Billboard Hot 100 : 10/24/2015

[Juan Carlos]

Oct 15, 2015 16:29:27 GMT -5 ry4n said:

I thought it was just a glitch or something. Someone on another forum had a theory that these songs were being released when Friday begins in the Australia/NZ time zones (so that they could be released everywhere globally at the exact same minute); which would still be late Thursday morning over here.

That's true. There are ~17 hours of difference between America and Oceania time zones and it should be known that iTunes updates their releases at midnight on every store, so the NZ store is the first to be updated because of that.

That said, some record labels prefer to put on sale a song on Thursday in America, so it would make people to buy it wherever you are, even if you're in Oceania when it's Friday to avoid 'leaks' (*). Obviously, it would hurt chart performances to a song (Friday to Thursday), but it benefits those record labels because people will purchase the tracks on iTunes and stream them on Spotify straightaway.

However, there are others (like Columbia Records for example) which prefer to put the track on sale on Friday at midnight PST because it coincides with a WW premiere on BBC Radio 1 and/or Capital FM in the UK, so a track is released on Saturday in Oceania instead. That said, The Vamps did that two weeks ago with "Wake Up" and I guess One Direction will do the same tomorrow with "Perfect".

---

(*) Technically, it's not a leak because a song was released in another country, but some people call it in that way though.

[jtd Thee Stallion]

I'd personally take K Camp off the list since Cut Her Off peaked higher than Comfortable.. 

[85la]

Oct 14, 2015 19:28:37 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Oct 13, 2015 19:45:17 GMT -5 badrobot said:

The charts are really becoming "consumption" charts. It definitely leads to more stagnation but I think it's really interesting that the charts more than ever measure what people listen to as opposed to just what they purchase.

Good points, badrobot.

I didn't know it back then as it was happening, but before soundscan in the early 90s, the charts were very skewed and manipulated.  They were based solely on what retail and radio outlets REPORTED, via pen and paper, not what was actually sold or played.  They could essentially submit what they wanted to, which isn't to say that they deliberately "cheated", but it was FAR from the objective science it is today.  It's so crazy to think about how albums actually debuted low and climbed to #1... a very telling example as to how inaccurate things probably were.

Radio's inclusion in the Hot 100 chart has always been a hot topic for debate. Many think sales-only charts are the way to go, since every purchase is essentially an investment on behalf of the consumer - or a vote - if you will.  Radio impressions are just estimates of who heard what and when, and says nothing about if said audience actually liked the song.  But now we have streaming, which, like sales, is consumption-based... it's not based on estimates of audience size or time of day... it's one listen = one vote, for the most part.  sure there are playlists that some people listen to, but given there is an option to choose, it's much more accurate than radio.  

I believe at some point, terrestrial radio won't exist as it does today... and music digital retail will also give way to straight up subscription-based streaming.  If and when this happens, the charts will essentially have ONE source... streaming services... period.  And in all honesty, imo, it will be the most "fair" methodology for gauging popularity that we've ever had/used.  The only problem areas are the pre-programmed playlists, which are clearly manipulated and paid for by labels... so these playlists make streaming comparable to radio on that level, which sucks.

Regarding you points about radio, the charts measure not just what people want to hear and like, but what gets heard. The fact that the top songs get over 100 million listens every week on radio simply cannot discount this medium. And I know it is not a clear correlation, but if stations (or whatever entities control them) are willing to have songs played so many times with so many listeners, in general, more people probably like them.

[85la]

Oct 15, 2015 16:45:19 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Oct 15, 2015 16:27:59 GMT -5 Gary said:

One problem that I keep having with "one hit wonders" is that there really is not a clear definition by basically anyone, no industry definition, no standard definition among fans either. You ask 5 different people you will get 5 different answers.

