Billboard Hot 100: 6/2/2018

[Enigma.]

May 28, 2018 12:36:22 GMT -5 NeRD said:

Radio needs some new Rihanna.

Don't we all

[ur local neighborhood dbender]

May 28, 2018 13:01:14 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

May 28, 2018 12:36:22 GMT -5 NeRD said:

Radio needs some new Rihanna.

Don't we all

Tbh I kinda like this Rihanna break.

[g8erboi]

We need our girl riri to make the charts interesting again.

[inverse]

Can we not make Lucid Dreams a hit? My worst list is crowded enough at this point. I'd honestly rather listen to Liquid Dreams by O-Town and that is NOT a statement I make lightly.

[renaboss]

Thank you so much jebsib !!

[renaboss]

This has gotta be the first week that I don't care that the chart reveal's been delayed due to some holiday, because I am honestly getting so turned off by the charts.

[fernando4]

Are “Welcone to the Party” or “Ashes” not debuting!?

[ur local neighborhood dbender]

May 28, 2018 14:02:11 GMT -5 fernando4 said:

Are “Welcome to the Party” or “Ashes” not debuting!?

I would kill for the former to debut. It's one of Lil Pump's best performances.

[Choco]

Ashes didn't debut on it's first week so I wouldn't expect it to appear this week either with the decrease in sales and Youtube plays. The Steve Aoki mix is apparently going to Pop radio, so if it picks up there it might have a chance to chart later.

[ur local neighborhood dbender]

May 28, 2018 14:35:35 GMT -5 Choco said:

Ashes didn't debut on it's first week so I wouldn't expect it to appear this week either with the decrease in sales and Youtube plays. The Steve Aoki mix is apparently going to Pop radio, so if it picks up there it might have a chance to chart later.

I thought you were talking about Pretender for a sec I was gonna br excited. :(

[kanfad]

May 28, 2018 14:01:09 GMT -5 renaboss said:

This has gotta be the first week that I don't care that the chart reveal's been delayed due to some holiday, because I am honestly getting so turned off by the charts.

Yeah, I can see how people that arent too  crazy about Drake would be turned off by his domination. Its almost getting to the Beatles  1964 level but hes doing it with songs that dont feel as big, global or as universally loved.
Plus theres almost no real threat and I've never seen the top ten points be so low since i started my charts obsession

[Sherane Lamar]

May 28, 2018 4:08:35 GMT -5 J. Rob said:

May 27, 2018 20:11:39 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Highest selling album isn't an accurate way to measure anything. Especially if we're talking about comparing 1999 to 2009. 

And on top of that, legacy sales have nothing to do with what was popular at the time. See Illmatic for example. 

Like you said, Jay-Z was a bit overshadowed by other artists back in 1996-2001. Still major and consistent artist. But not able to come up with an album that generated as much attention as Blueprint 3. Almost twice as popular at the time as anything else he's done. 

I've watched his career since the beginning and I'm judging based on his presence in the Hip Hop community....I forget that he wasn't really a household name outside of Hip Hop until....maybe 02 or 03?

But if you ask most Hip Hop fans old enough to remember his early years, they'll tell you his peak was undoubtedly the late 90s and early 00s.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but I think looking at it that way is a bit misleading. BP3 was popular because of two huge hit singles, both having features that overshawdowed him. The album wasn't really well recieved and at the time was he seen by a lot of younger fans as a legend past his prime staying relevant by following trends. During his true "prime" he was not only overshawdowed by Backstreet Boys, NSync, Britney, Christina, etc...he was also always overshawdowed in Hip Hop by one or two artists who were bigger at the time (DMX in 98 and 99, Eminem in 2000, Ja Rule in 2001, Nelly in 2002 and 5. Cent in 2003). He was always one of the Top 3 or 4 artists in Hip Hop during these years though and I'd say a more popular artist back then than he was in 2009

Also "Young Forever". 

None of his albums have two tracks on par with "Young Forever". Let alone three.


But I see what you're saying too. Cultural relevance (especially confined to the Hip-Hop community) and literal popularity do not always line up. 

[85la]

May 27, 2018 15:02:28 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

I think Drake will be seen like Elvis decades from now.

For the last few decades, we've generally treated the late 1950's as the "beginning of the modern music industry". And ignore people like Bing Crosby when doing stats.

I think once we're several decades into a streaming-only industry, we will look back at the 2010's as the "beginning of the modern music industry" and Drake as the artist who dominated the time period the same way Elvis dominated 1958-1963.

