Billboard Hot 100: 03/11/2017

[Au$tin]

Feb 28, 2017 12:09:44 GMT -5 imbondz said:

Feb 27, 2017 22:36:42 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

The thing with Lorde is that Pure Heroine gave her HUGE critical acclaim and a massive cult following. That alone puts her in an entirely different place to come back from than, say, Meghan Trainor. Ever since that album, her career has resembled a small scale version of Adele's.

21 blows up, massive sales, huge hits, lots of acclaim, massive attention to her artistry, does a single for a film that strays from her sound a bit, critics still love it, it gets some attention, ultimately doesn't do nearly as well as the singles from the album, is she a one album wonder? Next Norah Jones? Hiatus. Returns with television commercial announcing new single, massive hype...

Royals blows up, great album sales ensue, decent sized hits, lots of acclaim, great attention to her artistry, does a single for a film that strays from her sound a bit, critics still like it, it gets some attention, ultimately doesn't do nearly as well as the singles from the album, is she a one album wonder? Hiatus. Returns with television commercial announcing new single, big hype...

Even their hiatus length is similar. Adele's "Skyfall" was in late 2012, she returned in late 2015. Lorde's "Yellow Flicker Beat" was in late 2014. She is returning early 2017. 3 years v. 2.5 years.

The only real big difference I can think of is Lorde had a featured credit during her hiatus, "Magnets."

Now, I would never expect Lorde to return the same as Adele, but the parallels are so abundant, you kind of begin to wonder. Will this new album follow a similar, but smaller success pattern of 25?

Not sure this could be more of a stretch. Lorde's career paralleling Adele's?

Did you even read my post? I never said Lorde's career was exactly like Adele's, nor did I ever say Lorde was as big as Adele. That would be absurd. I was simply pointing out how the basics of their careers are similar and gave plenty of examples.

[KeepDeanWeird]

Feb 28, 2017 11:06:06 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Feb 28, 2017 10:52:53 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

This is my complaint about streaming. Billboard gives way too much in streaming points. Sales should still be 50%, airplay and streaming each 25%. Some songs may have never been so big.

Why? Just because you don't like it? Well, time to face facts. Streaming was the number one source for music consumption in 2016. Sales have tanked.

Part of the issue with streaming is that for chart purposes, it's better to rent than to own. For example, I own Sia's "EH," but "CT" is on my Spotify premium account. While I've played both roughly the same over time and have saved both on my iPhone. Each time I play CT, it 'counts' for the weekly chart. On the other hand, the only time EH counted was the week I purchased it. That seems terribly unbalanced, even though streaming is monetized.

[Au$tin]

Feb 28, 2017 12:21:54 GMT -5 KeepDeanWeird said:

Feb 28, 2017 11:06:06 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Why? Just because you don't like it? Well, time to face facts. Streaming was the number one source for music consumption in 2016. Sales have tanked.

Part of the issue with streaming is that for chart purposes, it's better to rent than to own. For example, I own Sia's "EH," but "CT" is on my Spotify premium account. While I've played both roughly the same over time and have saved both on my iPhone. Each time I play CT, it 'counts' for the weekly chart. On the other hand, the only time EH counted was the week I purchased it. That seems terribly unbalanced, even though streaming is monetized.

You just answered yourself in the last sentence. The reason it's that way is because streaming in monetized. Labels don't care how often you play it after you buy it, they already got your money.

[Caviar]

Monetizing streaming to offset massive declines in digital downloads and physical sales was the reason streaming was introduced to the chart. So I'm not sure what the argument is here.

[Gary]

Streaming was not introduced to the popularity chart to offset sales declines.

Streaming was introduced because it was and still is a growing means of listening to music.

Sales is one component of popularity of a song but, especially now, certainly not the only one.

For those worried about how their streams of a single song "counts" towards the weekly chart, might want to think about how much it "counts"


Where 45 million streams in a week might not even be enough to get #1 anymore, how much weight does 5 or 10 streams actually have?

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

Feb 28, 2017 12:02:07 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 28, 2017 11:06:06 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Why? Just because you don't like it? Well, time to face facts. Streaming was the number one source for music consumption in 2016. Sales have tanked.

I don't stream. I support artists. Do you know how many streams it takes for an artist to make anything off it. I buy my music because I'm not a thief. Why do you always jump all over me no matter what I post. I have my opinion and that's all in stating. So please keep to yourself because you have nothing pleasing to say to me. Everyone in the world can stream all they want but by buying music at retail price actually helps everyone out in the long run and it proves what people really like. I have coworkers who stream at work but never really paying attention to what's playing.

I agree that's an individual's choice to make among the several options that are available. Obviously, buying and listening to the radio still are available as options for those who prefer to listen to their music that way. While streaming probably has become the most common people listen to their music, you can't assume that just because you do or don't somebody else will make that same choice.

[Glove Slap]

OMG! This subject. Again.

[truemusicreviews]

Feb 28, 2017 3:10:26 GMT -5 brady47 said:

Damn, Love on the Brain was such a slow-burner on airplay, but it may be her biggest radio hit from Anti. I know "Work" kind of climbed fast but peaked at #2 and then fell kind of quickly too.

