Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 1:12:27 GMT -5
WOW! How did Meghan Trainor's Me Too jump to #3 on itunes? Macys 4th of July Celebration was today and she performed it Wasn't a really good performance imo. |
|
jarhys
Gold Member
Joined: March 2014
Posts: 958 
|
Post by jarhys on Jul 5, 2016 1:29:20 GMT -5
WOW! How did Meghan Trainor's Me Too jump to #3 on itunes? Macys 4th of July Celebration was today and she performed it Wasn't a really good performance imo. Thanks. I wonder whether it will reach top 10 though. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 12:34:35 GMT -5
Gary Trust's tweet about today's Hot 100 periscope says "Could there be some chart history made for us to discuss?"
I mean, obviously Rihanna keeps moving up the ladder in various history books... but I'm perched.
|
|
Dylan :)
Diamond Member
smth 'bout youu
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 13,029
|
Post by Dylan :) on Jul 5, 2016 12:59:55 GMT -5
Here's to hoping for a new peak for Cheap Thrills, although unlikely! Stream is lagging a bit
#100 Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Dark Necessities
#69 Daya - Sit Still Look Pretty
#63 kiiara - Gold
#50 Kevin Gates - Really Really
#49 Charlie Puth feat. Selena Gomez - We Don't Talk Anymore
#47 Ariana Grande - Into You (Gary said it hasn't really been promoted yet)
#42 Selena Gomez - Kill Em With Kindness (up in radio, Gary claimed it is still working on CHR lol)
#40 Fifth Harmony feat. Fetty Wap - All In My Head (Flex)
#38 Shawn Mendes - Treat You Better
#35 Flume feat. Kai - Never Be Like You
#27 Drake feat. Rihanna - Too Good
#26 Beyoncé - Sorry
#16 Meghan Trainor - Me Too
#13 Adele - Send My Love (To Your New Lover)
#12 P!NK - Just Like Fire
#11 Mike Posner - I Took A Pill In Ibiza
#10 Fifth Harmony feat. Ty Dolla $ign - Work From Home
#9 Twenty One Pilots - Ride (#1 on Rock Songs for a fourth week)
#8 Kent Jones - Don't Mind
#7 Rihanna - Needed Me
#6 Sia - Cheap Thrills (fourth week top airplay gainer, only song this week in the top 10 with gains in all three metrics)
#5 Calvin Harris // Rihanna - This Is What You Came For
#4 Desiigner - Panda (#1 on streaming songs for an 11th week)
#3 The Chainsmokers feat. Daya - Don't Let Me Down (#1 on CHR, #1 on Hot Dance Songs for 11th week)
#2 Justin Timberlake - Can't Stop The Feeling!
#1 Drake feat. Wizkid & Kyla - One Dance (8th week) (#1 song and album for 7 consecutive weeks, last happened in 1983 with Billie Jean and Thriller)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 13:20:14 GMT -5
this is a rather unsurprising and uneventful top 10 this week. but i'll take it! panda has lost its cuteness i see!
yay for drake taking his first lead #1 and bonkers album into MJ territory.
adele gunning for that top 10 despite all the naysayers. love it.
kevin gates holding on by a really really small hair. i had a feeling it might be short lived.
|
|
rimetm
2x Platinum Member
Just a Good Ol' Chart Shmuck
|
Post by rimetm on Jul 5, 2016 13:43:01 GMT -5
Per the article, HOLY is up 17-14; I get the feeling Florida Georgia Line could finally get their second top 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetherunner314 on Jul 5, 2016 14:01:50 GMT -5
Thoughts this week:
Well, it looks as though we finally have another hit (other than NØ) that peaks at #3 in Don't Let Me Down.
I wonder if the One Dance video will finally come when the song is predicted to finally drop from the #1 position.
I think Really Really has a good chance of going recurrent next week as it continues to drop in AI on radio. I wonder how borderline that'll put it on the year-end chart.
