Billboard Hot 100: 10/31/15

[Gary]

Inaccuracy is not necessarily a good thing

[KeepDeanWeird]

Oct 20, 2015 15:06:34 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

makes me long for the inaccuracy of the pre-soundscan era where big hit songs - regardless of how popular - came and went in 4 months on average. There's almost TOO much accuracy these days... it's become inaccurate in terms of what is actually "hot" each week.  i mean, i know, i know... sounds absurd, but really...

It's not accuracy - it's Billboard's random weighing - the same thing happened during the first couple of years of inclusion of digital singles - the ratio was weighted higher for sales because they were small. Eventually, sales boomed and the chart was very skewed to sales and until the next rebalancing, which changed everything again. It's pretty random and so now I look at the components rather than H100 because it really is Billboard's whim. I am glad streaming count because like others, I've made transition (with rare exception) to buying and radio to streaming and satellite and I was a heavy music buyer both physical and digital.

[Deleted]

yeah, i hear you and agree. accuracy might not be the ideal word. i guess i just mean the amount of data and how it is handled/interpreted.  The recurrent rule was put in place to keep the HOT 100 reflecting what's, well, hot.  I feel like it's not doing that.  Songs last the majority of - or over - a year on the Hot 100, while awesome and notable - it's also  seems to push the limits of the word "Hot" given how often it happens nowadays.  I don't know... just thinking out loud.  pun intended.

[renfield75]

Oct 20, 2015 15:06:34 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

makes me long for the inaccuracy of the pre-soundscan era where big hit songs - regardless of how popular - came and went in 4 months on average. There's almost TOO much accuracy these days... it's become inaccurate in terms of what is actually "hot" each week.  i mean, i know, i know... sounds absurd, but really...

It definitely wasn't as accurate back then, as we saw with the 11-30-91 changeover, but it was so much more fun watching each week! If a song bounded, say, 25-12-6-3, then you would watch to see if it would (most likely) make that last jump to #1 the following week. Then it would drop and be gone in 8 weeks and that artist would have another single climbing the charts. Now a song could leap 25-4, spend three months between 4 and 5, drop to 7, surge to 3 after a video of a dog appearing to dance to the song went viral, then steadily fall down the top 40 for the next 8 months. And you would know the entire time it was never going to reach #1. *yawn*

Just the way it is now.

[Deleted]

haha ^ you nailed it! the only excitement these days is to see if the label will get the timing and setup of a song exactly right to make it get to #1 for a week.  And then the song that was already #1 for 4 weeks, returns to #1 for another 4-6 weeks. Rinse, repeat.

It's less fun, with more tedium and science. Big things can happen now that couldn't before, like #1 debuts.... it's just too bad another one of those things is a dozen songs simultaneously hogging the chart for 30+ weeks like it's no big deal.

[Deleted]

You guys complain, but have you seen the Latin charts? they're just as static, or even more than the ones here. The current song at #3 (Propuesta Indecente) has been on the charts 117 weeks!, the U.S. charts are nothing compared to that, so I wouldn't really complain if I were you. I think in my opinion, I think it comes down to the fact, there aren't really that many hot new songs like there were in previous years. If you guys haven't noticed, many of the big names are either on hiatus, in-between album sessions, flopped with their more recent singles or have just fallen off, so it's understandable. I find it a little frustrating as well, but I truly feel like the charts right now are reflecting of what's popular, especially with the streaming. I also think more #1 hits lessen the significance of being #1, I think having just a handful of #1's is enough and makes it more rewarding because is something not everybody can do and it's a very big highlight of your career.

[wjr15]

^^ There's a lot of big names charting now. Taylor, Justin, Drake, The Weeknd (3 huge singles, he's a big name now). Selena & Demi both recently released their 2nd singles so they should start rising soon. Not to mention Ariana, Adele & Rihanna all have releases coming up soon.

