|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 25, 2017 17:01:51 GMT -5
Something got me thinking the other day about the charts and how slow they've gotten and how people complain about the songs on them more than they used to. The charts seem to be controlled more by the consumer and listener rather than the major labels and as I come to find time and time again, people have listening habits that can be both very limiting and very repetitive. I have a co-worker who will sometimes play music in the office while we work. I find this annoying because I can't usually work with music playing but that's another issue, but she'll ALWAYS play the same songs each time - in the same order, and sometimes on a loop. She'll specifically seek out these songs. Not from a playlist, but actually searches for them. I'm constantly surprised by the lack of variety people are open to with the music they listen to, and how often people are willing to listen to the same songs, sometimes just minutes after hearing them. So it got me thinking, in a situation where the charts are heavily based off of the people, they get stagnant. They're more accurate, sure, if that's what we want to measure. Maybe the charts shouldn't measure what they measure now. Maybe it's too much to let the people decide. After all, what do they know?  |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 25, 2017 17:19:01 GMT -5
Something got me thinking the other day about the charts and how slow they've gotten and how people complain about the songs on them more than they used to. The charts seem to be controlled more by the consumer and listener rather than the major labels and as I come to find time and time again, people have listening habits that can be both very limiting and very repetitive. I have a co-worker who will sometimes play music in the office while we work. I find this annoying because I can't usually work with music playing but that's another issue, but she'll ALWAYS play the same songs each time - in the same order, and sometimes on a loop. She'll specifically seek out these songs. Not from a playlist, but actually searches for them. I'm constantly surprised by the lack of variety people are open to with the music they listen to, and how often people are willing to listen to the same songs, sometimes just minutes after hearing them. So it got me thinking, in a situation where the charts are heavily based off of the people, they get stagnant. They're more accurate, sure, if that's what we want to measure. Maybe the charts shouldn't measure what they measure now. Maybe it's too much to let the people decide. After all, what do they know?  Of course, I wonder about leaving political elections in the hands of the people :| But, yeah, streaming has definitely shown us people will listen to the same songs over and over. In a way it also shows the "need" for genres because, as you said, most people aren't really diverse in what they listen to. I know it's annoying for artists to be 'labeled,' and people who like a lot of types of music resist genres, but it seems like most people listen to music that's in the same lane (see Pandora). It's funny, though, because a friend recently said he listens to "all kinds" of music. I asked who he likes, and he said "Everything from The Black Keys to The Rolling Stones to Nirvana." I pointed out those are all rock bands. I guess because they are from different eras he didn't see them as similar. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 25, 2017 17:35:52 GMT -5
I actually think most people listen to a diverse range of genres, but the individual songs or artists are where they tend to limit themselves.
But I suppose fans of some genres tend to be more limited than others. (ie country and rock)
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,889
|
Post by Gary on Apr 25, 2017 17:51:58 GMT -5
This weeks top 50 by genre
(based on how iTunes defines genre)
24 songs - Rap and/or Hip-Hop
15 songs - Pop
6 songs - Dance
2 songs - Country
2 songs - R&B/Soul
1 song - Soundtrack
|
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,643
|
Post by renfield75 on Apr 25, 2017 18:41:20 GMT -5
Gone From the Hot 100: 30 Weeks: Starboy / The Weeknd (39)
27 Weeks: Don't Wanna Know / Maroon 5 feat. Kendrick Lamar (46)
25 Weeks: Fake Love / Drake (38)
20 Weeks: Play That Song / Train (70)19 Weeks: How Far I'll Go / Alessia Cara (98) 16 Weeks: Think a Little Less / Michael Ray (90) 12 Weeks: Road Less Traveled / Lauren Alaina (77) 12 Weeks: You're Welcome / Dwayne Johnson (93) 8 Weeks: Draco / Future (83) 4 Weeks: Prblms / 6LACK (88) 4 Weeks: Blem / Drake (84) 4 Weeks: Free Smoke / Drake (72) 4 Weeks: Teenage Fever / Drake (91) 2 Weeks: The One / The Chainsmokers (78) 2 Weeks: Still Got Time / Zayn feat. PARTYNEXTDOOR (95) 2 Weeks: Subeme la Radio / Enrique Iglesias feat. Descemer Bueno, Zion, & Lennox (96) 1 Week: Bar at the End of the World / Kenny Chesney (92) 1 Week: Flatliner / Cole Swindell (100) 1 Week: If I Told You / Darius Rucker (99) 2 songs with legit full runs dropping out straight from the top 40...that's pretty rare. Also interesting and rare is that two of those songs (Starboy and Fake Love) entered the Hot 100 within the region...meaning that both of their entire lengthy chart runs were within the top 40! |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 20:12:02 GMT -5
They'll be back once kendrick's shit (don't hate - ik lyrics are important but theyre unlistenable to) songs drop. I can see the good ones like Element, DNA, and Humble, along with the poppy Loyalty sticking around for a lil while tho
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 25, 2017 20:28:46 GMT -5
I actually think most people listen to a diverse range of genres, but the individual songs or artists are where they tend to limit themselves. But I suppose fans of some genres tend to be more limited than others. (ie country and rock) Eh, but even listening to, say, rock and pop or pop and R&B isn't exactly diverse. |
|
forg
2x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,356 
|
Post by forg on Apr 25, 2017 20:45:12 GMT -5
Just add Bieber and you get a hit!
