Billboard Hot 100: 12/30/2017

[jebsib]

So it's possible that AIWFCIY is not significantly larger this year than any other year, but because streaming has more punch than in previous years, its chart placement is improved.
Interesting.

[Libra]

Dec 18, 2017 16:02:36 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Also - why does MC's AIWFCIY fluctuate from year to year -
Last year it wasn't THAT close to the top 10, and this year it is spending 3 weeks in or about the region…
Was there an added push this year?

I...think? Its streaming #s are greater this year than last year. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) I don't think it's a case of it having roughly equal streaming (or less), but the streaming is just being given a larger slice of the pie.

[rainie]

Dec 18, 2017 16:52:21 GMT -5 jebsib said:

So it's possible that AIWFCIY is not significantly larger this year than any other year, but because streaming has more punch than in previous years, its chart placement is improved.
Interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't streaming technically weighed slightly LESS then the past few years, it's just that more and more people are using streaming so it takes up more of the chart anyways?

[badrobot]

^Knowing Mariah's interest in her chart legacy, I feel like she may look at having some kind of all-out blitz next year to try to make it #1.

I bet she wants to beat that Beatles record badly.

[jebsib]

^ And to be fair, this would be her only chance to get another #1 hit (barring a Cher "Believe" situation, which was a 'once in a generation' quirk).

Based on recurrent airplay and my unscientific observations, it seems to me like AIWFCIY has more of a cultural presence than most of her 18 #1 hits.

[Hot AC Archiver]

Here's how different featured artists where shown in 2003:

[jenglisbe]

Dec 18, 2017 16:52:21 GMT -5 jebsib said:

So it's possible that AIWFCIY is not significantly larger this year than any other year, but because streaming has more punch than in previous years, its chart placement is improved.
Interesting.

It's already been top 10 in streaming 2 weeks this chart year, no? And could get a third. I don't think it has done this well in streaming this early. Its sales and airplay are on par with the past few years I think.

[jenglisbe]

Dec 18, 2017 15:00:28 GMT -5 leonagwen said:

Simms predicted Rockstar to be #1.What happened? Why does Beyonce get credited again?

It's a prediction so of course it can bre wrong. None of us has the exact information to go off. Simms also had the top 2 very close, so it's not like this is some huge surprise.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

^So AIWFCIY stayed at #7 in Streaming Songs and that corresponded to 70% of its chart points this week. It seems that the previous high in Streaming Songs had been #8 before last week which coincided with its previous #11 peak on the Hot 100 on the chart dated 1/9/2015. On the latter peak, I doubt it has ever had as many of its chart points from streaming.

[forg]

Yay for Perfect still at #1 and All I Want for Christmas is You finally reaching the top 10 after 23 holiday seasons

[forg]

Dec 18, 2017 17:27:05 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Dec 18, 2017 15:00:28 GMT -5 leonagwen said:

Simms predicted Rockstar to be #1.What happened? Why does Beyonce get credited again?

It's a precision so of course it can bre wrong. None of us has the exact information to go off. Simms also had the top 2 very close, so it's not like this is some huge surprise.

This. The prediction had Rockstar ahead by 1 single point so essentially tied

[Deleted]

Yasssdssss Mariah! Bring pure joy to the billboard top 10!

[rainie]

Dec 18, 2017 18:41:02 GMT -5 Codex said:

Mariah in the top 10 breaking records and Eminem flopping

River's gonna easily outpeak AIWFCIY tho

[brady47]

Dead at this being Mariah Carey's first top 10 hit of the 2010s.

But seriously, good for her, the power of AIWFCIY every christmas season is insane!

[MilesW1998]

Dec 18, 2017 18:41:02 GMT -5 Codex said:

Mariah in the top 10 breaking records and Eminem flopping

I guess karma's flipped this time, it only took what, 8, 9 years? 

[jeiboy]

Where is the confirmation or article that Andrea will be credited for #1 next week?

[Gary]

On the 23 year thing. That is courtesy of the stupid and ever changing chart rules. If the rules were consistent over time this song as we know would have been Top 10 in its first year and that this week would simply be a re-entry rather than a top 10 debut

Statistical anamoalies such as this are created not because the song is finally reaching new heights after all this time but by the chart rules in place at the time.

[Libra]

Dec 18, 2017 19:49:49 GMT -5 Gary said:

On the 23 year thing. That is courtesy of the stupid and ever changing chart rules. If the rules were consistent over time this song as we know would have been Top 10 in its first year and that this week would simply be a re-entry rather than a top 10 debut

...no? It only reached #12 on Hot 100 Airplay/Radio Songs during its initial "release". With 0 sales due to not being commercially available it would have had no chance in hell at reaching the Top 10.