For instance, we all know what a "top 10 hit" is because that is clearly defined but, what is a "hit"?

yeah i hear you loud and clear!  

it seems like for someone who has a big #1 or even a big top 10 hit... anything less than top 40 on a future single isn't a hit.  But for someone who has a #50 hit, another #50 hit is great.  So... for all intents and purposes for ME... a hit is a hit.  Especially today's world... if you make the Hot 100, you have a HIT.  So more than one Hot 100 hit and you are no longer a OHW.  although..... spending one or two weeks on the chart... that's where it gets sketchy.  longevity plays a role i suppose.

ugh... it's impossible to come to a consistent and basic answer for this.

I believe Billboard made a list of the top #1 one-hit wonders of all time a little while back (obviously not all-inclusive, because there have been many big non-number one hits), but their criteria for determining if the artists of those songs were one-hit wonders was that they couldn't have charted another Hot 100 hit in the top 25.

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2015 21:07:40 GMT -5 jtd Thee Stallion said:

I'd personally take K Camp off the list since Cut Her Off peaked higher than Comfortable.. 

I honestly didn't even know there was another song. haha. my bad.

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2015 21:35:45 GMT -5 85la said:

Oct 14, 2015 19:28:37 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Good points, badrobot.

I didn't know it back then as it was happening, but before soundscan in the early 90s, the charts were very skewed and manipulated.  They were based solely on what retail and radio outlets REPORTED, via pen and paper, not what was actually sold or played.  They could essentially submit what they wanted to, which isn't to say that they deliberately "cheated", but it was FAR from the objective science it is today.  It's so crazy to think about how albums actually debuted low and climbed to #1... a very telling example as to how inaccurate things probably were.

Radio's inclusion in the Hot 100 chart has always been a hot topic for debate. Many think sales-only charts are the way to go, since every purchase is essentially an investment on behalf of the consumer - or a vote - if you will.  Radio impressions are just estimates of who heard what and when, and says nothing about if said audience actually liked the song.  But now we have streaming, which, like sales, is consumption-based... it's not based on estimates of audience size or time of day... it's one listen = one vote, for the most part.  sure there are playlists that some people listen to, but given there is an option to choose, it's much more accurate than radio.  

I believe at some point, terrestrial radio won't exist as it does today... and music digital retail will also give way to straight up subscription-based streaming.  If and when this happens, the charts will essentially have ONE source... streaming services... period.  And in all honesty, imo, it will be the most "fair" methodology for gauging popularity that we've ever had/used.  The only problem areas are the pre-programmed playlists, which are clearly manipulated and paid for by labels... so these playlists make streaming comparable to radio on that level, which sucks.

Regarding you points about radio, the charts measure not just what people want to hear and like, but what gets heard. The fact that the top songs get over 100 million listens every week on radio simply cannot discount this medium. And I know it is not a clear correlation, but if stations (or whatever entities control them) are willing to have songs played so many times with so many listeners, in general, more people probably like them. 

I think the control that radio stations/programmers/companies have over what gets played - which is a very limited selection of songs at any given time - is what some may deem one of the biggest problems with radio's inclusion.  We most definitely are more prone to like and buy things we hear repeatedly on the radio, this is evident when we look at the iTunes chart and compare it to the radio charts.

For me, music played on the radio is somewhat comparable to the commercials... the intent is for us as consumers to hear something for free, like it, and ultimately purchase or invest in it in other ways.  Record labels get very little money in the form of royalties from radio stations, so the goal is for people to invest in the music they are hearing.  

[theflying]

Something that keeps getting lost on people is the "wonder" part of "One Hit Wonder".

That list two pages ago just naming off people with one hit isn't at all representative of anything.

Shawn Mendes is experiencing his first huge hit after a lot of time being hyped up. He has a huge fan base. There's literally nothing about him that suggests he's going to fade into obscurity after "Stitches". Nothing.

Mø is another good (bad) example. She's an international act who was the main feature on one moderate hit and one massive hit. She's EMERGING from obscurity, she's not about to fade into it.

Like, Hozier isn't a one hit WONDER even if no other song of his experiences that level of success ever again. He's got a steady following and is a huge name in that genre.