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2015 18:33:58 GMT -5 @billboardfan1 said:

You guys complain, but have you seen the Latin charts? they're just as static, or even more than the ones here. The current song at #3 (Propuesta Indecente) has been on the charts 117 weeks!, the U.S. charts are nothing compared to that, so I wouldn't really complain if I were you. I think in my opinion, I think it comes down to the fact, there aren't really that many hot new songs like there were in previous years. If you guys haven't noticed, many of the big names are either on hiatus, in-between album sessions, flopped with their more recent singles or have just fallen off, so it's understandable. I find it a little frustrating as well, but I truly feel like the charts right now are reflecting of what's popular, especially with the streaming. I also think more #1 hits lessen the significance of being #1, I think having just a handful of #1's is enough and makes it more rewarding because is something not everybody can do and it's a very big highlight of your career.

all charts are relatively static these days. that's the point. the entire industry has lost its sense of urgency and plays it so safe that we have the same records playing over and over and over again for ridiculously long periods of time. it's not just the Hot 100... but the Hot 100 certainly is the most visible and glaring reflection of it.

all i can really say to your bolded statement is... there's a reason for that... it's the homogenized programming (programmers playing it safe)... the ageism... the not giving songs a chance... the over-saturation of select songs... labels not having any money to put into promoting their roster of artists and dropping them like flies because they can't afford to invest into anything that doesn't immediately take off. it's all part of the big picture, creating this illusion that there aren't as many hit-worthy songs. the recording industry is on its knees trying to thrive (or even survive), while radio is too scared to break any new artists for fear of losing even more audience to streaming... so it's a deadlock.

and it's not just about #1... it's about the entire chart and the number of big hits becoming smaller for obvious reasons. it's not so much of an achievement of popularity, it's an achievement of meticulous label rollout and release schedules. it's a big game, and everyone is forced to play it if they want a #1.  This isn't necessarily anything new, but it's gotten way more complicated and hardcore.

i don't know how old you are or what era you grew up in, but for me, it's pretty crazy how things have changed. i change with the times, i accept streaming and see the good in it.... i'm just expressing my thoughts on what I see as some trouble spots that I see getting worse and worse.

I liken it to a store that is struggling so it only stocks the products that have the highest rate of sale.... and pretty soon, it's down to 10 things to choose from so that's all we consume. And we as consumers don't have a choice - and we get used to it and become ok with it.  This is exaggerated, but it's the gist of what I mean.  The movie industry is no different... keep churning out those sequels and prequels and remakes.... play it as safe as possible, hogging the screens, leaving all these really good movies struggling to break even because studios are too scared to spend money on anything that's not fool proof or proven to have big returns (which sometimes flop and i laugh to myself because they deserve it).  Pretty soon, all we'll have is retreads of the same 10 movies because we buy into it.

ultimately, this is more about being concerned than it is complaining.

[imbondz]

^ I agree. but...there's a ton of great music out there I've found on Spotify. Songs that will never make the Hot 100 but should. The charts may be stagnant but music isn't.

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2015 19:20:11 GMT -5 imbondz said:

^ I agree. but...there's a ton of great music out there I've found on Spotify. Songs that will never make the Hot 100 but should. The charts may be stagnant but music isn't.

absolutely agree with you... which falls into what i'm saying.  so many good things get lost in this big corporate blob of sameness and fear, and the charts reflect that.  streaming has given us a means to explore what else is out there, thank god.  and it'll be the death of radio for that very reason if they don't start expanding their own horizons and having more of a selection with faster turnover.

[Deleted]

Understandable. I actually grew up in the 90's, but didn't really start listening to radio much until 1998, and by then, the Hot 100 wasn't indicative of what was popular because of the elegibility rule. But I agree with you about what radio has been doing, and not giving songs a chance, and the ageism thing. I do feel like there should be more diversity than what we have. This has been an ongoing problem, but until something can be done about it, there's nothing we can do. It's a shady industry. That's why I don't always depend on the charts to tell me what I should listen to, you have to dig deep to find more than just what the radio offers you, it is what it is.

[ry4n]

If the Spotify charts (and the YouTube charts that HITS used to post) tell us anything, it's that people are content with listening to the same 5 songs for months on end. I think the general public just prefers familiarity over anything else; and that might be why the charts are so slow and boring. I know I'm making some generalizations and assumptions here, but still.

Also, the US is a large country with a large population. It's not surprising that it takes longer for songs to cross over to multiple demographics than they do in other countries.

