan #1, its what *people are buying that week* and should be #1 like it would be in most of the world lol.
|
|
Gold Soundz
5x Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by Gold Soundz on Aug 21, 2013 16:01:03 GMT -5
I still don't agree with Billboard's chart methodology. "Roar" outsold "Blurred Lines" by 266,000 copies - almost 2 times Blurred Lines. The weighting of streaming and radio are MUCH too high in comparison to digital downloads. This is what bothers me. I'd be much more down for the work-in-progress/nebulous 'streaming' factor if streaming and radio in the aggregate accounted for no more than 30% of the chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 16:14:40 GMT -5
I still don't agree with Billboard's chart methodology. "Roar" outsold "Blurred Lines" by 266,000 copies - almost 2 times Blurred Lines. The weighting of streaming and radio are MUCH too high in comparison to digital downloads. This is what bothers me. I'd be much more down for the work-in-progress/nebulous 'streaming' factor if streaming and radio in the aggregate accounted for no more than 30% of the chart. Roar has 2x as much sales as Blurred Lines, but Blurred Lines has 4x as much airplay... and 1,5x as much streaming. They have nearly the same amount of overall points, the formula is fine.
|
|
|
Post by When I Ruled the World on Aug 21, 2013 16:14:54 GMT -5
#1 for Katy is a lock in the next week or 2 after the VMA's (and hopefully her video release).
|
|
ss8
Gold Member
Dupe
Joined: August 2013
Posts: 851
|
Post by ss8 on Aug 21, 2013 16:17:39 GMT -5
I love the radio! (but probably cuz I'm too lazy to buy an adapter) I've got CHR, Hot AC, AC, classic rock, and oldies stations. Haven't heard Roar yet on Hot AC tho. Ive only heard Roar 2 times in total so far lol and have the radio on a lot. Back to BL vs Roar- even though it's pretty much a given she'll get #1, if Roar was released even two-three weeks ago (before BL appeared to be peaking and had less AI) Katy most likely wouldve gotten that jump to #1 her 2nd week, fell back #2 then returned to #1 weeks later (which she'll prob. end up dong anyway as her airplay #s increase and video comes out ). I think that's the only difference about what happened today in case some are wondering about the timing or what not of the release. Miley song even from the beginning was never a threat to BL. If Katy came out with Roar around when We Cant Stop came out I still think theres a chance Katy couldve given Robin serious competition.
|
|
dajross6
Platinum Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 1,135
|
Post by dajross6 on Aug 21, 2013 17:13:54 GMT -5
Except that Blurred Lines is literally doing something that has NEVER been done for a good portion of the formula. If Katy releases her song a few weeks ago, she might never get to the top. Thicke was selling an absurd number of singles for weeks and weeks. If anything the label should have waited a few weeks if they were that concerned about earning a #1 song, but really the timing is fine. Katy will get her multi-week #1.
|
|
icefire9
2x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 2,071
|
Post by icefire9 on Aug 21, 2013 17:18:54 GMT -5
I'm not as worried about getting #1s now. During the Teenage Dream era we were all rooting for (or against) her getting to number one, but now the pressures off a bit.
I'd still like her to get to #1 and I think she will, but I'm putting much more emphasis personally on the overall size of the hit. I'd rather Roar be like Payphone rather than Part of Me or Hold It Against Me.
|
|