Billboard Hot 100: 1/13/2018

[mako]

Jan 4, 2018 10:41:19 GMT -5 @carseatlegrest said:

Jan 4, 2018 6:25:10 GMT -5 mako said:

I just want Perfect/River/any Ed Sheeran song or feature to rise so interest in Shape Of You rises as well so it can at least get 53 weeks.

Wouldn’t that take attention away from Shape Of You?

Example: why did Go Flex/Candy Paint chart without it even being released as a single? Rockstar was #1 at the time and I fall Apart was also released at that time. This is probably why SOY has been above #25 for the last few weeks cause of Perfect

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2018 16:33:38 GMT -5 mako said:

Jan 4, 2018 10:41:19 GMT -5 @carseatlegrest said:

Wouldn’t that take attention away from Shape Of You?

Example: why did Go Flex/Candy Paint chart without it even being released as a single? Rockstar was #1 at the time and I fall Apart was also released at that time. This is probably why SOY has been above #25 for the last few weeks cause of Perfect

Yeah, except those songs weren’t already hits. At this point Shape Of You is old news and I don’t see Perfect or River giving it any traction.

[jayhawk1117]

Jan 4, 2018 15:34:16 GMT -5 chartfreak said:

Jan 4, 2018 13:20:14 GMT -5 jayhawk1117 said:

well its number one on iTunes so far, number one on trending and we know Bruno and Cardi are Spotify monsters. So I'm going with top 10 debut or a massive jump in it's second week. Probably won't be able to outpeak JT though.

To bad today is the last day of the sales tracking week.

And Cardi is going to have like 5 songs getting attention. Radio needs to share the love more.

That's why I'm expecting a mid 60s debut and a 50 spot jump the following week. And only 2 of the 5 songs Cardi has right now are her leading. One of which has been done on radio for awhile. And Radio loves Bruno and Finesse (Remix) is Bruno at his best since Uptown Funk. So I'm Radio will eat this up and the Cardi feature is only gonna help

[forg]

Jan 4, 2018 13:20:14 GMT -5 jayhawk1117 said:

Jan 4, 2018 10:46:11 GMT -5 filthy said:

I wonder how well Finesse will do on the chart. In my opinion it's either flopping or topping, not anything in between

well its number one on iTunes so far, number one on trending and we know Bruno and Cardi are Spotify monsters. So I'm going with top 10 debut or a massive jump in it's second week. Probably won't be able to outpeak JT though.

Bruno Mars is not a Spotify monster yet, partially the reason why 24K Magic only peaked at #4 and TWIL was just a one week #1. So i think having Cardi B in the remix is really a smart choice.

I hope it all works out and this song becomes a smash!

[GP]

Damn Cardi B is everywhere right now. Is she preparing an album?

[Gary]

With 4 in the top 14, 3 in the top 10 and a big debut coming, some records could be set soon

[𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿]

According to the early predictions of Simon Falk on Twitter, Shape of You is #12, so it looks like Shape of You is on its way on getting 53 weeks!

[Future Captain]

Jan 4, 2018 17:59:28 GMT -5 GP said:

Damn Cardi B is everywhere right now. Is she preparing an album?

she better be or she'll face a riot

[Golden Bluebird]

Jan 4, 2018 21:04:20 GMT -5 𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿 said:

According to the early predictions of Simon Falk on Twitter, Shape of You is #12, so it looks like Shape of You is on its way on getting 53 weeks!

Not saying it's likely to happen, but wouldn't it be funny if it goes back to the Top 10?

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2018 17:59:28 GMT -5 GP said:

Damn Cardi B is everywhere right now. Is she preparing an album?

I’m not 100% sure, but she stated somewhere it’s out by late January?