[jenglisbe]

Oct 20, 2015 18:50:08 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Oct 20, 2015 18:33:58 GMT -5 @billboardfan1 said:

You guys complain, but have you seen the Latin charts? they're just as static, or even more than the ones here. The current song at #3 (Propuesta Indecente) has been on the charts 117 weeks!, the U.S. charts are nothing compared to that, so I wouldn't really complain if I were you. I think in my opinion, I think it comes down to the fact, there aren't really that many hot new songs like there were in previous years. If you guys haven't noticed, many of the big names are either on hiatus, in-between album sessions, flopped with their more recent singles or have just fallen off, so it's understandable. I find it a little frustrating as well, but I truly feel like the charts right now are reflecting of what's popular, especially with the streaming. I also think more #1 hits lessen the significance of being #1, I think having just a handful of #1's is enough and makes it more rewarding because is something not everybody can do and it's a very big highlight of your career.

all charts are relatively static these days. that's the point. the entire industry has lost its sense of urgency and plays it so safe that we have the same records playing over and over and over again for ridiculously long periods of time. it's not just the Hot 100... but the Hot 100 certainly is the most visible and glaring reflection of it.

all i can really say to your bolded statement is... there's a reason for that... it's the homogenized programming (programmers playing it safe)... the ageism... the not giving songs a chance... the over-saturation of select songs... labels not having any money to put into promoting their roster of artists and dropping them like flies because they can't afford to invest into anything that doesn't immediately take off. it's all part of the big picture, creating this illusion that there aren't as many hit-worthy songs. the recording industry is on its knees trying to thrive (or even survive), while radio is too scared to break any new artists for fear of losing even more audience to streaming... so it's a deadlock.

and it's not just about #1... it's about the entire chart and the number of big hits becoming smaller for obvious reasons. it's not so much of an achievement of popularity, it's an achievement of meticulous label rollout and release schedules. it's a big game, and everyone is forced to play it if they want a #1.  This isn't necessarily anything new, but it's gotten way more complicated and hardcore.

i don't know how old you are or what era you grew up in, but for me, it's pretty crazy how things have changed. i change with the times, i accept streaming and see the good in it.... i'm just expressing my thoughts on what I see as some trouble spots that I see getting worse and worse.

I liken it to a store that is struggling so it only stocks the products that have the highest rate of sale.... and pretty soon, it's down to 10 things to choose from so that's all we consume. And we as consumers don't have a choice - and we get used to it and become ok with it.  This is exaggerated, but it's the gist of what I mean.  The movie industry is no different... keep churning out those sequels and prequels and remakes.... play it as safe as possible, hogging the screens, leaving all these really good movies struggling to break even because studios are too scared to spend money on anything that's not fool proof or proven to have big returns (which sometimes flop and i laugh to myself because they deserve it).  Pretty soon, all we'll have is retreads of the same 10 movies because we buy into it.

ultimately, this is more about being concerned than it is complaining.

I think we also have to take into account that people apparently want familiarity and to hear the same songs over and over and over. Just look at the streaming chart, which shows what people actively listen to. It's full of older songs. If people wanted to hear something new/different, that is where we would see it most. But that isn't the case.

[wjr15]

Oct 20, 2015 19:57:21 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Oct 20, 2015 18:50:08 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

all charts are relatively static these days. that's the point. the entire industry has lost its sense of urgency and plays it so safe that we have the same records playing over and over and over again for ridiculously long periods of time. it's not just the Hot 100... but the Hot 100 certainly is the most visible and glaring reflection of it.

all i can really say to your bolded statement is... there's a reason for that... it's the homogenized programming (programmers playing it safe)... the ageism... the not giving songs a chance... the over-saturation of select songs... labels not having any money to put into promoting their roster of artists and dropping them like flies because they can't afford to invest into anything that doesn't immediately take off. it's all part of the big picture, creating this illusion that there aren't as many hit-worthy songs. the recording industry is on its knees trying to thrive (or even survive), while radio is too scared to break any new artists for fear of losing even more audience to streaming... so it's a deadlock.

and it's not just about #1... it's about the entire chart and the number of big hits becoming smaller for obvious reasons. it's not so much of an achievement of popularity, it's an achievement of meticulous label rollout and release schedules. it's a big game, and everyone is forced to play it if they want a #1.  This isn't necessarily anything new, but it's gotten way more complicated and hardcore.

i don't know how old you are or what era you grew up in, but for me, it's pretty crazy how things have changed. i change with the times, i accept streaming and see the good in it.... i'm just expressing my thoughts on what I see as some trouble spots that I see getting worse and worse.

