Billboard Hot 100: 3/16/2019

[wavey.]

Mar 11, 2019 12:30:35 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

Soo what happened to Thotiana?

It thotted.

[Deleted]

So Lady Gaga gets a #1 last week, only to be replaced by the Jonas Brothers. Have I taken a time warp back to 2009? Are the Black Eyed Peas gonna be #1 later this year?

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

^^Thotiana only had risen to the top 10 the week before due to the release of its video and remixes. It might have a chance to re-enter the next few weeks as older songs drop out.

[rimetm]

Mar 11, 2019 12:38:48 GMT -5 Gary said:

Jonas Brothers are the second group in a lead role to debut at #1 (Aerosmith)

They're also the first group to do it upon release of the song, unlike Aerosmith. The radio push for "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" started in late May of 1998, with the song at #2 on Radio Songs the week prior to its Hot 100 (and CD/cassette single) debut.

(I still don't understand why Billboard counts all the debuts that were due to the must-have-a-physical-single rule, which is all 10 of them prior to the rule change since they were all at least top 40 on radio prior to their debuts, and yet doesn't count I'm Your Angel despite being in the same scenario.) 

[eidde]

Sicko Mode getting more weeks in the top 10 than Smooth is exactly why we have multipliers.

[Gary]

Mar 11, 2019 12:51:05 GMT -5 rimetm said:

Mar 11, 2019 12:38:48 GMT -5 Gary said:

Jonas Brothers are the second group in a lead role to debut at #1 (Aerosmith)

They're also the first group to do it upon release of the song, unlike Aerosmith. The radio push for "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" started in late May of 1998, with the song at #2 on Radio Songs the week prior to its Hot 100 (and CD/cassette single) debut.

(I still don't understand why Billboard counts all the debuts that were due to the must-have-a-physical-single rule, which is all 10 of them prior to the rule change since they were all at least top 40 on radio prior to their debuts, and yet doesn't count I'm Your Angel despite being in the same scenario.) 

Appearance on the test chart (published in the magazine under LW column)
So ruled a 46-1 jump to #1 rather than a #1 debut

Either way #1

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Imagine if Backstreet Boys randomly hit #1. I suppose it’d be more realistic if N Sync did since they haven’t released a song at all since 2001 so theirs would actually be a return - though if their reunions at award shows over the years are any indication, would people be here for them?

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Mar 11, 2019 12:57:21 GMT -5 Gary said:

Mar 11, 2019 12:51:05 GMT -5 rimetm said:

They're also the first group to do it upon release of the song, unlike Aerosmith. The radio push for "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" started in late May of 1998, with the song at #2 on Radio Songs the week prior to its Hot 100 (and CD/cassette single) debut.

(I still don't understand why Billboard counts all the debuts that were due to the must-have-a-physical-single rule, which is all 10 of them prior to the rule change since they were all at least top 40 on radio prior to their debuts, and yet doesn't count I'm Your Angel despite being in the same scenario.) 

Appearance on the test chart (published in the magazine under LW column)
So ruled a 46-1 jump to #1 rather than a #1 debut

Either way #1

But the test chart doesn’t count in Billboard’s official chart records.

I’d say this is a situation where we can say I’m Your Angel technically debuted at #1 and it can’t be argued with. It’s all in how you choose to use the information Billboard provides.

[Gary]

Mar 11, 2019 13:01:00 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Mar 11, 2019 12:57:21 GMT -5 Gary said:

Appearance on the test chart (published in the magazine under LW column)
So ruled a 46-1 jump to #1 rather than a #1 debut

Either way #1

But the test chart doesn’t count in Billboard’s official chart records.

I’d say this is a situation where we can say I’m Your Angel technically debuted at #1 and it can’t be argued with. It’s all in how you choose to use the information Billboard provides.

I guess it depends on what you count as "Billboard official chart records"

On the 12-5-1998 chart published in the magazine
The R. Kelly song is listed as 46 to 1 in its 6th chart week

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Mar 11, 2019 13:06:51 GMT -5 Gary said:

Mar 11, 2019 13:01:00 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

But the test chart doesn’t count in Billboard’s official chart records.

I’d say this is a situation where we can say I’m Your Angel technically debuted at #1 and it can’t be argued with. It’s all in how you choose to use the information Billboard provides.

I guess it depends on what you count as "Billboard official chart records"

On the 12-5-1998 chart published in the magazine
The R. Kelly song is listed as 46 to 1 in its 6th chart week

And on the 11-28-1998 chart published in the magazine, the R. Kelly song is nowhere to be found.

[Gary]

Was written up in the magazine at the time the biggest jump to #1 ever (obviously broken many times over since)

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Yet was the first hot 100 appearance it had.

[Gary]

Mar 11, 2019 13:10:07 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Mar 11, 2019 13:06:51 GMT -5 Gary said:

I guess it depends on what you count as "Billboard official chart records"

On the 12-5-1998 chart published in the magazine
The R. Kelly song is listed as 46 to 1 in its 6th chart week

And on the 11-28-1998 chart published in the magazine, the R. Kelly song is nowhere to be found.