[Golden Bluebird]

kworb.net/airadio/

*** = Dropped or added a format

Overall AI (Top 20) - 01/05/2018
1. (+1) ED SHEERAN - Perfect (176.486) (+0.207)
2. (-1) CAMILA CABELLO - Havana f/Young Thug (176.192) (-0.279)
3. (=) HALSEY - Bad At Love (127.123) (+0.571)
4. (=) IMAGINE DRAGONS - Thunder (124.753) (-0.219)
5. (=) POST MALONE - Rockstar f/21 Savage (124.091) (-0.880) ***
6. (=) SAM SMITH - Too Good At Goodbyes (115.446) (-0.473)
7. (+1) PORTUGAL. THE MAN - Feel It Still (101.929) (-0.538)
8. (-1) MAROON 5 - What Lovers Do f/SZA (101.266) (-1.558)
9. (=) DUA LIPA - New Rules (98.914) (+1.725)
10. (=) SHAWN MENDES - There's Nothing Holdin' Me Back (87.876) (-0.048)
11. (=) KENDRICK LAMAR - LOVE. (81.082) (-0.384)
12. (=) DEMI LOVATO - Sorry Not Sorry (77.662) (-0.226)
13. (=) CHARLIE PUTH - Attention (77.292) (+0.151)
14. (+1) CHARLIE PUTH - How Long (73.276) (+1.075)
15. (-1) G-EAZY - No Limit f/A$AP Rocky, Cardi B (73.252) (-0.257)
16. (=) P!NK - What About Us (71.218) (+0.143)
17. (+1) BRETT YOUNG - Like I Loved You (69.516) (+0.393)
18. (-1) ED SHEERAN - Shape Of You (69.259) (-0.207)
19. (+1) BRUNO MARS - That's What I Like (63.595) (-0.492)
20. (-1) BLAKE SHELTON - I'll Name The Dogs (63.105) (-0.984)

Outside the Top 20:
39. (-1) FRENCH MONTANA - Unforgettable f/Swae Lee (47.234) (-1.046) ***
48. (-2) LUKE COMBS - When It Rains It Pours (41.644) (-1.117)

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2018 14:02:31 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Shawn is #10 airplay, yet he's not on the Hot 100 at all. This is why I dislike the recurrent rules.

With 3 metrics, this is bound to happen.  These days a new song can potentially miss the Hot 100 after selling in the top 10 for the week - especially if they don't have radio or streaming support.  Comparing that with an established long-running hit song that has charted for 20, 30, 40+ weeks... those songs have already run their course and weren't strong enough to hang around longer than the rules provide. I personally don't see an issue with this, especially when radio (the least reflective of user demand of the 3 metrics) is the anti-recurrent argument.

It has been and remains the *Hot* 100, as much as possible, and for that I'm glad. 

[Gary]

Although it is being played on the radio, it is not selling and there is no streaming support and it is an old song

It is #2 on recurrent though, right behind Humble.

[Choco]

It's not like There's Nothing Holdin' Me Back would gain much from a few more weeks charting in the 80s on the Hot 100. It already got a nice run and a top 10 peak.

Jan 4, 2018 17:59:28 GMT -5 GP said:

Damn Cardi B is everywhere right now. Is she preparing an album?

Yes but so far only Bodak Yellow and Bartier Cardi are expected to be on her album. It might be hard for her label to secure clearance on MotorSport and No Limit to be on it, even as bonus tracks, considering the amount of featured acts on both.

[areyoureadytojump]

4 new songs in the Top 11

iTunes

kworb.net/pop/

Friday, Jan. 5

1. Bruno Mars - Finesse (Remix) [feat. Cardi B]
2. Justin Timberlake - Filthy
3. Imagine Dragons - Thunder
4. Ed Sheeran - Perfect $
5. Camila Cabello - Havana (feat. Young Thug)
6. Bebe Rexha - Meant to Be (feat. Florida Georgia Line) $
7. Breaking Benjamin - Red Cold River
8. Portugal. The Man - Feel It Still
9. Post Malone - rockstar (feat. 21 Savage)
10. Imagine Dragons - Believer

11. Liam Payne & Rita Ora - For You (From "Fifty Shades Freed")

[GP]

Jan 5, 2018 9:12:30 GMT -5 Golden Bluebird said:

kworb.net/airadio/

*** = Dropped or added a format

Overall AI (Top 20) - 01/05/2018

6. (=) SAM SMITH - Too Good At Goodbyes (115.446) (-0.473)
7. (+1) PORTUGAL. THE MAN - Feel It Still (101.929) (-0.538)
8. (-1) MAROON 5 - What Lovers Do f/SZA (101.266) (-1.558)
9. (=) DUA LIPA - New Rules (98.914) (+1.725)

#7 seems very obtainable for Dua Lipa in the next 3/4 days. I think she might get #6 in a week if Sam Smith keeps up a steady decline.

