Kurt
Administrator
#1: Jacob Collier f/John Legend & Tori Kelly β "Bridge Over Troubled Water"
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 22,612
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by Kurt on Feb 20, 2014 20:47:28 GMT -5
Goes for alternative adds on March 11, according to AllAccess. Third single from Pure Heroine.
|
|
Juan Carlos
Administrator
One of Pulse's great hidden gems
πππ
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 37,395
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by Juan Carlos on Feb 20, 2014 20:54:52 GMT -5
FINALLY!
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,959
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Feb 20, 2014 20:58:50 GMT -5
AKA what SHOULD have been the second single.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Feb 20, 2014 21:10:08 GMT -5
THANK GOD. This was the right choice, no questions.
|
|
Lordefβ ones
6x Platinum Member
Let's drown underneath the stars
Joined: April 2013
Posts: 6,271
|
Post by Lordefβ ones on Feb 20, 2014 21:32:57 GMT -5
...I'll take my stance as the only one who would've preferred Ribs, Buzzcut Season, or Glory & Gore to this.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Feb 22, 2014 15:06:06 GMT -5
...I'll take my stance as the only one who would've preferred Ribs, Buzzcut Season, or Glory & Gore to this. #RibsFor4th
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 15:07:56 GMT -5
The best choice imo. I see this being another top 10 hit for her.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 22, 2014 15:32:50 GMT -5
Expected and the right choice. "Bravado" or "Ribs" next pls.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 15:41:59 GMT -5
can this stall in the 30s
pls
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Feb 22, 2014 15:43:05 GMT -5
can this stall in the 30s pls I hope it does- undortunaty, I feel that it will peak in the teens.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 15:45:09 GMT -5
can this stall in the 30s pls undortunaty i like this word
|
|
halo19
4x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 4,683
|
Post by halo19 on Feb 22, 2014 17:03:19 GMT -5
I hope it keeps hipster baiting types biting their tongues ie going top 10. Much better than Team.
|
|
Web
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 3,985
|
Post by Web on Feb 22, 2014 17:45:16 GMT -5
I actually somewhat enjoy this one from Lorde, which is much more than I could say for the first two singles. Not really sure where it's going to end up, but a Top 10 peak wouldn't be unexpected considering the first two. Not sure if a #1 peak is possible though, even if the label pays for it.
|
|
Hefty Hanna
Diamond Member
a prettier jesus
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 20,340
|
Post by Hefty Hanna on Feb 22, 2014 18:38:16 GMT -5
It's a new art form showin' people how little we care YEAHHHH!!!
Going to be enormous.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Feb 22, 2014 18:59:38 GMT -5
Third #1.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Feb 22, 2014 20:19:09 GMT -5
You mean 2nd.
Unless we're still on the Mediabase here.
This single is still one of the poppiest on her album though. It can have its success on pop - but if this makes the top 10 and Chevelle's newest doesn't, I'll be pretty mad. Core artists shouldn't have to be confined to the chart's bottom tier just because they aren't new, rising indie superstars. Half of these so-called 'indie' songs could also even be categorized as pop! Some of these new acts aren't even that bad - why can't we have a mix of core and new artists in the chart's upper echelon? In 2014, Pearl Jam, Cage the Elephant, Linkin Park and Panic! at the Disco were the only bands to reach the top ten with prior top ten singles from at least two different albums ago.
In 2012, Three Days Grace had to settle for a #15 peak with "Chalk Outline" after reaching the top ten on almost all their other singles. Linkin Park had to settle for a #12 peak with "Lost in the Echo", making it the only second single by them to miss the top ten. The same thing happened when Green Day's profanity-laden "Let Yourself Go" flopped at #17. The grunge revival was all bit ignored by Alternative, as Soundgarden's lead single from their first album in 17 years, flopped at #16, Alice in Chains' "Hollow" was shot down at #23, and Pearl Jam's "Mind Your Manners" could only bullet for three weeks, eventually flattening out at #12. None of their second singles even cracked the top 40 except for "Sirens", which peaked at #4 and showed how the core wasn't at all completely dead. The Offspring's "Turning Into You" fell at #39 - pretty disappointing considering it was just the album's 2ND SINGLE!