That Jennifer Lawrence would be included on that list shows the flawed thinking behind it.

I think the jury is still out on Rachel Platten. I think Andy Grammer is OHW-ish.

George Ezra and Ella Henderson are established British acts on their debut eras; they aren't one hit wonders.

[Deleted]

^ I respectfully disagree with much of what you said. I made the post based on the Hot 100, which is the chart on which this thread is based and the chart that is being used as a OHW reference.  Clearly, if we included every chart globally, or even all the sub genre and radio format charts it would be darn near impossible. The Hot 100 is the gauge here... American chart... which is, after all, what this thread is about. Nothing else.  The UK is going to have it's own OHW list, as it should.  "(Artist) was a one-hit wonder here in the states" is a perfectly acceptable and quite common thing to say when it's true, imo.

To the contrary of what you said about "wonder"... I think you're getting lost on the "one hit" part which is the qualifying part of the phrase. "wonder" was used because it sounds good, imo, not because its definition is an important aspect of the phrase. Wonder - by definition in this context - is subjective.  "One hit" isn't subjective if we are referencing one chart.  An act's following has nothing to do with being a one hit wonder. It's strictly about who has only managed to score ONE HIT. If you put too much thought and parameters and assumptions and predictions behind it, you can pretty much rule EVERYONE out because everyone has a following (and I mean EVERYBODY, regardless of how obscure they've become) and people have varying levels of hits with different songs in different markets. And, a lot of these OHWs go on tour with other OHWs and perform other songs, it's not like they only had ONE song... so there are people to know their other music, so what's the difference between that and someone who is establishing themselves but fails to succeed beyond one hit?  We simply don't know what will become of some of these new acts, they may indeed remain one hit wonders. You're assuming some of them won't, which is your prerogative, but it's a risky and very subjective way to look at it.

The list I made was strictly potentials - those who have scored their first and only hit on the Hot 100 during this chart year. Of course any one hit wonder can have their OHW crown removed once they score a 2nd hit, whether it's 1 or 20 years from now.  But for now, until that 2nd hit happens, those with one hit are one hit wonders. Shawn Mendes wasn't included on my initial list because it wasn't his first hit, nor do i think it will be his last, so we agree on that.  As for Andy Grammar, he has a large following and has had several songs chart on various charts around the world dating back about 4 years, so I'm surprised you think he's OHW-ish based on your own criteria.  Hozier is absolutely a one hit wonder here in the states, much like Gotye was/is... one massive hit without a follow up that even cracked the chart at all.  Everyone emerges at some point, in their own way, btw... so i'm not really sure what to make of that comment.  It's not the road that it takes to get there, it's the fact that they scored a hit, and never scored another one on the Hot 100. 

All of this being said, there's obviously a difference in opinion when it comes to defining OHW, which was also discussed, and I respect your point of view here.  I think I understand what you're generally getting at, but it's just as flawed as mine or any other way of looking at it, depending on who you talk to.  I brought it up in reference specifically to the American Hot 100 chart, which is the master list and most definitive list of a true HIT in this country (although given its rules at certain times, there are songs that never charted on it which were unarguably hits, so they still count).  Billboard has their own criteria for OHW, which is what I'm trying to follow here.

[Gary]

What is Billboard's criteria?

In my opinion, there are no one-hit wonders in 2015. Especially those still charting. Artists need time to get a second hit.

"One hit" is totally subjective, even with just one chart. Is a "hit" #40 but #41 is not? for example

Even if you do establish that that a certain peak position gets you a hit and other peak positions do not, the "one hit wonder" tag is still subjective. Examples: genre specific artists who might have a tough time getting into the Hot 100. Actors who just happened to sing in a movie. Album artists who don't really release a lot of singles, etc.

[aser94]

The "one-hit wonder" tag is as much about public perception as it is about chart peaks imo. I think a good litmus test is if an artist is known in collective memory as "the person who sang [song]". That has its limits too though; going back to CRJ, I think the average Joe would know her as a one-hit wonder because of "Call Me Maybe", even though that's not technically accurate, going by chart peaks.