My guess is that its first real shot to reach the Top 10 would have been...whenever it first racked up enough digital sales. Not really sure what year digital sales would have first reached a high enough level in general - 2003? 2004? I know 2005 was when they finally started counting toward the Hot 100, but without knowing more about digital sales levels during its earliest years I can only guess. Of course, since 2005 was her big comeback year then in all likelihood that would also have been the year it would have racked up enough sales to go Top 10. (And very likely higher up than #9 - didn't someone post earlier in this thread that it topped Digital Songs during the 2005 holiday season?)

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

^The changes in the rules in the Hot 100 for older songs can be traced to Michael Jackson's death if I remember correctly. His songs weren't allowed to rechart that week. Although, Thriller did eventually benefit to re-enter for 3 separate Halloween weeks in 2013 through 2015. Even more dramatic was the change they did in the Billboard 200 as a consequence, but that's another story.

[jenglisbe]

Dec 18, 2017 18:50:23 GMT -5 rainie said:

Dec 18, 2017 18:41:02 GMT -5 Codex said:

Mariah in the top 10 breaking records and Eminem flopping

River's gonna easily outpeak AIWFCIY tho

Get back to us in 23 years.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

Dec 18, 2017 16:33:48 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Dec 18, 2017 14:14:02 GMT -5 Dylan :) said:

#1 Ed Sheeran & Beyoncé - Perfect (98,000 sales, #2 in airplay, #3 in streams -- or vice versa, I missed it)

Why does an artist continue to receive credit when that version receives fewer points? When a remix is released and the remix doesn't receive more points (but does still give the song points), that artists doesn't get any credit (see the "Havana" remix).

My theory is that Billboard is afraid of the angry Beyhive if they remove the credit. That's why they didn't mention the proportion of digital sales from the duet in the article.

[Gary]

Dec 18, 2017 20:15:08 GMT -5 Libra said:

Dec 18, 2017 19:49:49 GMT -5 Gary said:

On the 23 year thing. That is courtesy of the stupid and ever changing chart rules. If the rules were consistent over time this song as we know would have been Top 10 in its first year and that this week would simply be a re-entry rather than a top 10 debut

...no? It only reached #12 on Hot 100 Airplay/Radio Songs during its initial "release". With 0 sales due to not being commercially available it would have had no chance in hell at reaching the Top 10.

My guess is that its first real shot to reach the Top 10 would have been...whenever it first racked up enough digital sales. Not really sure what year digital sales would have first reached a high enough level in general - 2003? 2004? I know 2005 was when they finally started counting toward the Hot 100, but without knowing more about digital sales levels during its earliest years I can only guess. Of course, since 2005 was her big comeback year then in all likelihood that would also have been the year it would have racked up enough sales to go Top 10. (And very likely higher up than #9 - didn't someone post earlier in this thread that it topped Digital Songs during the 2005 holiday season?)

Disagree. If today’s rules applied to 1994. It would have been top 10


Conversely if 1994 rules applied to today we wouldn’t be talking about it

Either way lack of consistency has created the 23 year anamoly. There has been no sudden change in popularity that caused the debut now and not rarlier

[Libra]

Dec 18, 2017 20:31:20 GMT -5 Gary said:

Disagree. If today’s rules applied to 1994. It would have been top 10

Based on what??? It literally only had airplay to be able to count towards the Hot 100, that alone would not have given it enough points. And I don't think picking up additional airplay points from formats that weren't Hot 100-inclusive in 1994 (such as R&B) would have provided the difference either.

[jenglisbe]

Dec 18, 2017 20:31:20 GMT -5 Gary said:

Dec 18, 2017 20:15:08 GMT -5 Libra said:

...no? It only reached #12 on Hot 100 Airplay/Radio Songs during its initial "release". With 0 sales due to not being commercially available it would have had no chance in hell at reaching the Top 10.

My guess is that its first real shot to reach the Top 10 would have been...whenever it first racked up enough digital sales. Not really sure what year digital sales would have first reached a high enough level in general - 2003? 2004? I know 2005 was when they finally started counting toward the Hot 100, but without knowing more about digital sales levels during its earliest years I can only guess. Of course, since 2005 was her big comeback year then in all likelihood that would also have been the year it would have racked up enough sales to go Top 10. (And very likely higher up than #9 - didn't someone post earlier in this thread that it topped Digital Songs during the 2005 holiday season?)

