Zach
7x Platinum Member
And at once I knew I was not magnificent...
Joined: September 2015
Posts: 7,544 
|
Post by Zach on Feb 23, 2016 14:36:27 GMT -5
I didn't even realize One Call Away moved to #12 until I saw those recent comments... Such a bland, generic song from such a bland, generic artist.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 14:41:10 GMT -5
The male Rachel Platten. While I get their appeal... i cannot even. One song from each was plenty unless they can break free of their earnest, trite, and cheesy lyrical ways. I love Rachel :'( And yeah I also can understand why people like Charlie, but to me he's just eh. As for his collab with Selena, it's not because of Selena that I like it. I just think it's a nice tune and Charlie isn't straining his voice as he does in some other songs. For what it's worth, I think Charlie and Rachel both have potential... but their songwriting needs help because their output is mind-numbing to me. Fight Song worked for me. Stand By You is more of the same with bouncy production very reminiscent of some monster hits. Both artists have lyrics FULL of cliches. But anyway, I'll digress now about my personal opinion in a chart thread. LOL. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 17:41:12 GMT -5
To me the problem I have with both of them is that their music is very safe and generic. While neither of them are bad singers per se, they definately need to improve their vocal abilities, Charlie relies on auto-tune while Rachel sounds like either she's about to cry or crack her vocals. As far as their music go, is very generic and safe, their songs literally sound like pretty much every other popular song from the past decade and don't do anything new or creative with it. "Fight Song" is a by the numbers, cliched self-esteem song, that while it's based on her own personal experiences, she doesn't execute them very well, "Stand By You" is a slightly better and more uptempo version of the same song, but still ends up being very generic. While "See You Again" was a good first outing for Puth, his own singles have ranged from mediocre to just plain awful, the latter being "Marvin Gaye" which in my opinion is one of the worst love songs ever made. The song was bad not only because it failed to sound like a good love making song, but because it didn't really do Marvin Gaye justice, referencing his songs constantly is just going to make the song even more corny and make people want to listen to the real Marvin Gaye more. While neither of them are bad artists, their music is pretty much the same formulaic teen and adult contemporary pop you would expect to hear on the radio all the time, so is really no surprise that they're having success. I agree that their lyrics need to improve, that's their main problem.
|
|
MTSChart21
4x Platinum Member
"My Name's Blurryface"
If I can't be close to you, I'll settle for the ghost of you
Joined: October 2015
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by MTSChart21 on Feb 23, 2016 21:20:00 GMT -5
Wow, so Uptown Funk actually found a way to break out of Recurrent hell, if only for a week. Seriously, that song was cut off WAY too early. I wouldn't be surprised if it had managed 75+ weeks on the chart if the rule had never been made. Also, ugh. Can something please stop Charlie Puth from getting a top 10 hit? One Call Away really sucks (though not quite as much as that abomination known as Marvin Gaye). TOL could've made more than 60 weeks and SUAD could've been close to 60. Trap Queen could've been looking at 60-65 weeks. I hate this rule so much! It hasn't even affected that many songs. The rule is almost pointless. It's not like this is changing what songs hit #1, so this rule should've have been made. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 21:54:43 GMT -5
