Billboard Hot 100: 01/30/2016

[Verisimilitude]

25's album sales in Canada: 901,787 copies
Purpose's album sales in Canada: 240,000 copies

No contest. "Hello" is very close to 6X Platinum there too.

[ry4n]

That's nothing compared to the UK

Hello - 3 weeks
Sorry - 2 weeks
Love Yourself - 6 weeks (and counting)

[jenglisbe]

Jan 20, 2016 14:10:34 GMT -5 aser94 said:

Jan 20, 2016 13:10:00 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

If "Hello" is top 10 in R&B Airplay, why isn't it charting on R&B Songs?

It's top 10 on R&B Airplay merely because it crossed over to urban radio, but it's really a pop song at core, so that's why it's not on R&B songs. (I personally don't think it belongs on R&B Songs, though obviously Billboard subjectively decides which songs go in which genre chart now so naturally there will be room for disagreement)

Well, it seems odd to me for Billboard to essentially reject what R&B radio is playing. If they're playing a song, it should chart R&B.

[Ravi]

Meanwhile It would have been 62nd week for Uptown Funk if not for the new chart rules.

Using SYA as a comparison, it's chart run during BB2016 year was 41-36-39-41-42-41-30-36-38.

Out of these nine weeks, for the first two weeks, UF charted at 25 and 21.

For the next 4 weeks, UF was ahead of SYA by 2-3k in sales, 0.2-0.3m in streaming and close to 1M in airplay. So, it had 1-1.5k more points and would have ranked 32-37 all those weeks.

For week 7, UF was 18k behind in sales, but 15M ahead in airplay, so these two cancel each other out, while it was 0.3M ahead in streaming, so UF would have ranked 29-30.

For week 8, UF was 5k behind in sales, but 13M ahead in airplay and 0.2M ahead in streaming, so it had 1-1.2K more points and again would have ranked in low 30s.

For week 9, UF and SYA were practically tied in sales/streaming but UF still had an Airplay margin of 12M, which would again indicate a low 30s rank.

For week 9, we can also compare with Lean On.

Song - Sales - Airplay - Streams = Points = BB rank

Lean On - 11 - 36 - 6.5 = 11.7k = #32
Uptown Funk - 15 - 32 - 6.2 = 11.3k
See You Again - 16 - 20 - 6.1 = 10.1k = #38

So in summary UF would have been in Top 40 the entire time during the past 7 weeks.

I will keep tracking UF's hypothetical position under old Chart rules.

Also, this would have been UF's 61st week in the Top-40. Radioactive has 63.

[jenglisbe]

Jan 21, 2016 1:02:31 GMT -5 Ravi said:

So in summary UF would have been in Top 40 the entire time during the past 7 weeks.

I will keep tracking UF's hypothetical position under old Chart rules.

Also, this would have been UF's 61st week in the Top-40. Radioactive has 63.

Well, you could do this same things for all kinds of songs over the years. Songs used to not even fall off once they fell past #50. Imagine if that rule had never been put in place.

[Deleted]

Jan 20, 2016 23:28:04 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Jan 20, 2016 14:10:34 GMT -5 aser94 said:

It's top 10 on R&B Airplay merely because it crossed over to urban radio, but it's really a pop song at core, so that's why it's not on R&B songs. (I personally don't think it belongs on R&B Songs, though obviously Billboard subjectively decides which songs go in which genre chart now so naturally there will be room for disagreement)

Well, it seems odd to me for Billboard to essentially reject what R&B radio is playing. If they're playing a song, it should chart R&B.

Billboard has these genre charts to be representative of said musical style, not to be dictated by what radio stations are playing simply because a song is a massive hit that they make format exceptions for it for ratings/public demand.  I previously mentioned the example of PSY being placed on the Rap chart despite not getting any hiphop/rap airplay.  It's a huge can of worms to declare something R&B just because its getting airplay on R&B stations, just like it is to say PSY isn't rapping just because he's not getting those urban/rap/hiphop spins.  Billboard - is simply using the definition of said genres for categorization purposes.  I reckon there's always a smudge of subjectivity to it, but the line has to be drawn somewhere or we'd have genre charts completely misrepresented - rendering them pointless.  And I'm sure there's an argument by some for their pointlessness already, who knows.

