Billboard Hot 100 : 12/05/2015

[bccole]

Nov 23, 2015 11:04:27 GMT -5 85la said:

Nov 23, 2015 7:07:51 GMT -5 bccole said:

Hello's gain was cut almost in half yesterday by the switch to Christmas Season music at AC. That means she'll get an airplay boost after Christmas, but she'll have to get gains from other formats large enough to overcompensate for AC to reach 250 million on AI.

And those gains would have to come mainly from Rhythmic and Urban, which I don't think will happen, so she probably won't reach 250.

She would be at 225 by now without the switch to Christmas Music.  If she can hold on at Top 40 and AAA, keep growing at Rhythmic and Urban AC, and get the back to regular programming boost from AC (and also from a lesser extent, Hot AC), she might get to 250.  I really wish Alternative and/or Mainstream Urban would play "Hello" at least at moderate levels.

[bccole]

Nov 23, 2015 16:08:00 GMT -5 jred said:

I f**king hate the new recurrent rule. The Hot 100 is fine as it was.
The only good thing about it is the fact it leaves a few more spots open - perhaps "First" can finally debut?

Agreed.  What needed changing was 50/20 to 50/26.  I emailed Gary and Silvio asking them for an unofficial Comprehensive Singles/Songs Chart -- a Hot 100 Chart without recurrency rules for the fans, most of whom are livid about the 25/52 rule.  

Prior to adding Catalog Album titles back to the BB 200 at the start of 2010 CY, BB had a Comprehensive Albums Chart, which allowed the older and newer albums to chart side by side on the same survey.  That's why I'm asking for the Comprehensive Songs (or Singles) Chart, whatever BB wants to call it.  

BTW Uptown Funk rebounded 36 to 24, so it got a 54th week on the Hot 100, and did not get removed by the new rule like SUAD and TOL.  

[bccole]

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

I emailed Gary and Silvio about this, and so have several other people at ATRL.  Most of us (at ATRL) are angry about the new rule, as we thought the only thing that needed fixing was changing 50/20 to 50/26.

[carreramd]

50/20?? Which rule?

[velaxti]

Nov 27, 2015 6:04:01 GMT -5 carreramd said:

50/20?? Which rule?

The recurrent rule, you're removed from the Hot 100 if you're out of the top 50 and have spent over 20 weeks. I wouldn't like it to be raised to 26 weeks personally, the charts need to be sped up, not slowed down imo.

[Au$tin]

We all need to be reminded that the Hot 100 is not for us. Billboard couldn't give two shits as to what we want or desire the chart to look like. They work for the industry, not us. The industry wants a chart that shows what currently promoted songs are clicking with audiences, not a list of songs that peaked months ago that are still getting moderate airplay or streams.

[Spidey]

Nov 27, 2015 14:35:15 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

We all need to be reminded that the Hot 100 is not for us. Billboard couldn't give two shits as to what we want or desire the chart to look like. They work for the industry, not us. The industry wants a chart that shows what currently promoted songs are clicking with audiences, not a list of songs that peaked months ago that are still getting moderate airplay or streams.

This.

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2015 14:35:15 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

We all need to be reminded that the Hot 100 is not for us. Billboard couldn't give two shits as to what we want or desire the chart to look like. They work for the industry, not us. The industry wants a chart that shows what currently promoted songs are clicking with audiences, not a list of songs that peaked months ago that are still getting moderate airplay or streams.

This x2.

[Deleted]

amen. that's my whole thing. it's not for us, nor is it supposed to cater to longevity or breaking records of longevity/moving up all-time charts. it's supposed to be "Hot" songs, or the old recurrent rule would have never been introduced decades ago. things have changed, creating an environment for more and more year-old songs to hang around.... it's time to tighten the rope. End of.