I liken it to a store that is struggling so it only stocks the products that have the highest rate of sale.... and pretty soon, it's down to 10 things to choose from so that's all we consume. And we as consumers don't have a choice - and we get used to it and become ok with it.  This is exaggerated, but it's the gist of what I mean.  The movie industry is no different... keep churning out those sequels and prequels and remakes.... play it as safe as possible, hogging the screens, leaving all these really good movies struggling to break even because studios are too scared to spend money on anything that's not fool proof or proven to have big returns (which sometimes flop and i laugh to myself because they deserve it).  Pretty soon, all we'll have is retreads of the same 10 movies because we buy into it.

ultimately, this is more about being concerned than it is complaining.

I think we also have to take into account that people apparently want familiarity and to hear the same songs over and over and over. Just look at the streaming chart, which shows what people actively listen to. It's full of older songs. If people wanted to hear something new/different, that is where we would see it most. But that isn't the case.

I get really tired of hearing the same songs over and over on the radio. Songs like Uptown Funk, Sugar, Thinking Out Loud I cannot stand anymore because I hear them everywhere, even months after they peaked. I usually get tired of a song after 3 months.

[jenglisbe]

Oct 20, 2015 20:33:28 GMT -5 wjr15 said:

Oct 20, 2015 19:57:21 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

I think we also have to take into account that people apparently want familiarity and to hear the same songs over and over and over. Just look at the streaming chart, which shows what people actively listen to. It's full of older songs. If people wanted to hear something new/different, that is where we would see it most. But that isn't the case.

I get really tired of hearing the same songs over and over on the radio. Songs like Uptown Funk, Sugar, Thinking Out Loud I cannot stand anymore because I hear them everywhere, even months after they peaked. I usually get tired of a song after 3 months.

Me, too, but my point is streaming shows that a lot of people are not like you and me in this regard.

[Au$tin]

We are chart followers. We discover new songs just as they start their runs. We're abnormal in this aspect. The US has a population over 300,000,000. Within this population contains thousands of different demographics based on race, age, gender, sexuality, heritage, etc, and all of these demographics spread over a very, very large location. A song has the potential to break out in a certain demographic in New York long before it makes its way to the same demographic in Los Angeles or the Midwest for example. Not to mention, many songs appeal to more than one demographic, but it doesn't hit at all of those demographics at the same time. Streaming really showcases this, and it really is a testament to how music just works in this country. I can fall in love with a song and show my friends months before it reaches its peak or I can discover a song long into its run simply because I haven't been exposed to it yet. It's crazy!

[jenglisbe]

Oct 20, 2015 21:39:00 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

We are chart followers. We discover new songs just as they start their runs. We're abnormal in this aspect. The US has a population over 300,000,000. Within this population contains thousands of different demographics based on race, age, gender, sexuality, heritage, etc, and all of these demographics spread over a very, very large location. A song has the potential to break out in a certain demographic in New York long before it makes its way to the same demographic in Los Angeles or the Midwest for example. Not to mention, many songs appeal to more than one demographic, but it doesn't hit at all of those demographics at the same time. Streaming really showcases this, and it really is a testament to how music just works in this country. I can fall in love with a song and show my friends months before it reaches its peak or I can discover a song long into its run simply because I haven't been exposed to it yet. It's crazy!

Good points, and I think the most important aspect of what you wrote is that we are chart followers (not to mention discussion board people). The majority of people are not on boards discussing music, learning from others about what's hot/new, and so on. And because people are so different as you imply, the songs/artists that appeal to a huge demo are actually kind of rare.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

If you want to know the hottest new songs, get trendier friends.

[DJ General]

So, there is no way Hotline Bling isn't #1 this week right?

[velaxti]

Oct 20, 2015 15:01:12 GMT -5 jtd Thee Stallion said:

The only songs that have an actual "chart run" are rap songs because they just come and go.. Hence why so many of them got new peaks this week. Also why Flex staying on for 26 weeks has really surprised me.

I think it helps with a lot of rap songs since they don't crossover to HAC and AC, which is part of what keeps some pop/alternative songs hanging around forever.

One chart run I liked for a top 10 hit from this year was T-Wayne - Nasty Freestyle. Fast climb, top 10 peak for a few weeks, fast drop.

Most other songs go: Fast climb, top 10 peak for ages (sometimes), SLOWWWWW drop.

