Billboard Hot 100 : 12/05/2015

[Future Captain]

Nov 23, 2015 22:12:26 GMT -5 forg said:

I like the idea of Comprehensive Top 100 with no recurrent rules but I doubt Billboard will bother

That would result in stastical mess. So, no.

[Gary]

Nov 23, 2015 23:35:27 GMT -5 Future Captain said:

Nov 23, 2015 22:12:26 GMT -5 forg said:

I like the idea of Comprehensive Top 100 with no recurrent rules but I doubt Billboard will bother

That would result in stastical mess. So, no.

I agree it won't happen. I disagree with "statistical mess". I think it is actually cleaner and easier to understand rather than the top 100 subject to age and chart position criteria

 

[surfy]

I don't see why they can't do both?

[Future Captain]

Nov 23, 2015 23:43:05 GMT -5 Gary said:

Nov 23, 2015 23:35:27 GMT -5 Future Captain said:

That would result in stastical mess. So, no.

I agree it won't happen. I disagree with "statistical mess". I think it is actually cleaner and easier to understand rather than the top 100 subject to age and chart position criteria

 

When I say stastical mess, it's more on how people will compare the two, and it can result in editing war. Not to mention all the asterisk....

Now that I said it, iirc, there's a debate about the Billboard 200 and Comprehensive album chart somewhere around 2010 (?), because someone, I forgot who, insists on how many weeks Fearless actually spend in top 10 thanks to MJ's sales resurgence.

[Mikel Echarri]

20 entries + 1 re-entry, and Uptown Funk survives jumping to #24 :O

[jarhys]

Nov 24, 2015 5:18:43 GMT -5 Mikel Echarri said:

20 entries + 1 re-entry, and Uptown Funk survives jumping to #24 :O

How did this happen???

[popbox]

New recurrent rule is awful. Especially since it robs UF of potentially being the biggest Hot 100 hit of all time like it was in contention for.

[Gary]

Nov 24, 2015 1:13:44 GMT -5 Future Captain said:

Nov 23, 2015 23:43:05 GMT -5 Gary said:

I agree it won't happen. I disagree with "statistical mess". I think it is actually cleaner and easier to understand rather than the top 100 subject to age and chart position criteria

 

When I say stastical mess, it's more on how people will compare the two, and it can result in editing war. Not to mention all the asterisk....

Now that I said it, iirc, there's a debate about the Billboard 200 and Comprehensive album chart somewhere around 2010 (?), because someone, I forgot who, insists on how many weeks Fearless actually spend in top 10 thanks to MJ's sales resurgence.

It would be that way now, especially for people here.  By the 12/12 chart Uptown Funk will be recurrent and its chart run will end at 54 weeks.  Songs that would otherwise chart forever would be capped at 52 weeks.  All the "all-time" and "decade" prediction threads that we have here would now be messed up.

[Future Captain]

Nov 24, 2015 5:29:25 GMT -5 jarhys said:

Nov 24, 2015 5:18:43 GMT -5 Mikel Echarri said:

20 entries + 1 re-entry, and Uptown Funk survives jumping to #24 :O

How did this happen???

Justin and 1D, duh.

[Deleted]

For real though, why did "Uptown Funk" go up so high again? I don't get it.

[jenglisbe]

Nov 24, 2015 5:29:25 GMT -5 jarhys said:

Nov 24, 2015 5:18:43 GMT -5 Mikel Echarri said:

20 entries + 1 re-entry, and Uptown Funk survives jumping to #24 :O

How did this happen???

I told y'all there was yet another video set to it getting streams.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Nov 23, 2015 23:33:36 GMT -5 Ravi said:

The older songs hanging around should have told Billboard that streaming is over-weighed compared to other chart components. It should have reduced the weightage of streaming and probably increased the weightage of sales (as it is declining year-after-year). That would have taken care of the "problem" Billboard was facing.

Sales are lower than ever so make them more important?

That makes no sense. If the primary means of consumption is becoming streaming, why present a picture of market penetration that relies on a metric that doesn't actually reflect a song's overall reach?

[MTSChart21]

52+ week songs don't always happen, so even if SUAD was still popular right now and could place in at #29 for example, apparently it isn't popular anymore. This new rule sucks. We will never know how many weeks SUAD and Thinking Out Loud would've actually gotten.

[jtd Thee Stallion]

SUAD probably could have been Top 25 next week with the performance too.

[rimetm]

Nov 24, 2015 9:47:45 GMT -5 MTSChart21 said:

We will never know how many weeks SUAD and Thinking Out Loud would've actually gotten.

Not necessarily true. Since we get recurrent songs info, we can see if some song that drops right out of the top 50 is ahead of TOL and SUAD. From that, we can extrapolate which week would be the end for them.

(Right now, Fight Song is acting as benchmark, and both songs are ahead of it, so odds are they'd still be on the chart otherwise.)

[jarhys]

Nov 24, 2015 10:10:01 GMT -5 rimetm said:

Nov 24, 2015 9:47:45 GMT -5 MTSChart21 said:

We will never know how many weeks SUAD and Thinking Out Loud would've actually gotten.