[felipe]

Nov 27, 2015 14:35:15 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

We all need to be reminded that the Hot 100 is not for us. Billboard couldn't give two shits as to what we want or desire the chart to look like. They work for the industry, not us. The industry wants a chart that shows what currently promoted songs are clicking with audiences, not a list of songs that peaked months ago that are still getting moderate airplay or streams.

But the industry can get any info they want, and I'm sure they get way more than we do. It's not like label executives are waiting for Monday to take a look at Billboard's Hot 100 to see which songs just made the top 40 this week. They can have all the figures they need, right? The chart itself, and the website, articles and everything else seem way more targeted at fans.

[Glove Slap]

This discussion again...

Billboard is a trade publication. It is created with the intended audience being those who work in the industry. To present information to them. The buffoons writing those op-eds and articles are a different group altogether in that sense.

[bccole]

BTW, according to those on ATRL who do chart predictions, it appears BB also reinstituted its pre-2013 CMA policy on the Hot 100. I've tweeted Gary and Silvio, as BB would have done this without notification right before the biggest Soundscan album release ever -- 25 -- which would look very questionable in the eyes of many.  This means 25's cumulative sales would not be applied to "Hello" as they were with songs in 2013-15 like SIO, AATB, and most recently The Hills.  

Kworb estimates Hello's other sales to be at around 360k, and instead the song could be either credited for zero sales or debited for negative sales, leading to a subtraction in points from what Hello's earned in airplay and streaming this past week.  BB may indeed be a trade publication, but I can't see how making this unannounced change at such a pivotal time in music chart history would go over well with many music industry executives either.

As for the other part, I personally wish I could afford and access all of the Nielsen and Mediabase data available to those with dough and in the know. Because I would run the charts with the fans in mind, and as a music blogger (trying to get back into it after my neck operation), maybe this could possibly happen at some point (I'm in grad school for Mass Comm and Journalism too). I can't waste too much time pondering a pipe dream though. I just know us "chart geeks" make up a large proportion of BB's readership and business, and therefore our input shouldn't be ignored by BB.

[Au$tin]

Nov 27, 2015 21:48:01 GMT -5 felipe said:

Nov 27, 2015 14:35:15 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

We all need to be reminded that the Hot 100 is not for us. Billboard couldn't give two shits as to what we want or desire the chart to look like. They work for the industry, not us. The industry wants a chart that shows what currently promoted songs are clicking with audiences, not a list of songs that peaked months ago that are still getting moderate airplay or streams.

But the industry can get any info they want, and I'm sure they get way more than we do. It's not like label executives are waiting for Monday to take a look at Billboard's Hot 100 to see which songs just made the top 40 this week. They can have all the figures they need, right? The chart itself, and the website, articles and everything else seem way more targeted at fans.

They can get info on their artists, but not on other artists. I'm pretty sure Mediabase is the only place where one could view the information for all songs at once. Billboard helps let the industry workers know their exact competition and how they're performing against everyone else.

[felipe]

Nov 28, 2015 2:18:49 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Nov 27, 2015 21:48:01 GMT -5 felipe said:

But the industry can get any info they want, and I'm sure they get way more than we do. It's not like label executives are waiting for Monday to take a look at Billboard's Hot 100 to see which songs just made the top 40 this week. They can have all the figures they need, right? The chart itself, and the website, articles and everything else seem way more targeted at fans.

They can get info on their artists, but not on other artists. I'm pretty sure Mediabase is the only place where one could view the information for all songs at once. Billboard helps let the industry workers know their exact competition and how they're performing against everyone else.

But if the charts were made with the industry in mind, shouldn't they be more extensive and thorough? How many acts are represented on the Hot 100? Around 70? So the industry barely gets any info on most of their artists, as 70 acts represent a very small percentage of all current acts, right? Even Mediabase and iTunes provide more info than that, if I'm not mistaken.

But it makes sense to list just 100 songs if it's meant to have an impact on the public.