Hello is clearly not an R&B song by definition, and the cross format airplay it has received is a result of its massive popularity.  Radio stations do whatever they can for listenership these days which is why we hear more and more crossover and homogenization on their playlists, especially when it comes to big massive hits like "Hello".  I personally don't want US radio defining genres based on $$ and ratings, so I'm down with Billboard's making decisions to try and maintain genre integrity.
 

[jenglisbe]

Jan 21, 2016 9:54:17 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

I personally don't want US radio defining genres based on $$ and ratings, so I'm down with Billboard's making decisions to try and maintain genre integrity.
 

I could get behind this statement more if I felt like Billboard had a clear/reliable way of defining genre. But they had Psy as Rap and had "We Are Never Getting Back Together" as Country.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2016 10:27:14 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Jan 21, 2016 9:54:17 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

I personally don't want US radio defining genres based on $$ and ratings, so I'm down with Billboard's making decisions to try and maintain genre integrity.
 

I could get behind this statement more if I felt like Billboard had a clear/reliable way of defining genre. But they had Psy as Rap and had "We Are Never Getting Back Together" as Country.

WANGBT had a country mix, which is why that happened.  And PSY, well, he is rapping by definition, which was my point in bringing him up.  But I understand not everyone is gonna be cool with certain things and will disagree and define things differently.  

[jenglisbe]

Jan 21, 2016 10:31:47 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Jan 21, 2016 10:27:14 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

I could get behind this statement more if I felt like Billboard had a clear/reliable way of defining genre. But they had Psy as Rap and had "We Are Never Getting Back Together" as Country.

WANGBT had a country mix, which is why that happened.  And PSY, well, he is rapping by definition, which was my point in bringing him up.  But I understand not everyone is gonna be cool with certain things and will disagree and define things differently.  

And that country mix of the Swift song had no sales and very little airplay on the whole. So, how was the single as a whole country? Plus I was told by Silvio from Billboard himself they used the song being played on country radio as part of the determination to make it country. But they aren't using those same rules for "Hello." So, again, Billboard isn't trustworthy in that regard.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2016 10:35:26 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Jan 21, 2016 10:31:47 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

WANGBT had a country mix, which is why that happened.  And PSY, well, he is rapping by definition, which was my point in bringing him up.  But I understand not everyone is gonna be cool with certain things and will disagree and define things differently.  

And that country mix of the Swift song had no sales and very little airplay on the whole. So, how was the single as a whole country? Plus I was told by Silvio from Billboard himself they used the song being played on country radio as part of the determination to make it country. But they aren't using those same rules for "Hello." So, again, Billboard isn't trustworthy in that regard.

Fair enough about WANGBT, a messy situation no doubt, and a lesson learned for them I'm sure.  A huge country artist making a career crossover to pop.   They are, in this case of Hello, not making the same mistake twice.  That's how I choose to look at it.  You clearly see it differently and don't trust them, and I respect that.

[Zach]

Jan 21, 2016 10:38:33 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Jan 21, 2016 10:35:26 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

And that country mix of the Swift song had no sales and very little airplay on the whole. So, how was the single as a whole country? Plus I was told by Silvio from Billboard himself they used the song being played on country radio as part of the determination to make it country. But they aren't using those same rules for "Hello." So, again, Billboard isn't trustworthy in that regard.

Fair enough about WANGBT, a messy situation no doubt, and a lesson learned for them I'm sure.  A huge country artist making a career crossover to pop.   They are, in this case of Hello, not making the same mistake twice.  That's how I choose to look at it.  You clearly see it differently and don't trust them, and I respect that.