[chartslovergermany]

Jan 5, 2018 9:12:30 GMT -5 Golden Bluebird said:

kworb.net/airadio/

*** = Dropped or added a format

Overall AI (Top 20) - 01/05/2018
1. (+1) ED SHEERAN - Perfect (176.486) (+0.207)
2. (-1) CAMILA CABELLO - Havana f/Young Thug (176.192) (-0.279) 😭😭😭havana :(

[Mikeramp/KMR McLean]

This week is gonna be a total mess. Using the formula, I got this (won’t share points)
1. Perfect
2. Rockstar
3. Havana
4. Thunder
5. No Limit
6-7: TGAG, Gucci Gang
8-9: Bad At Love, MotorSport
10-11: Bodak Yellow, New Rules

Oh god

[Sherane Lamar]

Jan 5, 2018 10:09:19 GMT -5 @mello said:

Jan 3, 2018 14:02:31 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Shawn is #10 airplay, yet he's not on the Hot 100 at all. This is why I dislike the recurrent rules.

With 3 metrics, this is bound to happen.  These days a new song can potentially miss the Hot 100 after selling in the top 10 for the week - especially if they don't have radio or streaming support.  Comparing that with an established long-running hit song that has charted for 20, 30, 40+ weeks... those songs have already run their course and weren't strong enough to hang around longer than the rules provide. I personally don't see an issue with this, especially when radio (the least reflective of user demand of the 3 metrics) is the anti-recurrent argument.

It has been and remains the *Hot* 100, as much as possible, and for that I'm glad. 

I seem to be in the minority here that prefers a "stale" chart that reflects reality to a "fun" chart that sacrifices credibility. 

But I will ALWAYS maintain that an accurate chart is better than an entertaining one. We're doing science here! Music popularity science. If I wanted to be entertained I'd go watch a TV show or something. 

If Shawn Mendes's song is more popular than whatever song is at #100 right now, then Billboard is doing itself a disservice by not documenting that. 

Both recurrent rules were put in place during a time when turnover rates were rapidly changing. Both were made to prevent a massive amount of longevity records from being broken during a major industry change. 

The 20/50 recurrent rule was made so that the 1990's wouldn't look shockingly different from the 1980's.... but it failed in that regard and it's still around 25 years later! It's really time to get rid of it. Or we might as well change the name to "Hot 25" and call anything under 75 the bubbling under. /s

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2018 14:35:19 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Jan 5, 2018 10:09:19 GMT -5 @mello said:

With 3 metrics, this is bound to happen.  These days a new song can potentially miss the Hot 100 after selling in the top 10 for the week - especially if they don't have radio or streaming support.  Comparing that with an established long-running hit song that has charted for 20, 30, 40+ weeks... those songs have already run their course and weren't strong enough to hang around longer than the rules provide. I personally don't see an issue with this, especially when radio (the least reflective of user demand of the 3 metrics) is the anti-recurrent argument.

It has been and remains the *Hot* 100, as much as possible, and for that I'm glad. 

I seem to be in the minority here that prefers a "stale" chart that reflects reality to a "fun" chart that sacrifices credibility. 

But I will ALWAYS maintain that an accurate chart is better than an entertaining one. We're doing science here! Music popularity science. If I wanted to be entertained I'd go watch a TV show or something. 

If Shawn Mendes's song is more popular than whatever song is at #100 right now, then Billboard is doing itself a disservice by not documenting that. 

Both recurrent rules were put in place during a time when turnover rates were rapidly changing. Both were made to prevent a massive amount of longevity records from being broken during a major industry change. 

The 20/50 recurrent rule was made so that the 1990's wouldn't look shockingly different from the 1980's.... but it failed in that regard and it's still around 25 years later! It's really time to get rid of it. Or we might as well change the name to "Hot 25" and call anything under 75 the bubbling under. /s

I'm not trying to change your mind.  I've observed your posts enough to know that's not going to happen.  I respect your stance.   However, I'm not sure where I implied entertainment, because it's really about what's "hot", not what's recurrent.  The reason the chart exists to begin with is as an industry tool, it's not for historians or chart watchers or entertainment purposes.  Sure, it's become all of those things, but it's not the reason it exists.  And while it's formulated with mathematics, it's not exactly science, and never has been.

