Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Mar 20, 2014 10:29:48 GMT -5
Songs already routinely cross the one year point. Demons will approach that soon
Radio playlists are a factor in longer chart runs as well as streaming and songs being available for purchase for longer periods of time
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 12:06:20 GMT -5
^ Blurred Lines feels like it's been on forever, yet it's not going to make one year...Royals and Wake Me Up also with their great longevity (and rather slow climb) won't make it...Counting Stars might have a chance...but it's really like 1 in 500 singles that can pull it off...Demons was only able to do it because it had two separate chart runs (a top 50 re-entry after going recurrent after its 20th week failing to reach the top 50) and it climbed ever so slowly...but if you take the actual mainstream popularity of the song, it was only in the top 50 for 27 weeks
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,613
|
Post by imbondz on Mar 20, 2014 13:09:56 GMT -5
Something happens to a song once it gets played on the radio. It's a weird phenomenon. I could love a song off a cd, but once I hear it on the radio, it elevates it for some reason. That's just my experience tho. So I think radio is definitely part of the equation, but maybe not as much as it has been because we have so many options to hear and consume music now.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Mar 20, 2014 13:17:44 GMT -5
^ Blurred Lines feels like it's been on forever, yet it's not going to make one year...Royals and Wake Me Up also with their great longevity (and rather slow climb) won't make it...Counting Stars might have a chance...but it's really like 1 in 500 singles that can pull it off...Demons was only able to do it because it had two separate chart runs (a top 50 re-entry after going recurrent after its 20th week failing to reach the top 50) and it climbed ever so slowly...but if you take the actual mainstream popularity of the song, it was only in the top 50 for 27 weeks 39 songs have made it to one year, all within the last 20 years. Demons will be #40. That is 2 a year average |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 13:26:03 GMT -5
^ Blurred Lines feels like it's been on forever, yet it's not going to make one year...Royals and Wake Me Up also with their great longevity (and rather slow climb) won't make it...Counting Stars might have a chance...but it's really like 1 in 500 singles that can pull it off...Demons was only able to do it because it had two separate chart runs (a top 50 re-entry after going recurrent after its 20th week failing to reach the top 50) and it climbed ever so slowly...but if you take the actual mainstream popularity of the song, it was only in the top 50 for 27 weeks 39 songs have made it to one year, all within the last 20 years. Demons will be #40. That is 2 a year average No I'm not denying that chart run longevity is increasing progressively over time, but I just think you're over-exaggerating when you say a lot of songs get a year on the chart...2 a year on average isn't that much, considering that there are HUNDREDS of songs released each year, including those that don't even reach the top 100...songs like Demons, Counting Stars, and Radioactive are on for so long because they're really popular for almost as long as songs such as Blurred Lines, but unlike BL they take forever to become popular! CS is still in the top 10 after 3/4 year on the chart because it took like 4 months for it to even hit radio stations let alone get into the top 10...of course if a song is popular for a typical amount of time after having started to become popular 25 weeks after debuting, it will end up with a lot of total weeks on the chart...those first 25 weeks are like freebie weeks because even though it didn't have significant mainstream success the song was able to linger around on the chart. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Mar 20, 2014 13:32:11 GMT -5
Different definition of "a lot" I guess. 2 a year average makes this a fairly common occurrence in my opinion, and hardly news anymore.