It's kinda funny how he became a chart force now considering how he started and how he was not taken that seriously, myself included. I thought he would just be a flash in the pan teen idol
|
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 25, 2017 21:35:08 GMT -5
I actually think most people listen to a diverse range of genres, but the individual songs or artists are where they tend to limit themselves. But I suppose fans of some genres tend to be more limited than others. (ie country and rock) Eh, but even listening to, say, rock and pop or pop and R&B isn't exactly diverse. Depends on which type of pop and rock. What about folkier pop, or acoustic rock intermingled with electropop or edm? Not super diverse either but it's a pretty broad range, especially nowadays. I think genres themselves are blurring together quite a bit anyway. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 25, 2017 21:44:58 GMT -5
Eh, but even listening to, say, rock and pop or pop and R&B isn't exactly diverse. Depends on which type of pop and rock. What about folkier pop, or acoustic rock intermingled with electropop or edm? Not super diverse either but it's a pretty broad range, especially nowadays. I think genres themselves are blurring together quite a bit anyway. On a scale of diversity, to me that isn't very diverse. That's like someone saying they have a diverse group of friends because even if they're all white, some are Protestant, some are Jewish, and some are Catholic. It might be somewhat diverse within a group, but it still isn't diverse on the whole. There are so many broad genres of music - pop, dance, R&B, hip-hop, country, jazz, gospel, Latin, etc - that listening to only 1 or 2, even if you listen to a range within the genre, seems limited to me. And I don't mean that as a criticism; people can like and dislike whatever they want. I just mean it isn't diverse. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 25, 2017 21:48:45 GMT -5
Depends on which type of pop and rock. What about folkier pop, or acoustic rock intermingled with electropop or edm? Not super diverse either but it's a pretty broad range, especially nowadays. I think genres themselves are blurring together quite a bit anyway. On a scale of diversity, to me that isn't very diverse. That's like someone saying they have a diverse group of friends because even if they're all white, some are Protestant, some are Jewish, and some are Catholic. It might be somewhat diverse within a group, but it still isn't diverse on the whole. There are so many broad genres of music - pop, dance, R&B, hip-hop, country, jazz, gospel, Latin, etc - that listening to only 1 or 2, even if you listen to a range within the genre, seems limited to me. And I don't mean that as a criticism; people can like and dislike whatever they want. I just mean it isn't diverse. I know, but speaking in terms of popular music that makes the charts. If we look at all styles of music from all cultures and times, the Hot 100 has never been diverse. I'm speaking in terms of the average person who listens to music in a very general sense. I was saying that I think there are very few people who limit themselves to one style of music whereas most people tend to dabble in a lot of different kinds. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 25, 2017 22:00:19 GMT -5
On a scale of diversity, to me that isn't very diverse. That's like someone saying they have a diverse group of friends because even if they're all white, some are Protestant, some are Jewish, and some are Catholic. It might be somewhat diverse within a group, but it still isn't diverse on the whole. There are so many broad genres of music - pop, dance, R&B, hip-hop, country, jazz, gospel, Latin, etc - that listening to only 1 or 2, even if you listen to a range within the genre, seems limited to me. And I don't mean that as a criticism; people can like and dislike whatever they want. I just mean it isn't diverse. I know, but speaking in terms of popular music that makes the charts. If we look at all styles of music from all cultures and times, the Hot 100 has never been diverse. I'm speaking in terms of the average person who listens to music in a very general sense. I was saying that I think there are very few people who limit themselves to one style of music whereas most people tend to dabble in a lot of different kinds. In terms of the Hot 100 I'd argue the late 90s and early 00s were pretty diverse. In 1999 alone we had TLC, Enrique Iglesias, Britney Spears, Sugar Ray, Pearl Jam, Mariah Carey, Everlast, Shania Twain, Jewel, Busta Rhymes, Lonestar, etc all with majors hits. That's R&B, Latin, pop, rock, country, and hip-hop all doing well. Having said that, many of those hits had to be made mainstream (i.e. not spanish-language Latin hits, the country songs had to have the country instruments taken out or mixed low) in order to crossover. But really, that's my point; people don't have as diverse of a taste in music as they might portray. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 25, 2017 22:02:20 GMT -5
And now while we don't have rock, we do have EDM, plus dance, and trap, in addition to R&B, pop, country, hip-hop. So it could be argued today's charts are more diverse. ;)
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don't you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,623
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Apr 25, 2017 22:03:24 GMT -5
Weren't the early 00s dominated by hip-hop, though?