YES!!! at Ride, All In My Head, Don't Mind, We Don't Talk Anymore, H.O.L.Y., and Send My Love all hitting new peaks this week.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 14:12:26 GMT -5
I wonder if the One Dance video will finally come when the song is predicted to finally drop from the #1 position. I think Really Really has a good chance of going recurrent next week as it continues to drop in AI on radio. I wonder how borderline that'll put it on the year-end chart. I think the OD video will drop this Friday or maybe the following week sometime. I'm sure they've been editing it over the last week and it should be ready-ish any day now. Really Really is VERY close on my YE predictions. But I'll save that for tomorrow morning's update in that thread. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 14:35:43 GMT -5
wow DLMD actually got #3 :O
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetherunner314 on Jul 5, 2016 14:42:47 GMT -5
I have a general question: Why do the figures kworb provide on their radio AI updates not match up with the numbers given by Billboard in their articles? They always seem to be around 80% of kworb's estimates.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 15:00:29 GMT -5
I have a general question: Why do the figures kworb provide on their radio AI updates not match up with the numbers given by Billboard in their articles? They always seem to be around 80% of kworb's estimates. Billboard uses Nielsen Music data rather than Mediabase. There are different panels of stations between the two, and different AI calculation methods and allocations as well. |
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,643
|
Post by renfield75 on Jul 5, 2016 15:08:22 GMT -5
I get that the Hot 100 has been pretty static recently, but the bigger bore has been Billboard's article. They're just copying and pasting from previous weeks! Do they need to mention that CSTF was "just the 26th song to debut at #1" EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK? And updating Drake's simultaneous album/singles domination for nearly 2 months is just as dull. There HAVE to be new, obscure facts they can write about. Or just make the article shorter if they can't...there's a lot of redundant useless crap to read through in that article lately.
|
|
ry4n
7x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2014
Posts: 7,247
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by ry4n on Jul 5, 2016 15:11:30 GMT -5
Not to mention that paragraph that explains what's revealed on Monday and what's revealed on Tuesday
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayman on Jul 5, 2016 15:16:51 GMT -5
I'm glad SML outpeaked WWWY!
|
|
popmusic1
Charting
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 49
|
Post by popmusic1 on Jul 5, 2016 15:44:28 GMT -5
If a song is played in a movie trailer, do the trailer views count as streaming for the Hot 100? The source of the stream has to be categorized as "music"... and it needs to be at least 30 seconds of a song, as far as i know. So, no, a typical movie trailer doesn't count directly as a song stream, but it certainly can help awareness and/or drive sales of the song, etc. Video must be under monetization process. Usually, movie trailers on youtube don't include ads because of sync contract. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 15:49:55 GMT -5
The source of the stream has to be categorized as "music"... and it needs to be at least 30 seconds of a song, as far as i know. So, no, a typical movie trailer doesn't count directly as a song stream, but it certainly can help awareness and/or drive sales of the song, etc. Video must be under monetization process. Usually, movie trailers on youtube don't include ads because of sync contract. What is "sync contract"? And are you agreeing with me or are you saying that the stream doesn't have to be categorized as "music", it just has to be "under monetization process" (which I'm guessing mean with advertisements)? It's really not clear to me what you're saying in the context of the original question, and if you're saying I'm incorrect or adding to what I'm saying. |
|
Az Paynter
Diamond Member
On Dsico's Block List™
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 114,474
|
Post by Az Paynter on Jul 5, 2016 15:54:52 GMT -5
If a song appears in a TV show or movie (or in the trailers of ads) then it's been licensed, which means that the network or studio that licensed the song had to pay a fee for its use. Monetization for trailers on Youtube isn't strictly necessary because of this, I think, since due to the licensing fee the label has already been paid for the song being featured. Monetizing the Youtube uploads for including copyrighted material would essentially be double-dipping.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 15:59:57 GMT -5
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Jul 5, 2016 16:04:24 GMT -5
I get that the Hot 100 has been pretty static recently, but the bigger bore has been Billboard's article. They're just copying and pasting from previous weeks! Do they need to mention that CSTF was "just the 26th song to debut at #1" EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK? In addition to being repeated constantly, it is also a pretty common occurrence these days. Not exactly a history making feat anymore. It may JUST be the 26th? song since 1958 to debut at #1 since 1958 but it is also the 26th song to debut at #1 since 1995.
|
|
popmusic1
Charting
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 49
|
Post by popmusic1 on Jul 5, 2016 16:04:57 GMT -5
^ Yeah, maybe it was not clear, sorry.