Totally get what you're saying regarding the classification of songs by genre for genre charts rather than formats they receive airplay on. That's definitely the way to go. My issue is with the actual genre defining which seems to me to be subjective beyond belief. For example, as far as I see it, "Stressed Out" (classified as rock) is more hip-hop than rock, and maybe even more rap than "Watch Me". I also see "Cool for the Summer" being more rockish than many songs which hit Hot Rock Songs, such as "Royals". Just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

[aser94]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I find Billboard to really inconsistent with the genre charts as well. It's pretty easy to delineate what belongs in e.g. the country (despite the early case of "WANEGBT"), Latin, and Christian charts, so I think their method works well for those genres, but it becomes a lot dicier when you're dealing with a genre like R&B which has a lot of cross-pollination with pop, and in some cases it becomes purely a matter of subjectivity.

For me though, the most glaring inconsistency was when they excluded "Cheerleader" from the dance chart. I thought it was because they didn't specify the Felix Jaehn remix in the chart credit, but then Robin Schulz wasn't credited on "Waves" and that ended up #1 on the dance chart.

[Zach]

Jan 21, 2016 11:41:16 GMT -5 aser94 said:

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I find Billboard to really inconsistent with the genre charts as well. It's pretty easy to delineate what belongs in e.g. the country (despite the early case of "WANEGBT"), Latin, and Christian charts, so I think their method works well for those genres, but it becomes a lot dicier when you're dealing with a genre like R&B which has a lot of cross-pollination with pop, and in some cases it becomes purely a matter of subjectivity.

For me though, the most glaring inconsistency was when they excluded "Cheerleader" from the dance chart. I thought it was because they didn't specify the Felix Jaehn remix in the chart credit, but then Robin Schulz wasn't credited on "Waves" and that ended up #1 on the dance chart.

Yes! That was the example that I was trying to remember but it wouldn't come to me. I can tell you that for quite a while I kind of just assumed that "Cheerleader" was on the Dance/Electronic charts. Even when I observed the chart I didn't even notice it was missing because that just wasn't a possibility for me, if that makes sense. Then someone brought its absence to my attention and I was dumbfounded.

[Deleted]

Good points guys. It's not perfect and seems too subjective to ever be perfect, depending on who you talk to and who is making the decisions. There is definitely a lot of hybrid music these days making it a difficult call sometimes.  Vocal style and Instrumentation are often at odds with each other these days on hit records.  It is a huge can of worms. I wonder if the label has/could have any say in how things are categorized on the charts? I mean, that's another can of worms. Haha. Billboard isn't perfect - and I wouldn't want to be them in any of these cases.  It's a scrutiny magnet, and even puts them into untrustworthy territory for some.  Just like with chart rules, there's more to the story than meets the eyes or ears most of the time, I'm sure.  I still don't want radio dictating what is what, either, because that will ultimately lead to an even bigger mess.

It is worth mentioning that Lionel Richie's Hello charted on the ill-named "Black Music" chart back in the 80s, before it was replaced with R&B... which is an interesting footnote.  It isn't really any more R&B than Adele's... other than Lionel's body of work dipped into R&B quite a bit, especially with the Commodores.   If John Legend sang Adele's Hello with piano instrumentation a la All of Me, would it be on the R&B Songs chart even if it didn't get R&B airplay (which it would, i'm sure, but just saying)?  And if Charlie Puth sang All of Me instead of John Legend, would it have gotten R&B Songs placement?  Off-topic rhetoric, but yeah.  Can. Of. Worms. Bottom line.  Right?

[brady47]

Isn't this recurrent rule going to give Uptown Funk a disadvantage for the decade end chart? Since it's only allowed to chart for 52 weeks, it didn't accumulate enough points by then to overtake Party Rock Anthem, but Party Rock Anthem had a full chart run and Uptown Funk's was cut short.

Jan 21, 2016 1:02:31 GMT -5 Ravi said:

Meanwhile It would have been 62nd week for Uptown Funk if not for the new chart rules.