[Gary]

The "one hit wonder" tag popularized by entertainment shows is done that way for entertainment purposes. Just because the writer of those lists says the public has "forgotten" all but one hit of an artist does not make the artist a one hit wonder. Lots of VH1 style lists out there flooded with artists who had multiple hits being tagged with this label does not make it true.

An artist with two, three or even more hits could then be labeled as a one hit wonder. When we all know that a one hit wonder is really an artist with only one hit.

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2015 19:12:06 GMT -5 Gary said:

What is Billboard's criteria?

In my opinion, there are no one-hit wonders in 2015. Especially those still charting. Artists need time to get a second hit.

"One hit" is totally subjective, even with just one chart. Is a "hit" #40 but #41 is not? for example

Even if you do establish that that a certain peak position gets you a hit and other peak positions do not, the "one hit wonder" tag is still subjective. Examples: genre specific artists who might have a tough time getting into the Hot 100. Actors who just happened to sing in a movie. Album artists who don't really release a lot of singles, etc.

It is subjective, agreed. Everyone has their own version/idea of what the criteria is. There have been books published, but even those all vary.

From Wiki: Fred Bronson, a journalist and former writer for Billboard magazine, in his book Billboard's Hottest Hot 100 Hits, uses the criterion that if an artist has another song hitting the Billboard Hot 100, is ineligible to be considered a one-hit wonder.

Another book was written by someone else not affiliated with Billboard which counted the Hot 100 and airplay-only top 40 charts as well, but required a top 40 placement twice to NOT be considered a one-hit wonder.

So I'm going with Fred Bronson because I feel like it's the least subjective... it requires a Hot 100 hit with no return to the chart (unless it was during the period where single releases were required, and in those cases, airplay only hits are included). Billboard book by Joel Whitburn track airplay-only hits right along with actual Hot 100 hits... so it's a good way to reference a "hit", imo.  

In terms of Jennifer Lawrence... until she gets another hit (which, just because she's an actress right now doesn't mean she won't have another potential hit single, album or not)... so i don't see the problem with her being titled a one hit wonder, and according to Fred Bronson's criteria, she is.

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2015 19:12:06 GMT -5 Gary said:

What is Billboard's criteria?

In my opinion, there are no one-hit wonders in 2015. Especially those still charting. Artists need time to get a second hit.

"One hit" is totally subjective, even with just one chart. Is a "hit" #40 but #41 is not? for example

Even if you do establish that that a certain peak position gets you a hit and other peak positions do not, the "one hit wonder" tag is still subjective. Examples: genre specific artists who might have a tough time getting into the Hot 100. Actors who just happened to sing in a movie. Album artists who don't really release a lot of singles, etc.

While I agree and mentioned that any OHW can have a 2nd hit at some point down the line... it happens.  But UNTIL that happens, it's fair game for me.  I do agree that more time tells a better story... which is why the point of my original post was "which ones do you think will be one hit wonders from this year's class of potentials" type of thing.  I wasn't saying they are all one-hit wonders already.

But until Hozier has another hit, which i don't think he will, honestly... he's a one hit wonder to me for now.  

[Gary]

You can go by any criteria you want. Someone else, perhaps even in this thread, will come up with a different criteria. Leads to lots of discussion but no consensus. You are right by your definition, but someone else can poke holes in it using a different definition.

Billboard themselves used the criteria for their top one hit wonders of the 00s list to be: 1st hit top 10, subsequent releases failed to get higher than #25.

It was entertainment channels such as VH1 that coined the phrase in the first place, not Billboard. Back before the days of MTV, AT40 & Casey Kasem would refer to these artists as "Disappearing Acts"

[Deleted]

Wiki has a list of every artist to only hit the Hot 100 once, sorted by decade, btw.

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2015 20:13:55 GMT -5 Gary said:

It was entertainment channels such as VH1 that coined the phrase in the first place, not Billboard.