Not necessarily true. Since we get recurrent songs info, we can see if some song that drops right out of the top 50 is ahead of TOL and SUAD. From that, we can extrapolate which week would be the end for them.

(Right now, Fight Song is acting as benchmark, and both songs are ahead of it, so odds are they'd still be on the chart otherwise.)

Thinking Out Loud was #45 last week, and 6 Justin Bieber songs (including WAUN) might be ahead of it this week.
It might result TOL dropped off even with the old recurrent rules.

[Deleted]

Nov 23, 2015 23:33:36 GMT -5 Ravi said:

One of the reasons I follow the charts is the thrill of seeing records being broken. By going for this new recurrent rule, Billboard has practically taken one major record out of the equation.

So What's next? A song with 10 weeks on #1 will go recurrent to make place for other new songs?

The older songs hanging around should have told Billboard that streaming is over-weighed compared to other chart components. It should have reduced the weightage of streaming and probably increased the weightage of sales (as it is declining year-after-year). That would have taken care of the "problem" Billboard was facing.

I totally get your perspective here.  I just think it's important to remember why the charts exist to begin with, their true purpose.  They've clearly taken on another role for us as music fans and chart watchers, but we play second fiddle to the industry itself.  Billboard as a magazine and business recognizes us, for sure, it's evident in the kinds of articles they write and the interactive polls and games, etc.  But the bottom line is keeping the industry - not the chart fan - satisfied with the tool they provide.

As for changing or recalibrating the metrics... that's a valid point too.  They do this, and I'm sure they will in the relatively near future.  It's tricky though, because with streaming becoming such a force, does it make sense to de-emphasize it?  I'm not sold on that.  I think it makes more sense in this case to adjust the chart rules to keep it as "Hot" as possible, while allowing the metrics to increase and decrease in prominence accordingly.  it's a bit of a grey period right now... so making changes to metric weights again seems pre-mature.  I'm down for allowing more time to see how things play out more. 

I guess I'm coming from the perspective where the industry and charts - Hot 100 specifically - have changed so much over the years.  Breaking records is great, but it's also never a level playing field given all the differences between now and even 10-15 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.  It's all fun to observe, even if flawed or not apples to apples... but I still respect the notion that the TOOL needs to change with the times to reflect NOW and to keep it living up to it's name... "HOT".

[erzo01]

The yearend countdowns are coming up in a month's time and this will definitely boost some of the older songs that are still hanging on the charts by then. I can see the 52+ week old songs that left the chart this week to benefit from that. Sucks though that they won't be allowed to re-enter because of the rules on re-entry (since they're still on the same chart run), whereas in previous years we would just see some of these songs climb back up the charts around week of New Year.

[Deleted]

Next week's Hot 100 should prove interesting... possibly the most re-entries ever? Just a thought.

[erzo01]

^ With Bubbling Under charts having 9 tracks that are most likely leaving by next week (8 1D tracks + Justin's "All In It") and I can only see 2 or 3 songs there that could possibly chart in next week's Hot 100, yeah there should be a mass re-entering of songs come next week.

[Enigma.]

The new rule has its pros and cons. The longevity records will now never be broken, that's a shame. But a song that is a year old and charting at #47 is not really worth that much of a fuss. It has already proved that it's a huge hit and it's probably hanging there just because of the Youtube views and moderate streaming success.

[jenglisbe]

Nov 24, 2015 5:37:30 GMT -5 popbox said:

New recurrent rule is awful. Especially since it robs UF of potentially being the biggest Hot 100 hit of all time like it was in contention for.

Doesn't Billboard weight its all-time charts based on the charts at the time? That would mean they'd at least indirectly take the new recurrent rules into account when tabulating the all-time rankings.

And at any rate, this is never a perfect science. A lot of it is timing. A song that had good timing to be able to receive a rebound from year-end countdowns and even the Grammys, for example, has an advantage over a song not quite released at a time that allows it to get those things.

[skizzo]

Nov 24, 2015 10:57:40 GMT -5 erzo01 said:

^ With Bubbling Under charts having 9 tracks that are most likely leaving by next week (8 1D tracks + Justin's "All In It") and I can only see 2 or 3 songs there that could possibly chart in next week's Hot 100, yeah there should be a mass re-entering of songs come next week.

Wont they most likely be new entries, from Adele's album? She'll get all her songs in the top100 I feel. Or most.

[85la]

Nov 23, 2015 23:33:36 GMT -5 Ravi said:

One of the reasons I follow the charts is the thrill of seeing records being broken. By going for this new recurrent rule, Billboard has practically taken one major record out of the equation.

So What's next? A song with 10 weeks on #1 will go recurrent to make place for other new songs?

The older songs hanging around should have told Billboard that streaming is over-weighed compared to other chart components. It should have reduced the weightage of streaming and probably increased the weightage of sales (as it is declining year-after-year). That would have taken care of the "problem" Billboard was facing.