Using SYA as a comparison, it's chart run during BB2016 year was 41-36-39-41-42-41-30-36-38.

Out of these nine weeks, for the first two weeks, UF charted at 25 and 21.

For the next 4 weeks, UF was ahead of SYA by 2-3k in sales, 0.2-0.3m in streaming and close to 1M in airplay. So, it had 1-1.5k more points and would have ranked 32-37 all those weeks.

For week 7, UF was 18k behind in sales, but 15M ahead in airplay, so these two cancel each other out, while it was 0.3M ahead in streaming, so UF would have ranked 29-30.

For week 8, UF was 5k behind in sales, but 13M ahead in airplay and 0.2M ahead in streaming, so it had 1-1.2K more points and again would have ranked in low 30s.

For week 9, UF and SYA were practically tied in sales/streaming but UF still had an Airplay margin of 12M, which would again indicate a low 30s rank.

For week 9, we can also compare with Lean On.

Song - Sales - Airplay - Streams = Points = BB rank

Lean On - 11 - 36 - 6.5 = 11.7k = #32
Uptown Funk - 15 - 32 - 6.2 = 11.3k
See You Again - 16 - 20 - 6.1 = 10.1k = #38

So in summary UF would have been in Top 40 the entire time during the past 7 weeks.

I will keep tracking UF's hypothetical position under old Chart rules.

Also, this would have been UF's 61st week in the Top-40. Radioactive has 63.

[Deleted]

^ for sure. but times change. rules change. this has happened in many forms over many years with many victims. it's never apples to apples or "fair" when you break it down. there's always a cut off point, you know?  songs in the 80s didn't have soundscan or streaming, so that right there means all of those 80s hits are screwed, even though many of those hits would have charted for a good year+.  but shoulda woulda coulda, right?

[Deleted]

I'm thinking that they're gonna weigh the post-2015 songs differently, similar to how the pre-Soundscan hits have more weight on the all-time charts. Or they're gonna adapt the pre-2016 longtime hits by cutting off their points at the 52 week mark.

[jenglisbe]

Jan 21, 2016 13:23:15 GMT -5 @zach808 said:

I'm thinking that they're gonna weigh the post-2015 songs differently, similar to how the pre-Soundscan hits have more weight on the all-time charts. Or they're gonna adapt the pre-2016 longtime hits by cutting off their points at the 52 week mark.

This. Billboard has been adjusting their all-time charts as of late by comparing a song's run to how other songs did at the same time. "UF!" had a long run in the top 2, 10, etc. than other songs out at the same time. To that end the new chart rule will be reflected in the weighted system.

[Zach]

Jan 21, 2016 14:20:48 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Jan 21, 2016 13:23:15 GMT -5 @zach808 said:

I'm thinking that they're gonna weigh the post-2015 songs differently, similar to how the pre-Soundscan hits have more weight on the all-time charts. Or they're gonna adapt the pre-2016 longtime hits by cutting off their points at the 52 week mark.

This. Billboard has been adjusting their all-time charts as of late by comparing a song's run to how other songs did at the same time. "UF!" had a long run in the top 2, 10, etc. than other songs out at the same time. To that end the new chart rule will be reflected in the weighted system.

But weighting for Uptown Funk in particularly will be tricky since the new rule was directly responsible for it dropping off the chart. Therefore there's only a single one of its charting weeks (its final one when it shot back into the top 25) which could see its points being weighted. The entire rest of its chart run would still be weighted based on the old rule, which still puts it at a disadvantage. A way around this would be to actually weight its entire run (as well as the runs of Thinking Out Loud and Shut Up and Dance) but that would put those songs at an unfair advantage I think since they spent at least a couple weeks below #25 after the 52 week mark.

I say they should have only applied to new recurent rule to chart debuts after the implementation of the rule. The only true way I can see to fix things with a level playing field would be to pretend the 52 week rule had always been in place for purposes of the all-time chart, apply that to all songs and then recalculate how much each era is weighted (1990s, 2000s and 2010s should be the ones that would need to be adjusted). Although doing all that seems a bit much just for the sake of UF, TOK, SUAD, Trap Queen, Watch Me and whatever else from 2015 manages to surpass 52 weeks...