Disagree. If today’s rules applied to 1994. It would have been top 10


Conversely if 1994 rules applied to today we wouldn’t be talking about it

Either way lack of consistency has created the 23 year anamoly. There has been no sudden change in popularity that caused the debut now and not rarlier

There is no "disagree" here. It's factual that "AIWFCIY" wouldn't have been top 10 in 1994. It was #12 in airplay (so not top 10) and didn't have a commercial single to contribute points. So, even if it had been allowed to chart, it in no way could have been top 10.

But, yes, it likely would have been top 10 ons or more times in the mid-00s under current rules.

[Gary]

Dec 18, 2017 20:39:19 GMT -5 Libra said:

Dec 18, 2017 20:31:20 GMT -5 Gary said:

Disagree. If today’s rules applied to 1994. It would have been top 10

Based on what??? It literally only had airplay to be able to count towards the Hot 100, that alone would not have given it enough points. And I don't think picking up additional airplay points from formats that weren't Hot 100-inclusive in 1994 (such as R&B) would have provided the difference either.

If 1994 rules applied to today - we would not have this conversation - Christmas songs do not chart past one year (in this case its first year would be 1999)
If 2017 rules apply to 1994 - Album tracks chart without airplay, generates more exposure for the song, perhaps gets played more and pressure gets put on the label to release a single 


Simply put rule changes over time pushed this song to the top ten.  Not a sudden increase in popularity.  This song has always been big and would have already been top 10 had rules been applied consistently.

Or we could go with "wow after 23 years people are finally catching on to this song" -- Yes it is top ten now.  I think it already would have been

[jenglisbe]

Dec 18, 2017 21:19:04 GMT -5 Gary said:

Dec 18, 2017 20:39:19 GMT -5 Libra said:

Based on what??? It literally only had airplay to be able to count towards the Hot 100, that alone would not have given it enough points. And I don't think picking up additional airplay points from formats that weren't Hot 100-inclusive in 1994 (such as R&B) would have provided the difference either.

If 1994 rules applied to today - we would not have this conversation - Christmas songs do not chart past one year (in this case its first year would be 1999)
If 2017 rules apply to 1994 - Album tracks chart without airplay, generates more exposure for the song, perhaps gets played more and pressure gets put on the label to release a single 


Simply put rule changes over time pushed this song to the top ten.  Not a sudden increase in popularity.  This song has always been big and would have already been top 10 had rules been applied consistently.

Or we could go with "wow after 23 years people are finally catching on to this song" -- Yes it is top ten now.  I think it already would have been

Show me one person who has said people are just now/finally catching onto the song.

[forg]

I don't think there really should be that much discussion or debate about the 23 year thing or whether the song is more popular than before. I think most of us who post/lurk here over the years know about the chart rules, music trends and timing not syncing to make the song a top 10 song much earlier.
It's just simply fun to see a modern holiday staple finally getting its chart spotlight.

[Gary]

Dec 18, 2017 21:21:41 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Dec 18, 2017 21:19:04 GMT -5 Gary said:

If 1994 rules applied to today - we would not have this conversation - Christmas songs do not chart past one year (in this case its first year would be 1999)
If 2017 rules apply to 1994 - Album tracks chart without airplay, generates more exposure for the song, perhaps gets played more and pressure gets put on the label to release a single 


Simply put rule changes over time pushed this song to the top ten.  Not a sudden increase in popularity.  This song has always been big and would have already been top 10 had rules been applied consistently.

Or we could go with "wow after 23 years people are finally catching on to this song" -- Yes it is top ten now.  I think it already would have been

Show me one person who has said people are just now/finally catching onto the song.

Pick one:

My original point - This song is finally top ten due primarily to looser rule changes over time for Christmas songs rather than an increase in popularity, as this song has always been big 

Or: This song is finally top ten after 23 years and reached a new level of popularity and a chart position not seen in the prior 23 years


You decide.    

Not interested in a pointless argument

[Libra]

Dec 18, 2017 21:19:04 GMT -5 Gary said:

If 2017 rules apply to 1994 - Album tracks chart without airplay, generates more exposure for the song, perhaps gets played more and pressure gets put on the label to release a single

In other words, a whole lot of "if"s. This rests so much on speculation/things that could not be guaranteed that I simply cannot buy into the assertion.

[singingrulebritannia]

Dec 18, 2017 21:19:04 GMT -5 Gary said:

If 2017 rules apply to 1994 - Album tracks chart without airplay, generates more exposure for the song, perhaps gets played more and pressure gets put on the label to release a single 

How would an album track chart without airplay in 1994? There weren't other tenable tracking methods for consumption of album tracks back then.