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 25, 2017 22:26:25 GMT -5
And now while we don't have rock, we do have EDM, plus dance, and trap, in addition to R&B, pop, country, hip-hop. So it could be argued today's charts are more diverse. ;) Country is on the Hot 100, but it isn't crossing over. Pure R&B music is pretty ignored by the mainstream, too. The difference is that in 1999 all of those genres were getting mainstream airplay. The Hot 100 now has various genres, but they are all charting based on their specific genre support. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 25, 2017 22:29:41 GMT -5
And now while we don't have rock, we do have EDM, plus dance, and trap, in addition to R&B, pop, country, hip-hop. So it could be argued today's charts are more diverse. ;) Country is on the Hot 100, but it isn't crossing over. Pure R&B music is pretty ignored by the mainstream, too. The difference is that in 1999 all of those genres were getting mainstream airplay. The Hot 100 now has various genres, but they are all charting based on their specific genre support. Radio's role was much more important back then also. Nowadays it doesn't really matter that much whether songs crossover to pop radio or not. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 25, 2017 22:42:37 GMT -5
Country is on the Hot 100, but it isn't crossing over. Pure R&B music is pretty ignored by the mainstream, too. The difference is that in 1999 all of those genres were getting mainstream airplay. The Hot 100 now has various genres, but they are all charting based on their specific genre support. Radio's role was much more important back then also. Nowadays it doesn't really matter that much whether songs crossover to pop radio or not. Do you have any stats showing that a large amount of people are listening to a diverse range of music? The relatively low streaming numbers for, say, country would indicate they are not. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 26, 2017 6:33:46 GMT -5
Radio's role was much more important back then also. Nowadays it doesn't really matter that much whether songs crossover to pop radio or not. Do you have any stats showing that a large amount of people are listening to a diverse range of music? The relatively low streaming numbers for, say, country would indicate they are not. No, do you have any to indicate they don't? It's a generalization, and I don't think listeners to a genre such as country are much indication. I acknowledged country (and rock) as likely two genres where listeners are probably not as likely to be diverse in their tastes. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 27, 2017 13:17:58 GMT -5
Do you have any stats showing that a large amount of people are listening to a diverse range of music? The relatively low streaming numbers for, say, country would indicate they are not. No, do you have any to indicate they don't? It's a generalization, and I don't think listeners to a genre such as country are much indication. I acknowledged country (and rock) as likely two genres where listeners are probably not as likely to be diverse in their tastes. I'm puzzled by you seemingly doing a 180 on this issue. The post that started the discussion was this one: Something got me thinking the other day about the charts and how slow they've gotten and how people complain about the songs on them more than they used to. The charts seem to be controlled more by the consumer and listener rather than the major labels and as I come to find time and time again, people have listening habits that can be both very limiting and very repetitive. I have a co-worker who will sometimes play music in the office while we work. I find this annoying because I can't usually work with music playing but that's another issue, but she'll ALWAYS play the same songs each time - in the same order, and sometimes on a loop. She'll specifically seek out these songs. Not from a playlist, but actually searches for them. I'm constantly surprised by the lack of variety people are open to with the music they listen to, and how often people are willing to listen to the same songs, sometimes just minutes after hearing them. So it got me thinking, in a situation where the charts are heavily based off of the people, they get stagnant. They're more accurate, sure, if that's what we want to measure. Maybe the charts shouldn't measure what they measure now. Maybe it's too much to let the people decide. After all, what do they know? I was agreeing with you there, and then you started challening what I was saying. I don't get it. Anyway, I have a question for people related to the chart, and I'm sure it's one that has been answered before; how can a song be higher on the Hot 100 than on Pop Songs (in this case "Shape of You" is behind Bruno on Pop songs but not the Hot 100)? |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Apr 27, 2017 13:21:40 GMT -5