[jenglisbe]

Jan 21, 2016 15:17:52 GMT -5 Zach said:

Jan 21, 2016 14:20:48 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

This. Billboard has been adjusting their all-time charts as of late by comparing a song's run to how other songs did at the same time. "UF!" had a long run in the top 2, 10, etc. than other songs out at the same time. To that end the new chart rule will be reflected in the weighted system.

But weighting for Uptown Funk in particularly will be tricky since the new rule was directly responsible for it dropping off the chart. Therefore there's only a single one of its charting weeks (its final one when it shot back into the top 25) which could see its points being weighted. The entire rest of its chart run would still be weighted based on the old rule, which still puts it at a disadvantage. A way around this would be to actually weight its entire run (as well as the runs of Thinking Out Loud and Shut Up and Dance) but that would put those songs at an unfair advantage I think since they spent at least a couple weeks below #25 after the 52 week mark.

I say they should have only applied to new recurent rule to chart debuts after the implementation of the rule. The only true way I can see to fix things with a level playing field would be to pretend the 52 week rule had always been in place for purposes of the all-time chart, apply that to all songs and then recalculate how much each era is weighted (1990s, 2000s and 2010s should be the ones that would need to be adjusted). Although doing all that seems a bit much just for the sake of UF, TOK, SUAD, Trap Queen, Watch Me and whatever else from 2015 manages to surpass 52 weeks...

Does Billboard's weighted formula relate to specific weeks like that, or more to general averages of songs charting at the same time?

[carreramd]

Can someone please explain me the real difference between rap and hip hop?

[lyhom]

Jan 21, 2016 16:55:20 GMT -5 carreramd said:

Can someone please explain me the real difference between rap and hip hop?

they do get used interchangeably sometimes, but generally "rap" is used for the form of the lyrics, and "hip hop" is generally used for the genre of music.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2016 15:17:52 GMT -5 Zach said:

Jan 21, 2016 14:20:48 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

This. Billboard has been adjusting their all-time charts as of late by comparing a song's run to how other songs did at the same time. "UF!" had a long run in the top 2, 10, etc. than other songs out at the same time. To that end the new chart rule will be reflected in the weighted system.

But weighting for Uptown Funk in particularly will be tricky since the new rule was directly responsible for it dropping off the chart. Therefore there's only a single one of its charting weeks (its final one when it shot back into the top 25) which could see its points being weighted. The entire rest of its chart run would still be weighted based on the old rule, which still puts it at a disadvantage. A way around this would be to actually weight its entire run (as well as the runs of Thinking Out Loud and Shut Up and Dance) but that would put those songs at an unfair advantage I think since they spent at least a couple weeks below #25 after the 52 week mark.

I say they should have only applied to new recurent rule to chart debuts after the implementation of the rule. The only true way I can see to fix things with a level playing field would be to pretend the 52 week rule had always been in place for purposes of the all-time chart, apply that to all songs and then recalculate how much each era is weighted (1990s, 2000s and 2010s should be the ones that would need to be adjusted). Although doing all that seems a bit much just for the sake of UF, TOK, SUAD, Trap Queen, Watch Me and whatever else from 2015 manages to surpass 52 weeks...

I'm thinking that this is exactly what they're going to do.  Cut the points at 52 weeks for those that would've been knocked off by the rule, and add the weeks if they lasted in the top 25 longer.  For example, Radioactive would keep 66 weeks of points because that's how long it lasted.  Uptown Funk would only keep 52 weeks, since it was below 25 in its 53rd week without a bullet, right before that last second resurgence that kept it on the chart.  It probably wouldn't be that difficult to do, since so few hits even last that long in the first place, and even fewer stay within the top 25 after 52 weeks.  They're gonna have to do something like this unless they want every single song from 2016 onwards to be at a disadvantage.  I'm not sure whether or not they'd take into account whether a song rebounded later (like when Rolling In The Deep rebounded to #5 after the Grammy performance, or Uptown Funk's last couple weeks), but 1 or 2 weeks of points probably wouldn't make too much of a difference.