[Deleted]

The rule just makes the chart inconsistent. i.e. 5, 10, 20 years from now it's safe to bet that the "Radioactive" record will not be broken. But how accurate is that really? Under consistent rules, it is quite possible that something released during these years (perhaps even SUAD?) would break the record, yet officially "Radioactive" would still hold the record, which would obviously be inaccurate.

[lyhom]

Nov 28, 2015 16:17:16 GMT -5 @markg94 said:

The rule just makes the chart inconsistent. i.e. 5, 10, 20 years from now it's safe to bet that the "Radioactive" record will not be broken. But how accurate is that really? Under consistent rules, it is quite possible that something released during these years (perhaps even SUAD?) would break the record, yet officially "Radioactive" would still hold the record, which would obviously be inaccurate.

so?

[Au$tin]

Nov 28, 2015 16:17:16 GMT -5 @markg94 said:

The rule just makes the chart inconsistent. i.e. 5, 10, 20 years from now it's safe to bet that the "Radioactive" record will not be broken. But how accurate is that really? Under consistent rules, it is quite possible that something released during these years (perhaps even SUAD?) would break the record, yet officially "Radioactive" would still hold the record, which would obviously be inaccurate.

Because this is the first record that will be affected by a rule change?

How about the change from physical release singles only to all songs? All of those songs that didn't even make the Hot 100 due to the old rule: i.e. Don't Speak, Torn, etc. Not to mention how many entries the Glee Cast, Nicki Minaj, Taylor Swift, etc. have acquired.

Nov 28, 2015 16:14:31 GMT -5 felipe said:

Nov 28, 2015 2:18:49 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

They can get info on their artists, but not on other artists. I'm pretty sure Mediabase is the only place where one could view the information for all songs at once. Billboard helps let the industry workers know their exact competition and how they're performing against everyone else.

But if the charts were made with the industry in mind, shouldn't they be more extensive and thorough? How many acts are represented on the Hot 100? Around 70? So the industry barely gets any info on most of their artists, as 70 acts represent a very small percentage of all current acts, right? Even Mediabase and iTunes provide more info than that, if I'm not mistaken.

But it makes sense to list just 100 songs if it's meant to have an impact on the public.

Thats what the component charts are for. The Hot 100 is not for the public. Public consumption is a byproduct. If it was for the public, subscriptions wouldn't be so astronomally priced that only industry workers could afford it.

[Gary]

Radioactive would hold the record anyway. It's chart run would have been 67 weeks even with the recurrent rule.

[felipe]

Nov 28, 2015 16:42:30 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Nov 28, 2015 16:14:31 GMT -5 felipe said:

But if the charts were made with the industry in mind, shouldn't they be more extensive and thorough? How many acts are represented on the Hot 100? Around 70? So the industry barely gets any info on most of their artists, as 70 acts represent a very small percentage of all current acts, right? Even Mediabase and iTunes provide more info than that, if I'm not mistaken.

But it makes sense to list just 100 songs if it's meant to have an impact on the public.

Thats what the component charts are for. The Hot 100 is not for the public. Public consumption is a byproduct. If it was for the public, subscriptions wouldn't be so astronomally priced that only industry workers could afford it.

But if industry workers have they subscriptions where they can get all their extra information, why would they need basic Hot 100 that's available for free?

It seems to me that "industry workers" will get the data they want, whether Shut Up and dance is hanging around the Hot 100 for two years or not.It's not like "Damn, I need to know how my song is doing but I have no way to know it because 3 old songs are taking up space on the Hot 100." These changes do seem more designed to make the charts attractive to the readers, even the idea that the recurrent song must be below a certain spot, to make its exclusion seem fair.

[bccole]

Nov 27, 2015 7:12:37 GMT -5 velaxti said:

Nov 27, 2015 6:04:01 GMT -5 carreramd said:

50/20?? Which rule?

The recurrent rule, you're removed from the Hot 100 if you're out of the top 50 and have spent over 20 weeks. I wouldn't like it to be raised to 26 weeks personally, the charts need to be sped up, not slowed down imo.

