Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 13:59:35 GMT -5
It's weird how the older songs all went up this week :s (Demons, Wake Me Up, Timber, Counting Stars, etc.)
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,531 
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Jun 5, 2014 14:21:00 GMT -5
They weren't being artificially held down by a BS method of giving Michael Jackson a top 15 song for no reason.
|
|
Daniel Collins
4x Platinum Member
With every broken bone, I swear I lived
|
Post by Daniel Collins on Jun 5, 2014 14:43:20 GMT -5
It's weird how the older songs all went up this week :s (Demons, Wake Me Up, Timber, Counting Stars, etc.) Story Of My Life, Show Me, Team and Pompeii as well. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,889
|
Post by Gary on Jun 5, 2014 14:49:07 GMT -5
Most of those should drop again next week.
Re: last week's Michael Jackson entry, I think it is good for the chart and not a bad thing. If gives exposure to songs driving the internet rather than radio or traditional outlets.
Even if it only charts for a week, the performance of that song is what caused it to chart. If the same kid did John Legend on a piano, not sure anyone would have cared.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,609
|
Post by imbondz on Jun 5, 2014 14:58:56 GMT -5
They weren't being artificially held down by a BS method of giving Michael Jackson a top 15 song for no reason. exxxactly. makes no sense how that song went top 10. |
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don't you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,623
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Jun 5, 2014 15:34:32 GMT -5
They weren't being artificially held down by a BS method of giving Michael Jackson a top 15 song for no reason. exxxactly. makes no sense how that song went top 10. Um... "Billie Jean" was only #14 last week. |
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jun 5, 2014 15:38:26 GMT -5
Re: last week's Michael Jackson entry, I think it is good for the chart and not a bad thing. If gives exposure to songs driving the internet rather than radio or traditional outlets. It's a good thing if it's actually giving exposure to songs that might not have otherwise gotten it. "Billie Jean" didn't need another week on the chart, and I can't really reconcile how highly it ranked. That said, I hope that some songs by up-and-comers can get chart boosts through the same policy, so there's some 'good' to take with the 'bad.' |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,889
|
Post by Gary on Jun 5, 2014 15:41:18 GMT -5
Re: last week's Michael Jackson entry, I think it is good for the chart and not a bad thing. If gives exposure to songs driving the internet rather than radio or traditional outlets. It's a good thing if it's actually giving exposure to songs that might not have otherwise gotten it. "Billie Jean" didn't need another week on the chart, and I can't really reconcile how highly it ranked. That said, I hope that some songs by up-and-comers can get chart boosts through the same policy, so there's some 'good' to take with the 'bad.' It didn't NEED another week on the chart but it got it because it was popular for that week. In a weekly chart, one week is all you need. The chart is doing its job, what is popular in the here and now. This might not mean traditional radio methods any more since the internet is becoming a more powerful way to get music out. |
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Jun 5, 2014 15:46:42 GMT -5
It's a good thing if it's actually giving exposure to songs that might not have otherwise gotten it. "Billie Jean" didn't need another week on the chart, and I can't really reconcile how highly it ranked. That said, I hope that some songs by up-and-comers can get chart boosts through the same policy, so there's some 'good' to take with the 'bad.' It didn't NEED another week on the chart but it got it because it was popular for that week. In a weekly chart, one week is all you need. The chart is doing its job, what is popular in the here and now. This might not mean traditional radio methods any more since the internet is becoming a more powerful way to get music out. Oh I agree completely. I guess what I mean is that the positive objective of moving toward contemporary measures of a song's popularity don't really work if they benefit older songs that have already had full chart lives over newer ones. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,889
|
Post by Gary on Jun 5, 2014 15:55:51 GMT -5
How many times in the last 10 years have we seen a major artist (like Michael Jackson) die or a song rise to #1 in sales due to a performance on TV but they were not reflected in the popularity chart even though they were popular?
Accuracy is better even if it means volatility.
Now all they need to do is dump the 20 weeks and fall below #50 and you're out rule and I will be happy.
Older songs benefiting at the expense of newer songs is why all those crazy rules were adopted in the first place but it does not reflect true popularity.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,609
|
Post by imbondz on Jun 5, 2014 16:08:25 GMT -5
exxxactly. makes no sense how that song went top 10. Um... "Billie Jean" was only #14 last week. oh I thought you were talking about his new one w/ J.T. Makes no sense that went top 10 |
|
divasummer
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 10,041
|
Post by divasummer on Jun 5, 2014 20:54:37 GMT -5
What happened w/Billy Jean?
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,918
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jun 6, 2014 11:44:48 GMT -5
^It charted because of lots of views for some video of a teen boy dancing to it during a high school talent show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jun 6, 2014 11:46:31 GMT -5
They weren't being artificially held down by a BS method of giving Michael Jackson a top 15 song for no reason. Ohh you mean the same BS methods used for giving everyone else getting their hits in week after week. |
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jun 6, 2014 11:48:41 GMT -5
How many times in the last 10 years have we seen a major artist (like Michael Jackson) die or a song rise to #1 in sales due to a performance on TV but they were not reflected in the popularity chart even though they were popular? Accuracy is better even if it means volatility. Now all they need to do is dump the 20 weeks and fall below #50 and you're out rule and I will be happy. Older songs benefiting at the expense of newer songs is why all those crazy rules were adopted in the first place but it does not reflect true popularity. I somewhat agree with this. I'd rather they just took radio out of the equation AND did what you are suggesting at the same time. ;) |
|