Wow, so Uptown Funk actually found a way to break out of Recurrent hell, if only for a week. Seriously, that song was cut off WAY too early. I wouldn't be surprised if it had managed 75+ weeks on the chart if the rule had never been made. Also, ugh. Can something please stop Charlie Puth from getting a top 10 hit? One Call Away really sucks (though not quite as much as that abomination known as Marvin Gaye). TOL could've made more than 60 weeks and SUAD could've been close to 60. Trap Queen could've been looking at 60-65 weeks. I hate this rule so much! It hasn't even affected that many songs. The rule is almost pointless. It's not like this is changing what songs hit #1, so this rule should've have been made. Are you sure TOL and SUAD could've made it? They were already barely treading water right before the new rule was introduced, and when it was, there was that flood of Bieber tracks and general turbulence overall that probably would've pushed them out that week anyways. Uptown Funk staved it off by having that viral resurgence that caused it to get back into the top 25, but I'm not sure anything else could've survived that week. And besides, a couple weeks after they became recurrent, they started getting beat out by songs like My Way, Renegades, and Fight Song, which left the charts by placing below 50, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that neither TOL or SUAD would've survived much longer. |
|
godjanny
Gold Member
Banned
Eternal Style (Sunflowers)
Joined: February 2015
Posts: 764
|
Post by godjanny on Feb 23, 2016 21:59:45 GMT -5
CHART: Digital Songs Week Ending: 02/18/2016 1 FLO RIDA + MY HOUSE 134k 2 RIHANNA FEAT. DRAKE + WORK 119k 3 BIEBER*JUSTIN + LOVE YOURSELF 118k 4 TWENTY ONE PILOTS + STRESSED OUT 111k 5 ZAYN + PILLOWTALK 103k 6 G-EAZY + ME, MYSELF & I 78k 7 TRINIX + HELLO 68k 8 CHARLIE PUTH + ONE CALL AWAY 65k 9 GRAHAM*LUKAS + 7 YEARS 64k 10 BAY*JAMES + LET IT GO 61k Trinix? Adele changed her name in an attempt to give WWWY a stronger push. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 23:07:35 GMT -5
Adele changed her name in an attempt to give WWWY a stronger push.  |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,613
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 24, 2016 8:55:25 GMT -5
Wow, so Uptown Funk actually found a way to break out of Recurrent hell, if only for a week. Seriously, that song was cut off WAY too early. I wouldn't be surprised if it had managed 75+ weeks on the chart if the rule had never been made. Also, ugh. Can something please stop Charlie Puth from getting a top 10 hit? One Call Away really sucks (though not quite as much as that abomination known as Marvin Gaye). TOL could've made more than 60 weeks and SUAD could've been close to 60. Trap Queen could've been looking at 60-65 weeks. I hate this rule so much! It hasn't even affected that many songs. The rule is almost pointless. It's not like this is changing what songs hit #1, so this rule should've have been made. So what position on the Hot 100 is a fair cut off point and why? |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 24, 2016 10:36:26 GMT -5
The recurrent rule has always been about giving exposure to newer songs at the bottom end of the chart. In the current state of rules, the recurrent rule will not impact the top 25 and certainly not impact what is #1.
|
|
lyhom
Diamond Member
CAPSLOCK-PHOBE
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 11,381
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by lyhom on Feb 24, 2016 10:56:59 GMT -5
Wow, so Uptown Funk actually found a way to break out of Recurrent hell, if only for a week. Seriously, that song was cut off WAY too early. I wouldn't be surprised if it had managed 75+ weeks on the chart if the rule had never been made. Also, ugh. Can something please stop Charlie Puth from getting a top 10 hit? One Call Away really sucks (though not quite as much as that abomination known as Marvin Gaye). TOL could've made more than 60 weeks and SUAD could've been close to 60. Trap Queen could've been looking at 60-65 weeks. I hate this rule so much! It hasn't even affected that many songs. The rule is almost pointless. It's not like this is changing what songs hit #1, so this rule should've have been made. are you against the 50/20 rule? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 11:29:17 GMT -5
This is just my opinion, but songs below #50 over 20 weeks old aren't really doing much anyway, whereas songs between 26-50 are still getting a pretty significant amount of reception and it can make a difference in the long run (ex. as a result of the 25/52 rule, UF could potentially be robbed of the title of Billboard Hot 100 #1 song of all time due to this inconsistency). So I can understand the 50/20 rule plus it doesn't have much of an impact on the recurrent songs because of that, but that's not the case for the new rule IMO.