26 weeks is a definite period of time -- 6 months -- 20 weeks isn't.  20 weeks isn't even really 5 months, since there are usually 22 weeks in any given 5 month period.  20 weeks was considered a solid chart run on the Hot 100 prior to the Soundscan era, which is probably where they got that time period from.  But 26 weeks is a more definitive period of time, and just one reason why that number of weeks makes more sense than 20 weeks for below the Top 50 recurrency purposes. Slow climbers that take between 21 and 26 weeks to reach the top half of the Hot 100, and keeping songs current that are still current on the genre charts so that they match better with the Hot 100 are two more. 

[lyhom]

"26 weeks is a definite period of time"

and so is 20. your point is?

[bccole]

Nov 28, 2015 16:17:16 GMT -5 @markg94 said:

The rule just makes the chart inconsistent. i.e. 5, 10, 20 years from now it's safe to bet that the "Radioactive" record will not be broken. But how accurate is that really? Under consistent rules, it is quite possible that something released during these years (perhaps even SUAD?) would break the record, yet officially "Radioactive" would still hold the record, which would obviously be inaccurate.

Actually, "Radioactive" would rank #2 behind LeAnn Rimes "How Do I Live," which spent 69 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1997-98.  So with the changes in place now "Radioactive" would've been two weeks short from tying the Hot 100 longevity record, and three weeks short from setting a new record.

[bccole]

Nov 28, 2015 23:05:29 GMT -5 lyhom said:

"26 weeks is a definite period of time"

and so is 20. your point is?

As I just said, 20 weeks is around 4.5 to 4.75 months, which varies based on the months of the year (and the days in the months of the year) a song is charting.  26 weeks is always six months, regardless of the number of days in a month, which makes it a definite period of time.  20 weeks just isn't, and never will be.

[bccole]

Nov 23, 2015 19:42:26 GMT -5 Gary said:

Longest running songs Hot 100 > 52 weeks


Weeks Title, Artist
87 Radioactive, Imagine Dragons
79 Sail, AWOLNATION
76 I'm Yours, Jason Mraz
69 How Do I Live, LeAnn Rimes  
68 Counting Stars, OneRepublic
68 Party Rock Anthem, LMFAO Featuring Lauren Bennett & GoonRock
65 Foolish Games/You Were Meant For Me, Jewel  
65 Rolling In The Deep, Adele
64 Before He Cheats, Carrie Underwood  
62 Ho Hey, The Lumineers
62 You And Me, Lifehouse  
61 Demons, Imagine Dragons
60 Macarena (Bayside Boys Mix), Los Del Rio  
60 Need You Now, Lady Antebellum
59 All Of Me, John Legend
59 Somebody That I Used To Know, Gotye Featuring Kimbra
58 How To Save A Life, The Fray  
58 Smooth, Santana Featuring Rob Thomas  
58 Thinking Out Loud, Ed Sheeran
57 Dark Horse, Katy Perry Featuring Juicy J
57 Higher, Creed  
57 Lights, Ellie Goulding
57 Use Somebody, Kings Of Leon
56 I Don't Want To Wait, Paula Cole  
56 I Gotta Feeling, The Black Eyed Peas
56 Some Nights, fun.
56 The Way You Love Me, Faith Hill  
55 Amazed, Lonestar  
55 Barely Breathing, Duncan Sheik  
55 Missing, Everything But The Girl  
54 Cruise, Florida Georgia Line Featuring Nelly
54 December 1963 (Oh, What A Night), Four Seasons  
54 Hanging By A Moment, Lifehouse  
54 Hey, Soul Sister, Train
54 Stay With Me, Sam Smith
54 Unwell, matchbox twenty  
53 Breathe, Faith Hill  
53 Drops Of Jupiter (Tell Me), Train  
53 If I Die Young, The Band Perry
53 Kryptonite, 3 Doors Down  
53 Pompeii, Bastille
53 Shut Up And Dance, WALK THE MOON
53 Too Close, Next  
53 Uptown Funk!, Mark Ronson Featuring Bruno Mars
53 Wake Me Up!, Avicii

Now I need to try and go through this list and see what songs spent 52 weeks+ in the Top 40 alone.  That number is far fewer than this.  What songs spent exactly 52 weeks on the Hot 100, or were there any?

