THINKIN BOUT YOU
Platinum Member
a good-looking gay man
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,364 
|
Post by THINKIN BOUT YOU on Jul 5, 2016 20:46:17 GMT -5
Yes! We Don't Talk Anymore top 50!! Hope it can outpeak One Call Away
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,916
|
Post by 85la on Jul 5, 2016 21:09:07 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. Well, not exactly maybe, as you mentioned they all occurred since 1995. Furthermore though, with the rules and marketplace conditions in place since that time, 22 of those #1's occurred between the years 1995 and 1998 and 2009 and 2016. So, specifically in these last few years, which probably guides how most people feel how "rare" a chart occurrence is, with an average of about 1 or 2 #1 debuts per year, especially when there are only about 10-12 #1's per year, it really isn't that rare anymore. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 21:11:45 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. Well, not exactly maybe, as you mentioned they all occurred since 1995. Furthermore though, with the rules and marketplace conditions in place since that time, 22 of those #1's occurred between the years 1995 and 1998 and 2009 and 2016. So, specifically in these last few years, which probably guides how most people feel how "rare" a chart occurrence is, with an average of about 1 or 2 #1 debuts per year, especially when there are only about 10-12 #1's per year, it really isn't that rare anymore. In the context of chart history, it's still rare my friend. And that's my sole point. And forget the word "rare"... we are talking about the word "just" which implies "rare" to some people, but is perfectly acceptable usage by definition and context. This isn't about marketplace or rules, as those are ever-evolving. It's in the context of the entire history of the chart, period. Maybe someday it won't be "just", but we have no way of knowing what the future holds. So until then, it's "just". |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Jul 5, 2016 21:13:35 GMT -5
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, and once more with forced feeling, 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 will likely continue to be for many years/decades to come. As will #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 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 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. But hey, it looks like someone agrees with you, so... YAY! Statistics can be painted in any way that the presenter of those statistics chooses to paint it. The way they are doing it and the way you support, I disagree with. Simple as that. By stretching the time period back to an era where these events simply did not happen enhances these events as RARE when nowadays they are not rare at all(which is ALL I WAS SAYING). We could push the time period back even further, I suppose to 1940 and the beginning of Billboard music charts and make the #1 debut an even more amazing statistic, if you prefer. When all is said and done, all up to the presenter. When each of these events happens a couple times a year now, at some point it would seem to make sense to quit calling them rare. For me anyway, still an amazing statistic but, it happens too often now to call it rare. If JUST the 26th #1 debut since 1958 sounds better to you then they wrote it correctly for you. They have ALL occurred since 1995 but that doesn't sound as appealing, I get it, but in my opinion misleading. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 21:14:36 GMT -5
if you believe changing/manipulating established context and/or specific wording - to prove something wrong or just so you can disagree with it - is cool... then i got nothing else for ya. you do you.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Jul 5, 2016 21:22:32 GMT -5
ok cool. night! if you believe changing established context to prove something wrong is cool... then i got nothing else for ya. you do you. Huh? You are making no sense I did not say they were wrong. I did not say you were wrong. I was not trying to prove anything wrong at all. There have been 26 songs to debut at #1 since 1958. I agree. As Billboard presented in the context that they did and that you are trying to hammer home now. Still a statement of fact. I just simply disagree with how they present it. Please calm down |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 21:37:35 GMT -5
You are saying you disagree with their presentation of something, which means you don't think it's the right way to do it, correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetherunner314 on Jul 5, 2016 21:42:51 GMT -5
where is the Heathens???? looks like 14 or 15? Heathens is either at 15 or 17 I believe. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Jul 5, 2016 21:45:24 GMT -5
You are saying you disagree with their presentation of something, which means you don't think it's the right way to do it, correct? Yes, that is my opinion. As I said, every word they said is true. 26 songs have debuted at #1 since 1958. My point, you can put any year in that sentence that you want to up to 1995 and the number is still 26. You like 1958, fine, so be it. I have a different opinion. I suggest that this discussion has now run its course. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 22:15:47 GMT -5
You are saying you disagree with their presentation of something, which means you don't think it's the right way to do it, correct? Yes, that is my opinion. As I said, every word they said is true. 26 songs have debuted at #1 since 1958. My point, you can put any year in that sentence that you want to up to 1995 and the number is still 26. You like 1958, fine, so be it. I have a different opinion. I suggest that this discussion has now run its course. Yep, I agree. End it with a contradiction and putting words in my mouth. Sums it up nicely. Perfectly. |
|