I agree with the interest in seeing records being broken. It is interesting seeing songs stay on, especially past 60 weeks, and how much longer they'll stay and possibly break records, which will happen far less frequently now. I do agree with the new recurrent rule though, however, and I know this isn't much, but I would place the benchmark at position #30 instead of #25. I do like how it is providing less monopoly to the charts by limiting the dominance that higher ranking songs have. The old rules seemed to hurt lower ranking songs more.

[Ravi]

Nov 24, 2015 10:25:15 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Nov 23, 2015 23:33:36 GMT -5 Ravi said:

One of the reasons I follow the charts is the thrill of seeing records being broken. By going for this new recurrent rule, Billboard has practically taken one major record out of the equation.

So What's next? A song with 10 weeks on #1 will go recurrent to make place for other new songs?

The older songs hanging around should have told Billboard that streaming is over-weighed compared to other chart components. It should have reduced the weightage of streaming and probably increased the weightage of sales (as it is declining year-after-year). That would have taken care of the "problem" Billboard was facing.

I totally get your perspective here.  I just think it's important to remember why the charts exist to begin with, their true purpose.  They've clearly taken on another role for us as music fans and chart watchers, but we play second fiddle to the industry itself.  Billboard as a magazine and business recognizes us, for sure, it's evident in the kinds of articles they write and the interactive polls and games, etc.  But the bottom line is keeping the industry - not the chart fan - satisfied with the tool they provide.

As for changing or recalibrating the metrics... that's a valid point too.  They do this, and I'm sure they will in the relatively near future.  It's tricky though, because with streaming becoming such a force, does it make sense to de-emphasize it?  I'm not sold on that.  I think it makes more sense in this case to adjust the chart rules to keep it as "Hot" as possible, while allowing the metrics to increase and decrease in prominence accordingly.  it's a bit of a grey period right now... so making changes to metric weights again seems pre-mature.  I'm down for allowing more time to see how things play out more. 

I guess I'm coming from the perspective where the industry and charts - Hot 100 specifically - have changed so much over the years.  Breaking records is great, but it's also never a level playing field given all the differences between now and even 10-15 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.  It's all fun to observe, even if flawed or not apples to apples... but I still respect the notion that the TOOL needs to change with the times to reflect NOW and to keep it living up to it's name... "HOT".

The reason the bigger hits are going on and on in the #30-50 region is the high weightage of streams. Streaming is accounting for over 50% of TOL/SUAD/UF points right now (avg points breakdown for sales-airplay-streaming is 15-25-60).

I'm not asking for de-empashasizing streaming, but correcting what counts as "streaming".... right now any video with a part of the song playing in the background is given the same weight as the official video/ stream on spotify. That's absurd IMO.

Over-weighed streaming isn't just causing stagnation down the chart, but in the top-10 as well, and that is a bigger problem. We have seen songs like "Watch Me" getting stuck in Top-5 for weeks and weeks and weeks (with 70% of its points from streaming). If the idea is to allow the "HOT" songs to chart, I don't see how much good it would do to clear out a few spaces in #26-50, but making it difficult for them to move higher and virtually placing a brick wall for entering Top-10.

A stagnant Top-25 is not in the interest for anyone, neither the industry nor us chart watchers. So I guess what I'm asking is making the chart more mobile across-the-board by adjusting/correcting the formula. That by itself would obviate any need for such random measures.

[emperortigerstar]

Uptown Funk ironically went up to 24. So much for leaving the charts. Uptown Funk isn't dead yet!

[Ravi]

Nov 25, 2015 1:39:23 GMT -5 emperortigerstar said:

Uptown Funk ironically went up to 24. So much for leaving the charts. Uptown Funk isn't dead yet!

Uptown Funk's middle finger to the new recurrent rule.

[Future Captain]

Any reason for Ex's and Oh's jump in iTunes??

[tekkenguy]

Nov 25, 2015 6:29:29 GMT -5 Future Captain said:

Any reason for Ex's and Oh's jump in iTunes??

DWTS.

Will it go back into the top 10 next week?

[jred]

Nov 24, 2015 10:18:50 GMT -5 jarhys said:

Nov 24, 2015 10:10:01 GMT -5 rimetm said:

Not necessarily true. Since we get recurrent songs info, we can see if some song that drops right out of the top 50 is ahead of TOL and SUAD. From that, we can extrapolate which week would be the end for them.

(Right now, Fight Song is acting as benchmark, and both songs are ahead of it, so odds are they'd still be on the chart otherwise.)

Thinking Out Loud was #45 last week, and 6 Justin Bieber songs (including WAUN) might be ahead of it this week.
It might result TOL dropped off even with the old recurrent rules.

While that's true, "Photograph", "Cheerleader", "How Deep Is Your Love", and "Downtown" all fell below #45 from a position higher than it last week, so TOL might have even stayed at 45. It pisses me off that it and "SUAD" aren't charting anymore - they're still popular songs, especially "Shut Up And Dance". It's still everywhere.