[85la]

Jan 20, 2016 9:41:19 GMT -5 @broccoli said:

Jan 20, 2016 0:32:35 GMT -5 rimetm said:

Actually, according to official estimates, When We Were Young dropped from ~42.5k sales to ~40k. In other words Thursday may have given it a boost, but it only staved off what would've been a bigger loss.

Radio gains are a little finicky when it comes to chart points. Yes, 6-7mil is a good boost, but often it's not enough to compensate for the other falling metrics, like sales above.

Streaming I dunno about but I imagine the lack of proper video and the proxy of a drop for Hello over time is eating away at its live videos.

Plus, WWWY does have a bullet.  It just wasn't able to move up due to other songs around it.  Consider Lazarus debuting above it and Hands to Myself leaping over it, that's 2 positions right there.  Streaming is a stronghold and/or advantage for the songs ranked above WWWY, so it doesn't surprise me that it didn't move up.

Alright, I get what everyone is saying, but at least position-wise, jumping 30-22 on the Digital Songs chart and 24-15 on airplay, it's still very surprising that it didn't move on the Hot 100. Looks like a new video and release to streaming will be essential if they want it to even top 10 at this point.

[carreramd]

hitsdailydouble.com/mediabase_chart_details&fmt=H1

Why this chart is actually so different from the top 75 posted here?

[Verisimilitude]

Jan 22, 2016 12:09:06 GMT -5 carreramd said:

hitsdailydouble.com/mediabase_chart_details&fmt=H1

Why this chart is actually so different from the top 75 posted here?

Because that's the pop chart and it's based on spins. The chart posted here is the audience impressions chart combining all formats.

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2016 12:09:06 GMT -5 carreramd said:

hitsdailydouble.com/mediabase_chart_details&fmt=H1

Why this chart is actually so different from the top 75 posted here?

source of overall/combined chart:  kworb.net/airadio/

[Au$tin]

Jan 21, 2016 15:17:52 GMT -5 Zach said:

I say they should have only applied to new recurent rule to chart debuts after the implementation of the rule.

But then songs released after the new rule set in would still be cut early and it wouldn't be fair to compare their runs with "Uptown Funk" or any other song that charted pre-new recurrent rule.

[Ravi]

Jan 26, 2016 0:46:39 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Jan 21, 2016 15:17:52 GMT -5 Zach said:

I say they should have only applied to new recurent rule to chart debuts after the implementation of the rule.

But then songs released after the new rule set in would still be cut early and it wouldn't be fair to compare their runs with "Uptown Funk" or any other song that charted pre-new recurrent rule.

I think there was no need for any new recurrent rule at all!

There would be only 2-3 songs each year which would have significantly more than 52 weeks chart run under old chart rules. Maybe it was the existence of 3 songs at the same time (SUAD , TOL and UF) which caused them to take this decision, but that was a coincidence. Right now, only UF will be charting on Hot 100.

[jarhys]

Jan 26, 2016 1:46:02 GMT -5 Ravi said:

Jan 26, 2016 0:46:39 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

But then songs released after the new rule set in would still be cut early and it wouldn't be fair to compare their runs with "Uptown Funk" or any other song that charted pre-new recurrent rule.

I think there was no need for any new recurrent rule at all!

There would be only 2-3 songs each year which would have significantly more than 52 weeks chart run under old chart rules. Maybe it was the existence of 3 songs at the same time (SUAD , TOL and UF) which caused them to take this decision, but that was a coincidence. Right now, only UF will be charting on Hot 100.

See You Aagin, Trap Queen, and Watch Me are all ready for dropping off on 53rd week.
It will be hard for a song to survive after 52 weeks only if it became a hit very lately.