2013 was worse. Aside from AiC and Pearl Jam faltering short of expectations, AFI's "17 Crimes" and Jimmy Eat World's "I Will Steal You Back" lost steam in the mid-20s (both bands were coming off a string of consecutive top ten lead singles). Phoenix, one of the better indie bands, faltered at #11 with "Entertainment", ruining their shot at another hit. 30 Seconds to Mars failed to have a #1 single from an album for the first time since their 2002 debut, as "Up in the Air" could only hit #3. Green Day had another lead single, this time "X-Kid", only peak at #35, by far the worst performing Green Day single ever! The fact that it was a lead single only made things worse (although it was the third era track single, ad dominium).
So if the core is falling out, who will replace them? The newer acts have clearly proven themselves to be of lesser quality and hardness. Where can the old bands flock to now? Active won't take AFI or Jimmy! So they're most likely done.
|
|
Spidey
Diamond Member
I love you, it's ruining my life.
Joined: July 2008
Posts: 16,673
|
Post by Spidey on Feb 22, 2014 20:22:46 GMT -5
YES.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 22, 2014 21:54:21 GMT -5
Core artists shouldn't have to be confined to the chart's bottom tier just because they aren't new, rising indie superstars. Things change. With the logic in the sentence I quoted, core artists shouldn't be guaranteed to reach the chart's upper tier just because they're already established. The present period at the format could be seen as a transition period as newer artists become the new core acts and if they don't, they'll either be replaced by the original core acts or (more likely) more even newer artists. It's a continuous cycle.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Feb 22, 2014 22:27:50 GMT -5
Core artists shouldn't have to be confined to the chart's bottom tier just because they aren't new, rising indie superstars. Things change. With the logic in the sentence I quoted, core artists shouldn't be guaranteed to reach the chart's upper tier just because they're already established. The present period at the format could be seen as a transition period as newer artists become the new core acts and if they don't, they'll either be replaced by the original core acts or (more likely) more even newer artists. It's a continuous cycle. Fair enough - however, whereas bands like Three Days Grace and AFI were representative of phases, Linkin Park and Green Day have withstood the test of time by charting well on every one of their singles.
|
|
|
Post by American Idiot on Feb 22, 2014 23:49:10 GMT -5
I like this easily better than "Team" and "Royals." I don't have a problem with her charting high on Alternative because while she's scoring big on Pop too, she has a dark and serious side to her music that can be rock-suited.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Feb 23, 2014 0:58:58 GMT -5
Core artists shouldn't have to be confined to the chart's bottom tier just because they aren't new, rising indie superstars. Things change. With the logic in the sentence I quoted, core artists shouldn't be guaranteed to reach the chart's upper tier just because they're already established. This. Alternative artists have a longer shelf life than pop artists, but the rotation and torch-passing still needs to happen.
|
|
Green Baron
Diamond Member
Banned
Why do I start what I can't finish?
|
Post by Green Baron on Feb 23, 2014 10:32:14 GMT -5
Things change. With the logic in the sentence I quoted, core artists shouldn't be guaranteed to reach the chart's upper tier just because they're already established. This. Alternative artists have a longer shelf life than pop artists, but the rotation and torch-passing still needs to happen. The thing is, the rotation did happen. From 1999-2003, the big Alternative acts were nu-metal and post-grunge. From 2004-2009, the scene shifted towards more emo/pop-punk bands. However, even during the pop punk phase, post-grunge bands could still rack up top tens, with Staind's "Believe" hitting #1 and Puddle of Mudd's "Psycho" hitting #2. During both of these phases, classic 90s bands like Green Day and The Offspring still charted well with every single. Now suddenly, as soon as the indie phase starts, none of these bands can recapture the success. The ratio of new bands to core artists is far too high on the former side - currently, Cage the Elephant are the only band to have already put out three albums and rack up a top ten on each one. While the core artists that represented the phases like Three Days Grace and AFI don't necessarily have to get higher peaks, it's the bands that have withstood the test of time, charting well on every single album, making them classic artists on the format, that shouldn't have to chart lower because they aren't indie
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 23, 2014 10:42:49 GMT -5
But is the output of those classic artists on point with what they point out beforehand? Again, you're saying that there are artists that are entitled to having high peaking hits on the format just because they have been staples in the past.