|
|
lyhom
Diamond Member
CAPSLOCK-PHOBE
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 11,381
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by lyhom on Feb 24, 2016 11:36:17 GMT -5
This is just my opinion, but songs below #50 over 20 weeks old aren't really doing much anyway, whereas songs between 26-50 are still getting a pretty significant amount of reception and it can make a difference in the long run (ex. as a result of the 25/52 rule, UF could potentially be robbed of the title of Billboard Hot 100 #1 song of all time due to this inconsistency). So I can understand the 50/20 rule plus it doesn't have much of an impact on the recurrent songs because of that, but that's not the case for the new rule IMO. weird, personally I think that a year is long enough to spend a chart run and by the time a song spends 52 weeks on the chart it's already peaked a while ago and is kind of aq clog in the chart. sure, there's things like the all-time lists, but again, I could just as easily make the argument that positions below #50 are still getting reception (e.g. "smooth" may have been the #1 song of all time if it didn't go recurrent), and a lack of consistency of rules in the hot 100 hasn't stopped them in the past. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 24, 2016 11:54:30 GMT -5
UF could potentially be robbed of the title of Billboard Hot 100 #1 song of all time due to this inconsistency). Disagree, will make no difference.
Besides #1 all time will continue to be The Twist until a prior #1 can repeat at #1
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 12:03:16 GMT -5
This is just my opinion, but songs below #50 over 20 weeks old aren't really doing much anyway, whereas songs between 26-50 are still getting a pretty significant amount of reception and it can make a difference in the long run (ex. as a result of the 25/52 rule, UF could potentially be robbed of the title of Billboard Hot 100 #1 song of all time due to this inconsistency). So I can understand the 50/20 rule plus it doesn't have much of an impact on the recurrent songs because of that, but that's not the case for the new rule IMO. I hear you, but I like to look at the big, long picture throughout time rather than just focusing on this particular recurrent rule. Billboard has always found a way to try and "level the playing field" when it comes to measuring their all-time charts... since things change and it's never apples to apples by the sheer nature of the industry. The turnaround for songs on the chart pre-soundscan was much faster than post-soundscan... and has gotten even slower over time since, on average, with streaming in the mix. I trust that all of this will be accounted for when they come around to ranking the all-time H100 hits again. In other words, at face value, it could be argued that songs like UF (and others of this generation) already have a huge advantage over many big songs that came before Soundscan era... because it charted longer than was really even possible back then. (I say "possible" loosely, as it was technically possible, but just didn't happen given the structure and method of how data was gathered and the chart was compiled.) But it all evens out when Billboard figures in different weightings, etc., to accommodate different eras of the H100. This new rule will be no exception. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 12:19:20 GMT -5
I can understand both sides. I just feel that the 50/20 rule is more useful than the 25/52 one
|
|
|
|
Post by emperortigerstar on Feb 25, 2016 0:54:48 GMT -5
Uptown Funk returning made my day.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 25, 2016 7:46:49 GMT -5
So apparently the recurrent rule - for next time allows for re-entry IF it shows gains in multiple metrics and has enough points to be in the top 25
Thanks to the grammy's and the Super Bowl, sales were up and it re-entered on the airplay top 50 as well
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,919
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Feb 25, 2016 8:43:10 GMT -5
Just commenting on stuff some know, but it ties in to the discussion. Time on the chart is the main reason why Billboard weighs certain time frames differently than others for the all-time lists. Back in the pre-BDS-/SoundScan times, there were hits you still heard quite often or still were selling well, whatnot, but because of how the charts were compiled, they didn't hang around like they would have under a more precise measurement. Radio stations moved a single down playlists and even dropped them from playlists, even if they were still giving a single strong airplay. Same idea with retail reports and sales. No way the singles of old can compete with 1992-on singles in regard to all-time lists without the weighting.