"Love On The Brain" is just under 20 aud points away from having the same peak as "Work". "This Is What You Came For" was a lot bigger than both, although it isn't from Anti.

[truemusicreviews]

I was just thinking about this. I think every radio listen and every stream should count for one point, seeing as one point = one listen. Every sale should count for more listens, maybe a couple hundred. That would be the most representative of how much a song is listened to each week.

[Gary]

Feb 28, 2017 13:57:38 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

I was just thinking about this. I think every radio listen and every stream should count for one point, seeing as one point = one listen. Every sale should count for more listens, maybe a couple hundred. That would be the most representative of how much a song is listened to each week.

Nice idea but...no

One radio play on one station is listened to by hundreds perhaps thousands of people at a time, depending on your location and how popular your station is.  One stream on your own personal device is only heard by you

[Mr. Thonk Eyes]

Feb 28, 2017 12:03:28 GMT -5 Dylan :) said:

I don't like Spotify as generally it sends the same songs to the top and they're there for what seems like forever. I would MUCH prefer more movement, which is currently being prevented by Spotify (although to be honest, it's pretty much just Closer and Bad and Boujee). However, what I think doesn't really matter. Why should a song in the top 10 on Spotify be less important than a song in the top 10 on iTunes? Granted, there is the multiple plays problem but this is just what people are into at the moment and that's what the chart is for, to reflect that. I'm sure it will even out eventually.

I don't think streaming is a whole is overweighed, but I think YouTube is. In my opinion, YouTube, not Spotify, is the most stagnant streaming platform. If more weight was given to On-Demand Audio services and less weight to YouTube, we could have a chart that is faster/less stagnant, but at the same time still has streaming as a whole count for 50% of the chart.

[truemusicreviews]

Feb 28, 2017 15:31:52 GMT -5 Mr. Thonk Eyes said:

Feb 28, 2017 12:03:28 GMT -5 Dylan :) said:

I don't like Spotify as generally it sends the same songs to the top and they're there for what seems like forever. I would MUCH prefer more movement, which is currently being prevented by Spotify (although to be honest, it's pretty much just Closer and Bad and Boujee). However, what I think doesn't really matter. Why should a song in the top 10 on Spotify be less important than a song in the top 10 on iTunes? Granted, there is the multiple plays problem but this is just what people are into at the moment and that's what the chart is for, to reflect that. I'm sure it will even out eventually.

I don't think streaming is a whole is overweighed, but I think YouTube is. In my opinion, YouTube, not Spotify, is the most stagnant streaming platform. If more weight was given to On-Demand Audio services and less weight to YouTube, we could have a chart that is faster/less stagnant, but at the same time still has streaming as a whole count for 50% of the chart.

Good point. If Youtube was around when "Gangnam Style" was popular, it probably would have broken "One Sweet Day"'s record. It was #1 on Youtube for 36 weeks.
    

[Au$tin]

Feb 28, 2017 16:05:15 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

Feb 28, 2017 15:31:52 GMT -5 Mr. Thonk Eyes said:

I don't think streaming is a whole is overweighed, but I think YouTube is. In my opinion, YouTube, not Spotify, is the most stagnant streaming platform. If more weight was given to On-Demand Audio services and less weight to YouTube, we could have a chart that is faster/less stagnant, but at the same time still has streaming as a whole count for 50% of the chart.

Good point. If Youtube was around when "Gangnam Style" was popular, it probably would have broken "One Sweet Day"'s record. It was #1 on Youtube for 36 weeks.
    

"Friday" would also be a #1 hit.

[Leo ✔]

That man again

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2017 15:31:52 GMT -5 Mr. Thonk Eyes said:

Feb 28, 2017 12:03:28 GMT -5 Dylan :) said:

I don't like Spotify as generally it sends the same songs to the top and they're there for what seems like forever. I would MUCH prefer more movement, which is currently being prevented by Spotify (although to be honest, it's pretty much just Closer and Bad and Boujee). However, what I think doesn't really matter. Why should a song in the top 10 on Spotify be less important than a song in the top 10 on iTunes? Granted, there is the multiple plays problem but this is just what people are into at the moment and that's what the chart is for, to reflect that. I'm sure it will even out eventually.

I don't think streaming is a whole is overweighed, but I think YouTube is. In my opinion, YouTube, not Spotify, is the most stagnant streaming platform. If more weight was given to On-Demand Audio services and less weight to YouTube, we could have a chart that is faster/less stagnant, but at the same time still has streaming as a whole count for 50% of the chart.

I agree that youtube should count for a lot less, but not for that reason. For me, it's simply that Youtube pays a lot less in royalties than Spotify, so that lack of revenue should be weighted accordingly. Similar to how buying a song brings in a lot more money than streaming it.

[Au$tin]

YouTube already counts less than Spotify.

[rimetm]

No it doesn't; as of the official formula from 2015 (revealed by one of the record company's promo materials iirc), the official distinction on Streaming Songs is between On-Demand songs (which includes YouTube, Spotify, etc.), which are weighted higher, and Internet Radio songs (e.g. Deezer, Rdio, I dunno), and if they changed to distinguish Video On-Demand songs, that would've been mentioned in one of the formula change articles.

[Au$tin]

YouTube does not count in On Demand Songs, though.