I'm curious to know how Alternative has been doing with overall ratings over the past 5 or 10 years and also how the demographics have changed in that period. It's entirely possible that people listening to the format now aren't interested in the staples of 5 or 10 years ago because those people have moved on to other formats or even other music,
|
|
Devin
Diamond Member
Best Rock Poster 2011β2014
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 13,953
My Charts
Pronouns: He/Him
|
Post by Devin on Feb 23, 2014 10:58:42 GMT -5
But is the output of those classic artists on point with what they point out beforehand? Again, you're saying that there are artists that are entitled to having high peaking hits on the format just because they have been staples in the past. I'm curious to know how Alternative has been doing with overall ratings over the past 5 or 10 years and also how the demographics have changed in that period. It's entirely possible that people listening to the format now aren't interested in the staples of 5 or 10 years ago because those people have moved on to other formats or even other music, I'm guessing that around 2003/2004 was a huge period of popularity for Alternative, since it took over 3,000 spins to top the chart, and 500 spins to crack the Top 40. Sometime after that (I'm guessing when pop-punk rose and fell in popularity and post-grunge took over), Alternative lost many listeners and radio spins tracked by Mediabase and BDS/Nielsen were reduced to the point where you could get to #1 with under 2,000 (not entirely sure if this is true, as I can't really remember). Alternative lost it's identity by basically cloning Active rock, which is why Staind's "Believe" and Puddle of Mudd's "Psycho" went #1, and Theory of a Deadman went Top 10 with "Bad Girlfriend" (although there were many other post-grunge songs that hit #1 beforehand, but I'm pretty sure it was considered more alternative-sounding back in the early 00's). After Alternative adopted "indie" music, ratings improved, and therefore, more stations got recognition and success, raising numbers for number-ones back up over 2,500 spins. I believe that number will keep improving over the next few years. Alternative currently has a strong identity and culture associated with the wave of indie popularity, and it has improved the sustainability if these stations. From a business standpoint, a station would want to cater only to it's target market, which at the moment are college kids and people in their 20's and early 30's who affiliate to the 'hipster' culture. Therefore, Active rock bands who found success on the format 5-8 years ago during the time Alternative basically copied Active for the most part do not equate in the format's success anymore. I also wish there was some consistency with those bands and their airplay on Alt, but times have changed, audiences have changed, and radio will continue these cycles for as long as it exists.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 11:09:33 GMT -5
"Core artists" change. Once upon a time, Three Days Grace were not a "core" Alternative act. They had success at Alternative for about half a decade (same with AFI). They also happened to be at their peak at a time when Alternative was at a low point in popularity. As someone who listened to Alternative a lot in the 90s, the format completely drove me away in 2001. It's only in the past couple of years that I've started listening to a lot of the music being played on Alternative again, because I really feel the format has gone back to living up to its name. But back to the "core artists" talk: I, for one, am really glad Alternative isn't immediately sending tracks by "core artists" right to the top anymore. For awhile, lead singles by acts like Pearl Jam, RHCP, Foo Fighters, etc. were hitting #1 so fast it was impossible stations even had valid enough listener reaction to justify the immediate, massive number of spins they were receiving.
|
|
gmiranda
New Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 391
|
Post by gmiranda on Feb 23, 2014 11:43:46 GMT -5
While the rotation and torch-passing is happening between artists from the last decade and newer acts, I feel it should be happening more amongst the songs themselves. There's no reason why songs should spend over 40 weeks on the chart, and in the 2012-14 period alone we've seen plenty of them, including five that lasted a full year. This makes otherwise interesting songs stale and blocks other songs from hitting the top 10, top 5, or the top spot (when the song is annoying to start with - I'm looking at you, Lumineers - it's even more offensive). Long-lasting songs should spend 25-30 weeks on the chart at most, then fade out and give way to a new batch.
This isn't a new phenomenon - the 2009-10 period had "Savior", "1901" and "Uprising" for endless weeks in the top 10, for example - and it hurts the chart as a whole, for the listeners and the artists. I've accepted (and sometimes even embraced) the change in core artists and the indie-pop crossovers, but this trend of letting songs live indefinitely in the top 10 (or top 15, for Billboard) is something I can't come to grips with.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Feb 23, 2014 12:36:11 GMT -5
One of the few songs from her that I thoroughly enjoy.
|
|
bluestar4
New Member
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 427
|
Post by bluestar4 on Feb 23, 2014 16:25:58 GMT -5
Team>>>>>Tennis Court>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Royals
This is a pop song through and through. It does not belong on the alternative charts.
And the lyrics are stupid. "Talk it up like yeah". Sounds like typical teenage girl bulls**t.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,959
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Feb 23, 2014 16:28:12 GMT -5
It does not belong on the alternative charts. Here we go again...
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 23, 2014 16:28:26 GMT -5
This is a pop song through and through. It does not belong on the alternative charts. Good argument!
|
|