Labels want their songs to chart on the Hot 100, and many songs would never chart at all if it weren't for recurrent rules.  I'm willing to bet that labels prefer the recurrent rules over not having recurrent rules for that very reason.  Longevity isn't nearly the selling point that a high chart peak is when marketing a new artist or song.

Outside of that - I get it.  Striving for the most accurate chart available is understandable.  But this doesn't change the purpose of the Hot 100, which is to chart current hits and up and coming records, not songs that are no longer even being promoted by the labels (who have likely moved on to at least one newer single).

It comes down to your perception of what the Hot 100 should be vs. what it actually is if you were to ask Billboard and the industry panel who are behind it.

[brady47]

New Rules looks like the only song that's gaining significantly in the top 10. Probably the next airplay contender?

[brady47]

Jan 5, 2018 14:35:19 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Jan 5, 2018 10:09:19 GMT -5 @mello said:

With 3 metrics, this is bound to happen.  These days a new song can potentially miss the Hot 100 after selling in the top 10 for the week - especially if they don't have radio or streaming support.  Comparing that with an established long-running hit song that has charted for 20, 30, 40+ weeks... those songs have already run their course and weren't strong enough to hang around longer than the rules provide. I personally don't see an issue with this, especially when radio (the least reflective of user demand of the 3 metrics) is the anti-recurrent argument.

It has been and remains the *Hot* 100, as much as possible, and for that I'm glad. 

I seem to be in the minority here that prefers a "stale" chart that reflects reality to a "fun" chart that sacrifices credibility. 

But I will ALWAYS maintain that an accurate chart is better than an entertaining one. We're doing science here! Music popularity science. If I wanted to be entertained I'd go watch a TV show or something. 

If Shawn Mendes's song is more popular than whatever song is at #100 right now, then Billboard is doing itself a disservice by not documenting that. 

Both recurrent rules were put in place during a time when turnover rates were rapidly changing. Both were made to prevent a massive amount of longevity records from being broken during a major industry change. 

The 20/50 recurrent rule was made so that the 1990's wouldn't look shockingly different from the 1980's.... but it failed in that regard and it's still around 25 years later! It's really time to get rid of it. Or we might as well change the name to "Hot 25" and call anything under 75 the bubbling under. /s

I agree with this as well. Especially when it comes to decade end charts - it's probably one of the stronger airplay songs, but just because it's Hot 100 run is over, means that it's airplay weeks also get cut short.

Who knows how many songs went recurrent but may have jumped right back into the top 50 the next week and stayed there longer, especially considering how album cuts always bump songs from the top 50.

[Hugo!]

Jan 5, 2018 14:35:19 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Jan 5, 2018 10:09:19 GMT -5 @mello said:

With 3 metrics, this is bound to happen.  These days a new song can potentially miss the Hot 100 after selling in the top 10 for the week - especially if they don't have radio or streaming support.  Comparing that with an established long-running hit song that has charted for 20, 30, 40+ weeks... those songs have already run their course and weren't strong enough to hang around longer than the rules provide. I personally don't see an issue with this, especially when radio (the least reflective of user demand of the 3 metrics) is the anti-recurrent argument.

It has been and remains the *Hot* 100, as much as possible, and for that I'm glad. 

I seem to be in the minority here that prefers a "stale" chart that reflects reality to a "fun" chart that sacrifices credibility. 

But I will ALWAYS maintain that an accurate chart is better than an entertaining one. We're doing science here! Music popularity science. If I wanted to be entertained I'd go watch a TV show or something. 

If Shawn Mendes's song is more popular than whatever song is at #100 right now, then Billboard is doing itself a disservice by not documenting that. 

Both recurrent rules were put in place during a time when turnover rates were rapidly changing. Both were made to prevent a massive amount of longevity records from being broken during a major industry change. 

The 20/50 recurrent rule was made so that the 1990's wouldn't look shockingly different from the 1980's.... but it failed in that regard and it's still around 25 years later! It's really time to get rid of it. Or we might as well change the name to "Hot 25" and call anything under 75 the bubbling under. /s

Let's not forget that the chart was made for labels and artists first of all.
It should not be stale, as it's called the hot 100. I actually think that there should be multipliers for songs that are rising. And I also think that the 20-week rule should be taken down. The chart should indicate what's buzzing and growing and rising, and not how much leftovers are left from last Easter.