This isn't true about VH1 ... it dates back to 1977 at least.  And no, Billboard didn't coin the phrase, but they are the most respected authority in music charts, so there's something to be said about that.  Not everyone agrees with their methodologies and criteria for things, but it is an industry publication where these things are decided upon by representatives from all facets of the industry, not just editors at the magazine... so that's why they continue to be the most respected and referenced.

I'm with everyone... the consensus is we all disagree and have our own idea... and it is used loosely for entertainment shows and for the general public who only know the one song..... but for the point of this thread... it's Hot 100 related... so that was the intention of the post.  Artists with on ly one hit this year... who is most likely to remain a OHW?  that was all it was supposed to be!

[Deleted]

i digress on the methodology....

anyone care to comment on the original post and who they THINK will be what THEY consider a one-hit wonder from this year's group of acts with only one hit so far?

[Gary]

Oct 19, 2015 20:20:05 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Oct 19, 2015 20:13:55 GMT -5 Gary said:

It was entertainment channels such as VH1 that coined the phrase in the first place, not Billboard.

This isn't true about VH1 ... it dates back to 1977 at least.  And no, Billboard didn't coin the phrase, but they are the most respected authority in music charts, so there's something to be said about that.  Not everyone agrees with their methodologies and criteria for things, but it is an industry publication where these things are decided upon by representatives from all facets of the industry, not just editors at the magazine... so that's why they continue to be the most respected and referenced.

I'm with everyone... the consensus is we all disagree and have our own idea... and it is used loosely for entertainment shows and for the general public who only know the one song..... but for the point of this thread... it's Hot 100 related... so that was the intention of the post.  Artists with on ly one hit this year... who is most likely to remain a OHW?  that was all it was supposed to be!

Did not say it was VH1.  The entertainment media popularized this.   When Billboard was he basis for AT40, it was a "Disappearing Act"    As we pointed out, Billboard themselves, "the most respected authority" does not have a specific criteria either,
"

[Deleted]

who is "we"... am i being looked at as the sole defender here? it's a conversation... i was just trying to keep it about the Billboard Hot 100 in general... keep it simple... as it was just supposed to be a question about who everyone thinks will be a one hit wonder from 2015... not what its progressed into. like i said, i digress about the methodology. choose your own. 

[Gary]

Oct 19, 2015 20:47:22 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

who is "we"... am i being looked at as the sole defender here? it's a conversation... i was just trying to keep it about the Billboard Hot 100 in general... keep it simple... as it was just supposed to be a question about who everyone thinks will be a one hit wonder from 2015... not what its progressed into. like i said, i digress about the methodology. choose your own. 

Sorry, "we" here means you and I. You quoted a Fred Bronson book, I quoted this,   an actual generated Billboard list with a completely different definition than the one you quoted

www.billboard.com/articles/news/266487/one-hit-wonders-of-the-2000s-page-1

Which were to say, if we call Fred Bronson "Billboard"  then there is not a unique definition here either

But you are correct, you are free t o come up with a definition of your own

[Deleted]

so does anyone have an opinion on my original post of who you think will be a one-hit wonder from this year's crop of potentials... or is this just going to end here, totally missing the point of my post?

i thought about starting a thread for this topic, but i'm glad i didn't, honestly.  what a messy thread that would be.

[rimetm]

Going off your list, in my opinion:

Likely indeed one-hit wonders
Natalie La Rose
T-Wayne
James Newton Howard
O.T. Genasis
Mr. Probz
Lillywood
@iheartmemphis

Likely not going to be one-hit wonders
Silento
X Ambassadors

It could go either way
OMI
Walk the Moon
Hozier
Andy Grammer
Rachel Platten
R. City
Vance Joy
Jidenna
I Like Makkonen
George Ezra
Ella Henderson
Elle King
Alessia Cara
CAM

But he/they have no hit yet
Nicky Jam
Sheppard
K-Camp