I think the top 25 threshold is fine- sometimes you'd see a single hang around the lower end of the top 50 for eons- this way, it frees up that space for more current tracks.
|
|
allow that
Diamond Member
Fall into the atlas
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 14,849
|
Post by allow that on Feb 25, 2016 8:49:32 GMT -5
Can we stop talking about effing "Uptown Funk" yet? Ya'll are one topic ponies for a full damn year.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 8:50:37 GMT -5
Can we stop talking about effing "Uptown Funk" yet? Ya'll are one topic ponies for a full damn year. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 25, 2016 9:36:24 GMT -5
So if we switch to a different topic and get enough "likes" to improve our peak position, then we would lose our "one topic wonder" status?
|
|
NeRD
Diamond Member
RIHANNA NAVY
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 15,298
|
Post by NeRD on Feb 25, 2016 9:47:00 GMT -5
Can we stop talking about effing "Uptown Funk" yet? Ya'll are one topic ponies for a full damn year. Lmao |
|
MTSChart21
4x Platinum Member
"My Name's Blurryface"
If I can't be close to you, I'll settle for the ghost of you
Joined: October 2015
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by MTSChart21 on Feb 25, 2016 9:47:32 GMT -5
This is just my opinion, but songs below #50 over 20 weeks old aren't really doing much anyway, whereas songs between 26-50 are still getting a pretty significant amount of reception and it can make a difference in the long run (ex. as a result of the 25/52 rule, UF could potentially be robbed of the title of Billboard Hot 100 #1 song of all time due to this inconsistency). So I can understand the 50/20 rule plus it doesn't have much of an impact on the recurrent songs because of that, but that's not the case for the new rule IMO. THANK YOU! |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 25, 2016 9:53:23 GMT -5
Let's be real though, if this weren't 'Uptown Funk' and it wasn't "impacting" all the formulas being used in the prediction threads for the all time charts, would we care this much?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 10:01:19 GMT -5
Yes. Some of us really don't like the inconsistency.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 25, 2016 10:07:31 GMT -5
Not sure what is inconsistent as it is being applied to all songs.
Not the first rule change for this chart and not even the biggest one, for that matter.
The chart has evolved over time to account for changing markets.
If the market is consistent then the rules on the chart would stay the same.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 10:23:09 GMT -5
Yes. Some of us really don't like the inconsistency. I don't know your age or how long you've been chart watching, but maybe consider thinking of it this way... there will be more changes in the future, just as there have been many in the past. I get it, though. Imagine the chart watcher in me (and many others, maybe even you?) watching defenselessly while HUGE songs weren't even allowed to chart AT ALL there for awhile in the 90s. THE HORROR. But I got over it and decided it was the greedy labels, not Billboard, at fault. And that, ultimately, nothing is ever perfect. Life is full of asterisks. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,613
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 25, 2016 10:39:15 GMT -5
And that, ultimately, nothing is ever perfect. Life is full of asterisks. True, like stats with a lead artist versus feature. *Sorry, can't not. |
|
|
|
Post by emperortigerstar on Mar 1, 2016 11:17:58 GMT -5
Yes. Some of us really don't like the inconsistency. I don't know your age or how long you've been chart watching, but maybe consider thinking of it this way... there will be more changes in the future, just as there have been many in the past. I get it, though. Imagine the chart watcher in me (and many others, maybe even you?) watching defenselessly while HUGE songs weren't even allowed to chart AT ALL there for awhile in the 90s. THE HORROR. But I got over it and decided it was the greedy labels, not Billboard, at fault. And that, ultimately, nothing is ever perfect. Life is full of asterisks. Like "Don't Speak" by No Doubt. Huge song, especially on airplay, didn't even chart. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,613
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 1, 2016 11:34:09 GMT -5
I don't know your age or how long you've been chart watching, but maybe consider thinking of it this way... there will be more changes in the future, just as there have been many in the past. I get it, though. Imagine the chart watcher in me (and many others, maybe even you?) watching defenselessly while HUGE songs weren't even allowed to chart AT ALL there for awhile in the 90s. THE HORROR. But I got over it and decided it was the greedy labels, not Billboard, at fault. And that, ultimately, nothing is ever perfect. Life is full of asterisks. Like "Don't Speak" by No Doubt. Huge song, especially on airplay, didn't even chart. Hypothetically would it have been better if it had been allowed to chart but peaked at, say, #7 because it didn't have any sales points? |
|