Some songs even have a very slow climb like All Of Me for example.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Oct 20, 2015 21:39:00 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

We are chart followers. We discover new songs just as they start their runs. We're abnormal in this aspect. The US has a population over 300,000,000. Within this population contains thousands of different demographics based on race, age, gender, sexuality, heritage, etc, and all of these demographics spread over a very, very large location. A song has the potential to break out in a certain demographic in New York long before it makes its way to the same demographic in Los Angeles or the Midwest for example. Not to mention, many songs appeal to more than one demographic, but it doesn't hit at all of those demographics at the same time. Streaming really showcases this, and it really is a testament to how music just works in this country. I can fall in love with a song and show my friends months before it reaches its peak or I can discover a song long into its run simply because I haven't been exposed to it yet. It's crazy!

I mean, this isn't so different from how songs blew up in the pre-internet era. A random radio station in  Pittsburgh would put a song in heavy rotation and it would start spreading locally until it was nationwide. Those were the days when DJs actually had power to control what was popular, before their corporate overlords handed them their playlists and stations nationwide were uniform from day one. And its still like that in some ways.

[Deleted]

El Perdon tho! The kid in school that kept getting held back a grade but just kept going to class... but never graduated... eventually got his GED.

[divasummer]

Chart following music lovers are a lot different then the general public.
I was just thinking of this the other night while being in the car with two other people and they skipped so many newer good songs on the radio just to find something very familiar.

[rimetm]

Oct 21, 2015 8:59:24 GMT -5 velaxti said:

Some songs even have a very slow climb like All Of Me for example.

97-X-X-X-X-89-100-X-97-97-66[This was the point that radio latched on]-68-72-56[Live performances start racking up]-52-55-68-60-54-49-27[The week all performers for Grammys were confirmed, I think]-17[week of Grammys]-15-etc.

It wasn't so much a natural climb as a series of boosts through promotion. Those first 3 months were essentially a period of uncaring for the track, then it crossed over to AC, that faltered, then John started performing it everywhere, then it wavered in that zone, then the Grammys happened and then the buying public started to support it more.

[House Lannister]

Oct 21, 2015 9:43:50 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

El Perdon tho! The kid in school that kept getting held back a grade but just kept going to class... but never graduated... eventually got his GED.

We're witnessing history with that song.  Part of me hopes the song keeps rising and eventually hits top 10 just so artists can point to labels and say "Don't give up on this one" as their song is struggling up the charts.  

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2015 10:16:48 GMT -5 House Lannister said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:43:50 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

El Perdon tho! The kid in school that kept getting held back a grade but just kept going to class... but never graduated... eventually got his GED.

We're witnessing history with that song.  Part of me hopes the song keeps rising and eventually hits top 10 just so artists can point to labels and say "Don't give up on this one" as their song is struggling up the charts.  

YES, YES, YASSSSSS!  that's SOOO on point for what i've been talking about.  To me, it's RIDICULOUS that US pop radio hasn't jumped all over this MONTHS ago, given it's obvious appeal. It's like being slapped in the face repeatedly with something and pretending it's not there.

[Au$tin]

Oct 21, 2015 9:14:53 GMT -5 YourFaveIsAFlop said:

Oct 20, 2015 21:39:00 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

We are chart followers. We discover new songs just as they start their runs. We're abnormal in this aspect. The US has a population over 300,000,000. Within this population contains thousands of different demographics based on race, age, gender, sexuality, heritage, etc, and all of these demographics spread over a very, very large location. A song has the potential to break out in a certain demographic in New York long before it makes its way to the same demographic in Los Angeles or the Midwest for example. Not to mention, many songs appeal to more than one demographic, but it doesn't hit at all of those demographics at the same time. Streaming really showcases this, and it really is a testament to how music just works in this country. I can fall in love with a song and show my friends months before it reaches its peak or I can discover a song long into its run simply because I haven't been exposed to it yet. It's crazy!

I mean, this isn't so different from how songs blew up in the pre-internet era. A random radio station in  Pittsburgh would put a song in heavy rotation and it would start spreading locally until it was nationwide. Those were the days when DJs actually had power to control what was popular, before their corporate overlords handed them their playlists and stations nationwide were uniform from day one. And its still like that in some ways.

Of course, but streaming exasperates that as it's essentially radio airplay run by the people. Digital sales and sales in general have always moved faster simply because you only buy something once. You may use that something hundreds of times. Streaming is essentially showcasing the "use" as sales showcase the purchase.

[velaxti]

El Perdon also sounds a lot like Bailando which millions of people all over the world loved. Radio should give it more of a chance imo.