[surfy]

Nov 28, 2015 23:19:21 GMT -5 bccole said:

Nov 28, 2015 23:05:29 GMT -5 lyhom said:

"26 weeks is a definite period of time"

and so is 20. your point is?

As I just said, 20 weeks is around 4.5 to 4.75 months, which varies based on the months of the year (and the days in the months of the year) a song is charting.  26 weeks is always six months, regardless of the number of days in a month, which makes it a definite period of time.  20 weeks just isn't, and never will be.

No, but 20 weeks will always be 20 weeks, which is 140 days. That is a definite period of time by definition. An indefinite amount of time would be like saying "I'll be there later", as later could be just a few minutes to a span of hours.

[lyhom]

Nov 28, 2015 23:19:21 GMT -5 bccole said:

Nov 28, 2015 23:05:29 GMT -5 lyhom said:

"26 weeks is a definite period of time"

and so is 20. your point is?

As I just said, 20 weeks is around 4.5 to 4.75 months, which varies based on the months of the year (and the days in the months of the year) a song is charting.  26 weeks is always six months, regardless of the number of days in a month, which makes it a definite period of time.  20 weeks just isn't, and never will be.

does it matter that much, though? I don't see why it being a "definite" period of time matters that much lmao

[85la]

I know it's almost time for the next week's chart and I don't want to drag this on too much further lol, but it really doesn't make sense to say that the Billboard charts are primarily for the industry. Subscription to the magazine for a year, while not cheap, is not too outrageous, I believe around $200 or so, and if I'm not mistaken, the Industry can get all the information in the charts plus way more and more timely from their Nielsen subscriptions. Billboard does package all the different metrics together and puts it in rank order for them, but they don't give any numbers beyond the chart positions, so it can't be too useful for them. Plus we're forgetting the online part; most people who view the chart positions probably do so online, and we know it's swarmed with ads, social media links, articles about fashion, performances, artists' personal lives, etc. - very consumer oriented. Billboard is a commercial publication designed for the attraction of a mass audience, even if it doesn't exactly have one. To say that it is almost solely for industry insiders is erroneous (Billboard.biz, however, is another story. That component definitely seems to target the industry folk).

[bccole]

Nov 29, 2015 17:35:07 GMT -5 85la said:

I know it's almost time for the next week's chart and I don't want to drag this on too much further lol, but it really doesn't make sense to say that the Billboard charts are primarily for the industry. Subscription to the magazine for a year, while not cheap, is not too outrageous, I believe around $200 or so, and if I'm not mistaken, the Industry can get all the information in the charts plus way more and more timely from their Nielsen subscriptions. Billboard does package all the different metrics together and puts it in rank order for them, but they don't give any numbers beyond the chart positions, so it can't be too useful for them. Plus we're forgetting the online part; most people who view the chart positions probably do so online, and we know it's swarmed with ads, social media links, articles about fashion, performances, artists' personal lives, etc. - very consumer oriented. Billboard is a commercial publication designed for the attraction of a mass audience, even if it doesn't exactly have one. To say that it is almost solely for industry insiders is erroneous (Billboard.biz, however, is another story. That component definitely seems to target the industry folk).

Yes Billboard.biz is $200 for one year and $300 for two. I got this rude awakening when I went to renew my subscription in September after having to let my $20/month subscription temporarily end. I went ahead and spent the $200 for one year though, and at least I don't have to worry anymore about when Billboard will draw the $20 (21.40 with tax) out of my account. It varied from month to month, and I even got billed twice just nine days apart at the beginning of one month. I called and complained, and they sent me an email saying it was an error and I wouldn't be billed the following month, which thankfully I wasn't.