No, do you have any to indicate they don't? It's a generalization, and I don't think listeners to a genre such as country are much indication. I acknowledged country (and rock) as likely two genres where listeners are probably not as likely to be diverse in their tastes. I'm puzzled by you seemingly doing a 180 on this issue. The post that started the discussion was this one: Something got me thinking the other day about the charts and how slow they've gotten and how people complain about the songs on them more than they used to. The charts seem to be controlled more by the consumer and listener rather than the major labels and as I come to find time and time again, people have listening habits that can be both very limiting and very repetitive. I have a co-worker who will sometimes play music in the office while we work. I find this annoying because I can't usually work with music playing but that's another issue, but she'll ALWAYS play the same songs each time - in the same order, and sometimes on a loop. She'll specifically seek out these songs. Not from a playlist, but actually searches for them. I'm constantly surprised by the lack of variety people are open to with the music they listen to, and how often people are willing to listen to the same songs, sometimes just minutes after hearing them. So it got me thinking, in a situation where the charts are heavily based off of the people, they get stagnant. They're more accurate, sure, if that's what we want to measure. Maybe the charts shouldn't measure what they measure now. Maybe it's too much to let the people decide. After all, what do they know? I was agreeing with you there, and then you started challening what I was saying. I don't get it. Anyway, I have a question for people related to the chart, and I'm sure it's one that has been answered before; how can a song be higher on the Hot 100 than on Pop Songs (in this case "Shape of You" is behind Bruno on Pop songs but not the Hot 100)? I was saying how people listen to a variety of genres but limited number of songs/artists. You said people listen to limited genres. I'm sure neither of us are wrong since neither of us can claim to know how 100% of the measurable population listens to music. |
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Apr 27, 2017 14:10:36 GMT -5
Anyway, I have a question for people related to the chart, and I'm sure it's one that has been answered before; how can a song be higher on the Hot 100 than on Pop Songs (in this case "Shape of You" is behind Bruno on Pop songs but not the Hot 100)? Pop Songs is a radio airplay chart for Top 40 radio stations. In the Hot 100, Radio Songs is only one out of 3 components, of which Pop Songs is a subcomponent. So, mismatches in the positions can easily happen between the Hot 100 and Pop Songs, especially if Streaming and Digital Song Sales are strong for one of the songs, once the data is blended together. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 27, 2017 16:07:40 GMT -5
Anyway, I have a question for people related to the chart, and I'm sure it's one that has been answered before; how can a song be higher on the Hot 100 than on Pop Songs (in this case "Shape of You" is behind Bruno on Pop songs but not the Hot 100)? Pop Songs is a radio airplay chart for Top 40 radio stations. In the Hot 100, Radio Songs is only one out of 3 components, of which Pop Songs is a subcomponent. So, mismatches in the positions can easily happen between the Hot 100 and Pop Songs, especially if Streaming and Digital Song Sales are strong for one of the songs, once the data is blended together. That's what I figured. Why did Billboard decide that Pop Songs would only count "pop" airplay, but that Country Songs, R&B Songs, etc. would count all airplay and not just airplay from the genre? That's inconsistent. |
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don't you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,623
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Apr 27, 2017 16:16:00 GMT -5
Pop Songs is a radio airplay chart for Top 40 radio stations. In the Hot 100, Radio Songs is only one out of 3 components, of which Pop Songs is a subcomponent. So, mismatches in the positions can easily happen between the Hot 100 and Pop Songs, especially if Streaming and Digital Song Sales are strong for one of the songs, once the data is blended together. That's what I figured. Why did Billboard decide that Pop Songs would only count "pop" airplay, but that Country Songs, R&B Songs, etc. would count all airplay and not just airplay from the genre? That's inconsistent. Because "pop" as such a generic term that no longer describes a specific genre. |
|