I'm not sure if there's anything particularly special at this point in time that would signify it as the beginning of a "new age of the modern music industry." It's easy to point to any current time one is living in and to the biggest artist of the day and say that it's the beginning of a "new era," but this lacks the perspective of history and a true frame of reference.

But I think you bring up two different points here: the growth of a new technological way of consuming music and the growth in popularity of a new style or genre(s) of music. With the technological part, who's to say that streaming (at least as we know it now) will continue to be popular several decades from now, and why would this technology be seen as especially more groundbreaking than other forms, such as the CD or digital downloads? I would say though that your argument about the streaming era possibly being the start of something revolutionary is stronger than your argument about Drake being the start of something revolutionary. He is currently the biggest artist right now, but there doesn't seem to be anything stylistically revolutionary or genre-changing about his music. You might as well point to other artists this decade who were equally as big as Drake is now at their peaks, such as Lady Gaga or Taylor Swift. If there is one genre that I would say is a major game-changer this decade, it would be EDM, but there doesn't seem to be any huge artist to usher in this era the way Elvis did with rock 'n roll in the late '50s.

[willapted33]

May 28, 2018 12:03:35 GMT -5 @pete said:

Couldn’t find a thread for Lucid Dreams. I hope it becomes a big hit.

pulsemusic.proboards.com/threads/recent/176139

ahem

[jebsib]

Elvis was big due to image, charisma, and that he harnessed the feeling of Rock n Roll by putting the first real face to it.
Drake has kind of done that with this modern Hip Hop, right?

He's even created the "Drake sound", so pervasive at Urban and Rhythmic over the years and latched onto by Post and to a degree Migos.
Was that 'sound' popular prior to "Take Care"?

I resisted at first, but given his insane number of chart entries, pervasive presence and sustained longevity, he kind of is Elvis.

However, I would say that his RELATIVE shortcomings at CHR have kept him from being as much of a national household name (culturally).

[Harx]

Was't today a Monday? What's up with the top 10 not being revealed? Is it a Holiday in the US?

[ListenToItTwice]

May 28, 2018 16:38:49 GMT -5 Harx said:

Was't today a Monday? What's up with the top 10 not being revealed? Is it a Holiday in the US?

It is! Memorial Day :)

[Sherane Lamar]

May 28, 2018 16:11:36 GMT -5 85la said:

May 27, 2018 15:02:28 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

I think Drake will be seen like Elvis decades from now.

For the last few decades, we've generally treated the late 1950's as the "beginning of the modern music industry". And ignore people like Bing Crosby when doing stats.

I think once we're several decades into a streaming-only industry, we will look back at the 2010's as the "beginning of the modern music industry" and Drake as the artist who dominated the time period the same way Elvis dominated 1958-1963.

I'm not sure if there's anything particularly special at this point in time that would signify it as the beginning of a "new age of the modern music industry." It's easy to point to any current time one is living in and to the biggest artist of the day and say that it's the beginning of a "new era," but this lacks the perspective of history and a true frame of reference.

But I think you bring up two different points here: the growth of a new technological way of consuming music and the growth in popularity of a new style or genre(s) of music. With the technological part, who's to say that streaming (at least as we know it now) will continue to be popular several decades from now, and why would this technology be seen as especially more groundbreaking than other forms, such as the CD or digital downloads? I would say though that your argument about the streaming era possibly being the start of something revolutionary is stronger than your argument about Drake being the start of something revolutionary. He is currently the biggest artist right now, but there doesn't seem to be anything stylistically revolutionary or genre-changing about his music. You might as well point to other artists this decade who were equally as big as Drake is now at their peaks, such as Lady Gaga or Taylor Swift. If there is one genre that I would say is a major game-changer this decade, it would be EDM, but there doesn't seem to be any huge artist to usher in this era the way Elvis did with rock 'n roll in the late '50s.

The entire 60 year history of the Hot 100 has been devoted to reconciling the inherent differences between sales and radio. Now, both of those components will soon be dead. Mere changes in physical hardware can't compare to that level of impact. iTunes can't compare to that level of impact. I'd argue that even SoundScan doesn't compare to that level of impact. 

I don't see why anybody would have thought that CDs would be the final stop in technological progress. But what would replace streaming as a means of music consumption? Anything? Even Sci-Fi level?

I've yet to see anybody even come up with the idea of a future technology that could replace streaming. Surely, people from the 1950s could have wrapped their heads around the concept of a device that could play any song instantly. And a system that could measure how many times a song was played worldwide. Yet getting somebody to imagine a more efficient future technology that isn't streaming is like asking somebody to imagine a new color. 