I've been following Billboard since July 1984 though, "When Doves Cry" by Prince & The Revolution was the #1 song the week I saw my first Billboard magazine. This was of course LONG before they had either the free or pay website. I know most of the last seven years I've had the subscription though, and I couldn't really live without it. I've tried and it drives me crazy. Being a Billboard.biz member does help me get more responses from my tweets to Gary and Silvio than most though, which is another perk I guess. 

[bccole]

Nov 28, 2015 23:43:51 GMT -5 lyhom said:

Nov 28, 2015 23:19:21 GMT -5 bccole said:

As I just said, 20 weeks is around 4.5 to 4.75 months, which varies based on the months of the year (and the days in the months of the year) a song is charting.  26 weeks is always six months, regardless of the number of days in a month, which makes it a definite period of time.  20 weeks just isn't, and never will be.

does it matter that much, though? I don't see why it being a "definite" period of time matters that much lmao

Half of a year is a more solid and definite cutoff point though. I would use this number of weeks PLUS ensuring the song had already had three weeks of losses in a row before reassigning the song to recurrency on the fourth consecutive week of losses if I ever ran a Top 100 position songs chart. If the song had already had four consecutive weeks of losses when week 26 came, the song would go recurrent after 26 weeks (just want to clarify that part of what would be my personal policy).  In other words, that would've given El Perdon 33 weeks on my chart instead of just 30.

I wouldn't expect or want BB to include the latter requirement though, as they should just adjust to 50/26 lol, and then work with the dramatically decreased number of songs that are living on the edge every week as they are slowly climbing up the Hot 100. This change wouldn't have helped "El Person," which needed 30 weeks to reach #56, but the overwhelming number of very slow climbers need between 21 and 26 weeks to reach the Top 50.

[85la]

Nov 29, 2015 19:33:00 GMT -5 bccole said:

Nov 29, 2015 17:35:07 GMT -5 85la said:

I know it's almost time for the next week's chart and I don't want to drag this on too much further lol, but it really doesn't make sense to say that the Billboard charts are primarily for the industry. Subscription to the magazine for a year, while not cheap, is not too outrageous, I believe around $200 or so, and if I'm not mistaken, the Industry can get all the information in the charts plus way more and more timely from their Nielsen subscriptions. Billboard does package all the different metrics together and puts it in rank order for them, but they don't give any numbers beyond the chart positions, so it can't be too useful for them. Plus we're forgetting the online part; most people who view the chart positions probably do so online, and we know it's swarmed with ads, social media links, articles about fashion, performances, artists' personal lives, etc. - very consumer oriented. Billboard is a commercial publication designed for the attraction of a mass audience, even if it doesn't exactly have one. To say that it is almost solely for industry insiders is erroneous (Billboard.biz, however, is another story. That component definitely seems to target the industry folk).

Yes Billboard.biz is $200 for one year and $300 for two. I got this rude awakening when I went to renew my subscription in September after having to let my $20/month subscription temporarily end. I went ahead and spent the $200 for one year though, and at least I don't have to worry anymore about when Billboard will draw the $20 (21.40 with tax) out of my account. It varied from month to month, and I even got billed twice just nine days apart at the beginning of one month. I called and complained, and they sent me an email saying it was an error and I wouldn't be billed the following month, which thankfully I wasn't.

I've been following Billboard since July 1984 though, "When Doves Cry" by Prince & The Revolution was the #1 song the week I saw my first Billboard magazine. This was of course LONG before they had either the free or pay website. I know most of the last seven years I've had the subscription though, and I couldn't really live without it. I've tried and it drives me crazy. Being a Billboard.biz member does help me get more responses from my tweets to Gary and Silvio than most though, which is another perk I guess. 

Yeah, I've had problems with their billing too. It's not superb, to say the least.