[jenglisbe]

Jan 5, 2018 14:35:19 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Jan 5, 2018 10:09:19 GMT -5 @mello said:

With 3 metrics, this is bound to happen.  These days a new song can potentially miss the Hot 100 after selling in the top 10 for the week - especially if they don't have radio or streaming support.  Comparing that with an established long-running hit song that has charted for 20, 30, 40+ weeks... those songs have already run their course and weren't strong enough to hang around longer than the rules provide. I personally don't see an issue with this, especially when radio (the least reflective of user demand of the 3 metrics) is the anti-recurrent argument.

It has been and remains the *Hot* 100, as much as possible, and for that I'm glad. 

I seem to be in the minority here that prefers a "stale" chart that reflects reality to a "fun" chart that sacrifices credibility. 

But I will ALWAYS maintain that an accurate chart is better than an entertaining one. We're doing science here! Music popularity science. If I wanted to be entertained I'd go watch a TV show or something. 

If Shawn Mendes's song is more popular than whatever song is at #100 right now, then Billboard is doing itself a disservice by not documenting that. 

Both recurrent rules were put in place during a time when turnover rates were rapidly changing. Both were made to prevent a massive amount of longevity records from being broken during a major industry change. 

The 20/50 recurrent rule was made so that the 1990's wouldn't look shockingly different from the 1980's.... but it failed in that regard and it's still around 25 years later! It's really time to get rid of it. Or we might as well change the name to "Hot 25" and call anything under 75 the bubbling under. /s

No, the recurrent rules were put in place because labels wanted to see what newer songs were doing. Labels have more of an interest in what new music is doing as opposed to songs that are older and on the way out. They weren't thinking about "records."

[Sherane Lamar]

They have "Heatseeker" charts for what you two are describing.

Wait, nvm. They discontinued that. 

Do they not have specific things to address what's "trending" as opposed to what's popular. 

Keep these two concepts separate. Look at Spotify. They have a list that simply shows what songs are the most popular. And then they have another list that is an incomprehensible algorithm driven mess of what's "hot" and "trending". 

I'd rather the Hot 100 be accurate and relatively simple than an incomprehensible mess.  

There's just no logical defense for the recurrent rules. They serve only to reduce Billboard's credibility. 

[Hugo!]

Jan 5, 2018 16:42:53 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

They have "Heatseeker" charts for what you two are describing.

Wait, nvm. They discontinued that. 

Do they not have specific things to address what's "trending" as opposed to what's popular. 

Keep these two concepts separate. Look at Spotify. They have a list that simply shows what songs are the most popular. And then they have another list that is an incomprehensible algorithm driven mess of what's "hot" and "trending". 

I'd rather the Hot 100 be accurate and relatively simple than an incomprehensible mess.  

There's just no logical defence for the recurrent rules. They serve only to reduce Billboard's credibility. 

The lack thereof would decrease it more, as it is, let me repeat, the billboard HOT 100. It indicates what's hot, what's trending.

[Hot AC Archiver]

They should publish a singles chart with no recurrent rules (like how the Billboard 200 now allows older albums to chart). Call it Top Comprehensive Singles or something like that. The Hot 100 would still represent current titles' popularity.

[mako]

^Maybe add Catalog songs as well

[Mikeramp/KMR McLean]

Jan 5, 2018 16:42:53 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

They have "Heatseeker" charts for what you two are describing.

Wait, nvm. They discontinued that. 

Do they not have specific things to address what's "trending" as opposed to what's popular. 

Keep these two concepts separate. Look at Spotify. They have a list that simply shows what songs are the most popular. And then they have another list that is an incomprehensible algorithm driven mess of what's "hot" and "trending". 

I'd rather the Hot 100 be accurate and relatively simple than an incomprehensible mess.  

There's just no logical defense for the recurrent rules. They serve only to reduce Billboard's credibility. 

There's nothing you can do so that Billboard can end the 20/50 rule... I don't mind it much. It can get a little bit annoying but it feels necessary personally.

We can all agree though that 52/25 rule is trash and needs to go

[mako]

^just make it 52/50 or something