dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Jul 28, 2005 19:57:52 GMT -5
Songs without an audience bullet on Billboard in the mid-teens, if they're at least 20 weeks (or OVER 20 weeks... I'm not sure which) are in danger of going recurrent. It's that arbitrary #15 cutoff point that does it. Blake Shelton and Keith Urban's songs are well over the 20 week age limit, but neither one has fallen below #15 yet, so they're still around. Last week Reba was #16 on BB, and in that danger zone where if you're an older song, you don't want to have a bad week. The song gets a pass in week 20 -- this rule is only for weeks 21 and after. And the rule now is: songs below #15 that are either losing spins OR losing audience may be removed from the current chart. Only if the song is gaining in both audience AND spins is it safe. BB will no doubt make some exceptions; they always have. So your saying that billboard may pull a song if it gains audience but l ooses spins ? (and is below 15 & older than 20 weeks). I thought that since its now an audience chart, that was the controlling chart factor.
|
|
Zazie
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,144
|
Post by Zazie on Jul 28, 2005 23:32:24 GMT -5
That is what I am saying. I think they're trying to find a way to clear out some of the songs they still think last too long. Keith Anderson was still in the top 15 in audience, but he was (apparently) below #15 in spins, and off he went.
It's hard to get the right rules in place. I don't like R&R's rule, but I'd support Billboard removing songs below #10 if they aren't bulleted.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Jul 29, 2005 9:22:36 GMT -5
That is what I am saying. I think they're trying to find a way to clear out some of the songs they still think last too long. Keith Anderson was still in the top 15 in audience, but he was (apparently) below #15 in spins, and off he went. It's hard to get the right rules in place. I don't like R&R's rule, but I'd support Billboard removing songs below #10 if they aren't bulleted. Perp - u seem to get info like this, can u tell if billboard pulled keith anderson off the chart even though he was still top 15 in audience but not in spins.
|
|
|
Post by northerncountry on Jul 29, 2005 10:16:01 GMT -5
Skywalker - just in case Perp isn't around for awhile - Keith Anderson would have been #13 on this week's BB chart based only on the audience totals. He had slightly over 18 million in audience while Van Zant had 18.6 at #12 and Blake Shelton had about 17.75 at #13.
It looks like Keith Urban will be the next song to fall off prematurely as he is likely to stay on the chart for only one more week as he was #12 in spins this past week while he was #10 in audience. He has a big enough lead in spins over Trisha Yearwood to stay on the chart next week, but he probably won't be able to survive for another week after that.
|
|
dcowboy77
Platinum Member
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 1,519
|
Post by dcowboy77 on Aug 1, 2005 11:19:01 GMT -5
I know r&r & billboard recurrent rules both have their faults but here is why i think the billboard rule is still better..."fast cars & freedom" with 35 million aud and "making memories of us" with 26 mill aud are already gone off r&r but still on billboard...meanwhile "my sister" with only 15 mill aud is gone from billboard but still hanging on r&r...i feel r&r penalizes the "big hits" too much because they will fall off their peak faster than the songs that languish around #15 as is the case here...i can see pulling songs off after they are out of the top 10 as billboard does at times...but "fast cars" would still be #4 on the r&r chart when ranked by aud...yet from r&r its already gone off the chart...that doesnt seem fair to me.
|
|
Perp
2x Platinum Member
Joined: February 2004
Posts: 2,104
|
Post by Perp on Aug 1, 2005 14:33:23 GMT -5
You bring up good points, skywalker. I've said before that some sort of middle ground would be better for both charts. What about pulling a song off when it reaches a certain PERCENTAGE of losses from it's all-time peak, once a song also meets a minimum age requirement?
I don't know what would be a good percentage number to use, but it would be more fair all around. You have to figure if a song is down, say 33%, from its peak that would be grounds for saying "OK, it's had it's fair share of exposure, it's time for it to go recurrent".
Rascal Flatts was down only 23% from it's all time peak when it went away on R&R. Blake Shelton was down 47%. Darryl Worley had fallen 60% Bobby Pinson had lost 65%.
Those are very big differences.
Reba's only down 16% from her peak as of today on R&R, yet she's already gone from Billboard. The rules in place on both charts could use some re-working.
One simple change R&R could make is to start counting days without a bullet once the song reaches #5 instead of #2.
|
|