Prior to 1994, getting over 40 was a rare occurrence (the record was in fact 43). This week alone there are 4 with 40+
|
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Mar 20, 2014 13:46:34 GMT -5
Something happens to a song once it gets played on the radio. It's a weird phenomenon. I could love a song off a cd, but once I hear it on the radio, it elevates it for some reason. That's just my experience tho. So I think radio is definitely part of the equation, but maybe not as much as it has been because we have so many options to hear and consume music now. That's not a reason to keep radio in the equation. Just being played on the radio should elevate a song. I know the feeling but logically, it shouldn't elevate the song...anymore than TV would elevate a song. You didn't get to chose the song on your own. The PDs and TV programs picked for you. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 14:08:49 GMT -5
Something happens to a song once it gets played on the radio. It's a weird phenomenon. I could love a song off a cd, but once I hear it on the radio, it elevates it for some reason. That's just my experience tho. So I think radio is definitely part of the equation, but maybe not as much as it has been because we have so many options to hear and consume music now. That's not a reason to keep radio in the equation. Just being played on the radio should elevate a song. I know the feeling but logically, it shouldn't elevate the song...anymore than TV would elevate a song. You didn't get to chose the song on your own. The PDs and TV programs picked for you. They choose it based on popular demand. So if a song is being played a lot on the radio then obviously a lot of people want to hear it. As opposed to a viral sensation video featuring a track that most people didn't actually want to hear (*ahem* Harlem Shake *ahem* this week's #9 song *ahem*). You really think that Happy would be played every 15 minutes on the radio if majority of people didn't want to hear it and ask the radio stations to play it? |
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Mar 20, 2014 14:50:51 GMT -5
That's not a reason to keep radio in the equation. Just being played on the radio should elevate a song. I know the feeling but logically, it shouldn't elevate the song...anymore than TV would elevate a song. You didn't get to chose the song on your own. The PDs and TV programs picked for you. They choose it based on popular demand. So if a song is being played a lot on the radio then obviously a lot of people want to hear it. As opposed to a viral sensation video featuring a track that most people didn't actually want to hear (*ahem* Harlem Shake *ahem* this week's #9 song *ahem*). You really think that Happy would be played every 15 minutes on the radio if majority of people didn't want to hear it and ask the radio stations to play it? You are assuming too much. Clear Channel deals exist for a reason. You see a big difference between what people are actually listening to and what radio is playing as it relates to streaming. |
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,613
|
Post by imbondz on Mar 20, 2014 16:33:40 GMT -5
Something happens to a song once it gets played on the radio. It's a weird phenomenon. I could love a song off a cd, but once I hear it on the radio, it elevates it for some reason. That's just my experience tho. So I think radio is definitely part of the equation, but maybe not as much as it has been because we have so many options to hear and consume music now. That's not a reason to keep radio in the equation. Just being played on the radio should elevate a song. I know the feeling but logically, it shouldn't elevate the song...anymore than TV would elevate a song. You didn't get to chose the song on your own. The PDs and TV programs picked for you. But tv does elevate a song. Especially if the performance is great. Like when Adele sang someone like you, that blew that song up. |
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Mar 20, 2014 16:53:03 GMT -5
Sail did it without a remix, massive radio support, or any big performance really. I find that way more impressive that it hung around for the last past three years.
|
|
thebops
Charting
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 108
|
Post by thebops on Mar 20, 2014 17:56:37 GMT -5
I don't write much on here but this Soko thing has prompted me to chime in my two cents.
First though, "Adonis the DemiGod!" has pointed to a survey that says only 6% of radio listeners tune in for the music anymore. At the bottom left of the website his link pointed to it says this: "All of the content found on this site is fictional, inaccurate information. We encourage all readers to pay attention and verify sources before making impulsive tweets or Facebook updates about ridiculous headlines". Indeed the article points to lottery numbers as one of the primary reasons commuters listen to radio anymore lol
One thing I think imbondz pointed out briefly is that at least with Harlem Shake, you could clearly hear and recognize the music. I can still hum the tune in my head. If you heard the 30 second clip you basically have heard the entire song. With this Soko thing, there is so much talking in the video that I can barely hear the song in the background even if I wanted to. It is truly "elevator music". And as others have rightly pointed out, HS had meaningful sales numbers for a couple of weeks there. It will be interesting to see if this one gets a boost in sales.
The chart run will be similar to Gentleman by Psy which I think went 12-> 5 -> 26 -> oblivion.
|
|
Libra
Diamond Member
The One Who Knows Where All the Bodies Are Buried
:)
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,376 
My Charts
|
Post by Libra on Mar 20, 2014 18:15:21 GMT -5
Pages worth of posts wasted on a debate over a statistic that doesn't even exist......woooooooooow.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 18:52:54 GMT -5
First though, "Adonis the DemiGod!" has pointed to a survey that says only 6% of radio listeners tune in for the music anymore. At the bottom left of the website his link pointed to it says this: "All of the content found on this site is fictional, inaccurate information. We encourage all readers to pay attention and verify sources before making impulsive tweets or Facebook updates about ridiculous headlines". |
|
dbhmr
Diamond Member
>
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 23,547
|
Post by dbhmr on Mar 20, 2014 19:44:23 GMT -5
This. Explains. Everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by josh on Mar 20, 2014 19:47:33 GMT -5
I knew that statistic made no sense.
|
|
Kris
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2013
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by Kris on Mar 20, 2014 20:19:53 GMT -5
80% of statistics are false
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 20:29:39 GMT -5
80% of statistics are false 80% of people didnt notice the statistics/irony in that statement. #oops we are getting off topic |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 21:46:41 GMT -5
Martin Garrix - Animals:
Last Week: 26
This Week: 26
Peak: 26
Weeks on: 26
|
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Mar 21, 2014 8:41:58 GMT -5
I knew that statistic made no sense. How could it? Was the other 94% tuning into NPR? |
|