As you know, you can make money on YouTube - 65% of ads revenue. The whole process is called "content monetization" and it just means you allow youtube to show some ads during video. YouTube content system (and Nielsen Music of course) counts streams from videos under monetization - videos allowed ads.
If you want to use someone's music in your movie, TV serial or video game, you needs sync licence - contract with publisher and label (master rights owner). Usually film producers switch off monetization option, so streams from trailers on youtube are not counted.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 16:11:00 GMT -5
I think the feat of debuting at #1 should and always will be worthy of a mention and special recongition, it just doesn't need to be mentioned repeatedly for one song.
Edit: And regardless of how frequently or infrequently it occurs, it's still rare (statistically speaking) whether we're talking about 50 years or 20 years. In the context of 1,055 total #1 songs, which is the point of reference when they make these mentions, saying "just" 26 occurrences is fair and accurate, imo.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Jul 5, 2016 16:17:11 GMT -5
I think the feat of debuting at #1 should and always will be worthy of a mention and special recongition, it just doesn't need to be mentioned repeatedly for one song. Maybe but not in the way it is currently written. |
|
forg
2x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,356
|
Post by forg on Jul 5, 2016 18:13:51 GMT -5
One Dance could be number for what at least 12 week's team is very much into the chart game now. Funny to think when CTSF debuted at #1 there were speculations that it would be a long running #1 but no it was One Dance that achieved the feat. Kinda reminds me of Shake It Off vs All About That Bass although will see if CTSF can do what Shake It Off did and get the #1 back
Cheap Thrills is building the momentum at the right time, a potential top 3 hit
I hope Send My Love enters the top 10 soon.
Me Too is shaping up to be another potential top 5 hit for Meghan Trainor
Let It Go is in the iTunes top 10 and still doing good in airplay, I hope it enters the top 20 next week
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Jul 5, 2016 18:25:55 GMT -5
I think the feat of debuting at #1 should and always will be worthy of a mention and special recongition, it just doesn't need to be mentioned repeatedly for one song. Edit: And regardless of how frequently or infrequently it occurs, it's still rare (statistically speaking) whether we're talking about 50 years or 20 years. In the context of 1,055 total #1 songs, which is the point of reference when they make these mentions, saying "just" 26 occurrences is fair and accurate, imo. There have been 256 #1's since the first occurrence. 26 #1 debuts or greater than 10%. Which likely brings it out of the "rare" category, in my opinion |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 18:27:17 GMT -5
I think the feat of debuting at #1 should and always will be worthy of a mention and special recongition, it just doesn't need to be mentioned repeatedly for one song. Edit: And regardless of how frequently or infrequently it occurs, it's still rare (statistically speaking) whether we're talking about 50 years or 20 years. In the context of 1,055 total #1 songs, which is the point of reference when they make these mentions, saying "just" 26 occurrences is fair and accurate, imo.There have been 256 #1's since the first occurrence. 26 #1 debuts or greater than 10%. Which likely brings it out of the "rare" category, in my opinion But if you want to change the point of reference, feel free. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Jul 5, 2016 18:35:43 GMT -5
I get that the Hot 100 has been pretty static recently, but the bigger bore has been Billboard's article. They're just copying and pasting from previous weeks! Do they need to mention that CSTF was "just the 26th song to debut at #1" EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK? In addition to being repeated constantly, it is also a pretty common occurrence these days. Not exactly a history making feat anymore. It may JUST be the 26th? song since 1958 to debut at #1 since 1958 but it is also the 26th song to debut at #1 since 1995.