That said, I agree with you that Elvis Presley changed things much more on a musical level. And that the late 1950s provided a change in style that accompanied the change in the industry. So far, streaming has also been accompanied by a major change in the style of music that is popular. However, most people believe that Hip-Hop's dominance will not be permanent, and that the styles of music that seem to be dying alongside radio and sales will soon make a comeback. And I don't disagree.

However, I also think it's a mistake to compare anyone other than Rihanna to Drake. As nobody else from this century really comes all that close to his level of industry dominance. Gaga may have been equally big in 09. That was relatively short lived compared to Drake. 

And neither Gaga or Taylor, or even Rihanna, completely dominate the format that will eventually become the default metric for musical popularity and success. 

[Gary]

For a period of time in the 60s and 70s - the Hot 100 top 50 was a sales only chart


I see the streaming business model evolving the same way that TV is


What started out as a come one come all at Netflix has become fragmented. Instead of the studios dumping everything into Netflix, many are developing their own streaming services. So to get access to the entire streaming market you could conceivable be paying 3 or 4 or more monthly fees

As the cost of streaming rise, music labels could follow suit

[KeepDeanWeird]

May 28, 2018 16:59:04 GMT -5 Gary said:

For a period of time in the 60s and 70s - the Hot 100 top 50 was a sales only chart


I see the streaming business model evolving the same way that TV is


What started out as a come one come all at Netflix has become fragmented. Instead of the studios dumping everything into Netflix, many are developing their own streaming services. So to get access to the entire streaming market you could conceivable be paying 3 or 4 or more monthly fees

As the cost of streaming rise, music labels could follow suit

Yep. Just like Disney/ABC is slowly pulling content from Netflix prior to launching its service in 2019, CBS launching CAA, Comcast's late bid to buy FOX has a lot to do with controlling Hulu, etc.

You've got 3 major labels accounting for almost 70% of market and independents the rest. It's conceivable Sony/Warner/Universal all starting their own streaming services instead of paying Apple/Spotify, etc. For those who are saying well I can't get X artist if I subscribe to X label's service, it's no different than not being able to get "This is Us" on Netflix or any of the CW shows on Hulu, etc.

[Deleted]

There a lot of drake jealousy in this thread, we get it you hate him, it doesn't mean you have to undermine his success every post

[𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿]

May 28, 2018 14:02:11 GMT -5 fernando4 said:

Are “Welcone to the Party” or “Ashes” not debuting!?

I'm still waiting for Ashes to debut, while Welcome To The Party can too. Lil Pump was awesome there.

[ur local neighborhood dbender]

Can I honestly say that I think The Middle will be #1 on radio songs this week? Obviously NBTS would be close behind but yeah that is my thought on that.

[renaboss]

May 28, 2018 17:43:22 GMT -5 @drakeisskinny said:

There a lot of drake jealousy in this thread, we get it you hate him, it doesn't mean you have to undermine his success every post

I think everyone's being pretty objective when referring to Drake, taking into account both his obvious success and, paradoxically enough, his relative obscurity, in the sense that he is ruling the music scene so much and yet somehow his name is just not "out there". Some argue that it will be eventually, that he will go down as a music legend in the same league as Elvis and the Beatles, others say he won't... time will tell.

[renaboss]

Off-topic, and I don't know if the name will mean anything to you guys, but I wonder how long - if ever - till Maluma has a big US hit. He's kind of huge in the latin music market, and that kind of music is experiencing a nice wave of success too.

[kanfad]

May 28, 2018 17:48:10 GMT -5 𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿 said:

May 28, 2018 14:02:11 GMT -5 fernando4 said:

Are “Welcone to the Party” or “Ashes” not debuting!?

I'm still waiting for Ashes to debut, while Welcome To The Party can too. Lil Pump was awesome there.

"Lil Pump" and "awesome" being used positively in a sentence. 2018 really wild
Guess I'll have to check out the song now

[owenlovesmusic]

Damn. It's crazy thinking Beatles, Elvis, and then Drake.

[Gary]

Elvis, Beatles, Drake - LOL

This means Drake > Michael Jackson, Madonna and all the others?

Drake's edge, the market allowed him to debut 20 singles at a time, the pre streaming artists did not have the same advantage

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Drake - 170 charting singles = 3 hits

[kindofbiased]

May 28, 2018 19:36:43 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

Drake - 170 charting singles = 3 hits

sure jan