for @broccoli My original post referenced 1995, not 1958 Considering that it didn't happen at all for 37 years, a very skewed and misrepresented statistic. We will see the same type of writeup in a couple weeks when One Dance makes it to 10 weeks for JUST the 32nd time in chart history. This is the same sort of deal, they write it up the same way. It happened twice between 1958 and 1992, 29 going on 30 times since As often as these things happen now, I believe they should stop painting these as "rare" events. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 19:27:44 GMT -5
Credit to kworb.net Youtube Building Chart (7/3/2016)
 |
|
karofsky
Charting
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 24
|
Post by karofsky on Jul 5, 2016 19:39:24 GMT -5
where is the Heathens????
looks like 14 or 15?
|
|
rimetm
2x Platinum Member
Just a Good Ol' Chart Shmuck
|
Post by rimetm on Jul 5, 2016 20:01:17 GMT -5
where is the Heathens???? looks like 14 or 15? No, it's down, because we know this: 14. HOLY 13. Send My Love 12. Just Like Fire 11. I Took a Pill in Ibiza |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 20:38:21 GMT -5
In addition to being repeated constantly, it is also a pretty common occurrence these days. Not exactly a history making feat anymore. It may JUST be the 26th? song since 1958 to debut at #1 since 1958 but it is also the 26th song to debut at #1 since 1995.
for @broccoli My original post referenced 1995, not 1958 Oh?Considering that it didn't happen at all for 37 years, a very skewed and misrepresented statistic. We will see the same type of writeup in a couple weeks when One Dance makes it to 10 weeks for JUST the 32nd time in chart history. This is the same sort of deal, they write it up the same way. It happened twice between 1958 and 1992, 29 going on 30 times since As often as these things happen now, I believe they should stop painting these as "rare" events. Again, using the word "just" in the context of "chart history" makes perfect statistical and grammatical sense in either of the scenarios you've presented, 26 or 32. You choosing to alter and/or fine tune the context to support your argument is completely up to you, but it's still out of context of how it's being used by the party you are referring to and take issue with. I don't recall Billboard using the word "rare", either. I did. But the word "rare" would still make sense in the context 26 or 32 songs in "chart history", which is what they are referencing, and will continue to reference, I'm sure. It just doesn't need to be mentioned more than once for the same song, which I've already agreed with. A song going to #1 is a history-making feat all by itself as often as it may happen, as only 1,055 songs out of who knows how many chart entries - let alone promoted recordings in general - have accomplished it. So to be one of just 26 songs to debut at #1 in chart history is obviously an even more notable accomplishment, statistically, and may potentially continue to be for many years/decades to come. As may #1s that have lengthy stays at the top. Many of us know there are a lot of differences in different eras of the Hot 100 that lend themselves to more (or less) possibilities and/or frequency of feats, and that certain things didn't happen until the last 20 or so years - but that is not the point/context of what they are saying. They are writing/speaking in the context of "chart history", regardless of when it happened first, etc. Even though we are referring to the same thing, you are referring to your own context/version of it, and I'm referring to the context they are actually using and defending their choice to acknowledge these feats as well as their word usage. I'm of the pov/opinion that just because something happens more frequently within a certain time frame - it doesn't mean it will continue to - and therefore until it's a substantial amount/ratio in the context of chart history, it is still "just" the 26th time. I'm 100% cool with you feeling whatever type of way you want about Billboard's word choices given your own personally-chosen context(s). Your feelings - on what is or isn't worthy of mention with certain descriptors you feel are inappropriate - are your own. I stated my own feelings - apart from yours. It was really that simple on my end. However, it seems that you needed to try and clarify and/or prove your point to me. I do comprehend your point of view - but again, and one last time, it's all - and very simply - about context. Changing context changes everything, and nobody likes having their words twisted or modified - and then used against them. And that's all you're doing as far as I'm concerned, given what you've presented in your argument. But hey, it looks like someone agrees with you, so... YAY! |
|