Not gonna argue.

on the 12-5-98 chart the song was listed in its 6th chart week in the magazine

In my opinion, I would start with the magazine as the source for the "Billboard official chart records"

What you use as "Billboard official chart records" is up to you


Long ago ruled by Billboard as a JUMP TO #1 rather than a debut. If you choose to view it differently, up to you.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Mar 11, 2019 13:13:55 GMT -5 Gary said:

In my opinion, I would start with the magazine as the source for the "Billboard official chart records"

Which is exactly what I’m doing.

My point is, neither is necessarily wrong and cases can be made for both points. Obviously Billboard is presenting its information the way it chooses to for whatever its reasoning is. But for someone going week-to-week, it’s not wrong to say that I’m Your Angel made its first chart appearance at #1. Whether Billboard recognizes it as a number one debut is up to them. Personally, I think it’s an unfair manipulation of facts that they choose not to, as if they’re covering up for their own inaccuracy by saying a “test chart” holds more weight than the published chart. That’s the only opinion I have. Everything else is based on my interpretation of facts.

At the very least, it’s deserving of an asterisk.

[jenglisbe]

Mar 11, 2019 12:51:05 GMT -5 rimetm said:

Mar 11, 2019 12:38:48 GMT -5 Gary said:

Jonas Brothers are the second group in a lead role to debut at #1 (Aerosmith)

They're also the first group to do it upon release of the song, unlike Aerosmith. The radio push for "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" started in late May of 1998, with the song at #2 on Radio Songs the week prior to its Hot 100 (and CD/cassette single) debut.

(I still don't understand why Billboard counts all the debuts that were due to the must-have-a-physical-single rule, which is all 10 of them prior to the rule change since they were all at least top 40 on radio prior to their debuts, and yet doesn't count I'm Your Angel despite being in the same scenario.) 

Well, didn't the Hot 100 the week of the change (when "IYA" was #1) include the weeks from the test chart in the "weeks on" total? So, "IYA" had more than 1 week at that point, even though its first position was #1. It was a weird rule, in a sense, but I also get their point because it was a new form of charting.

[divasummer]

Mar 9, 2019 14:56:52 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

Mar 9, 2019 13:40:40 GMT -5 Night Senses said:

I would argue that his last album was his second consecutive body of trash. The follow up to the first part of The 20/06 Experience was terrible. And no, that wasn’t a typo.

I wouldn't go as far as calling the part 2 of the 20/20 experience TRASH, but it definitely didn't hold a candle to the first and it was a mostly forgettable sequel. I'll agree with you. He's now released two "bad" albums.

Opinions are a funny thing because I felt Justin could have kept his "Suit and Tie" along with most of his artsy cd.
However I enjoyed a decent amount of part 2.
(I own them both) I am a fan.

[Gary]

Mar 11, 2019 13:19:49 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Mar 11, 2019 13:13:55 GMT -5 Gary said:

In my opinion, I would start with the magazine as the source for the "Billboard official chart records"

Which is exactly what I’m doing.

My point is, neither is necessarily wrong and cases can be made for both points. Obviously Billboard is presenting its information the way it chooses to for whatever its reasoning is. But for someone going week-to-week, it’s not wrong to say that I’m Your Angel made its first chart appearance at #1. Whether Billboard recognizes it as a number one debut is up to them. Personally, I think it’s an unfair manipulation of facts that they choose not to, as if they’re covering up for their own inaccuracy by saying a “test chart” holds more weight than the published chart. That’s the only opinion I have. Everything else is based on my interpretation of facts.

At the very least, it’s deserving of an asterisk.

With the big emphasis on "Billboard Official Chart Records" that is what it is.

Users of those records are free to interpret them as they see fit.

They did some good writeups in the magazine at the time.

I do actually acknowledge that asterisk in this thread though

pulsemusic.proboards.com/thread/175470/songs-debut-1?page=1

The chart I posted doesn't reflect the 46-1 jump because it came from the .biz database. But the magazine itself tells a different story. It was at the time the biggest jump to #1 in history

[Gary]

And besides would the PC police even allow us to talk about an R. Kelly song anymore? - LOL

[Zach]

Nice. Congrats to the Jo Bros.

[Leo ✔]

If somebody would've told me about a Jonas Brothers' song being #1 in 2019 I would've laughed in the face. Congrats I guess

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Mar 11, 2019 13:29:29 GMT -5 Gary said:

And besides would the PC police even allow us to talk about an R. Kelly song anymore? - LOL

🙄

[jebsib]

Even Billboard vacilated on the issue of "I'm Your Angel". Chartbeat on 12/5/98 said the song ascended 46 to #1 (with an asterisk), but included it as a debut years later online. The chart manager that week (the Gary Trust of that day) said: "If a single was already on the Hot 100 before the inclusion of airplay-only titles (IYA wasn't), the chart histories for those singles will be linked to their performances on the published charts." So no wonder we all still question it.

[Gary]

But things seemed to have settled

www.billboard.com/photos/426225/billboard-hot-100-number-1-song-debuts

[iHype.]

Mar 11, 2019 13:59:13 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Even Billboard vacilated on the issue of "I'm Your Angel". Chartbeat on 12/5/98 said the song ascended 46 to #1 (with an asterisk), but included it as a debut years later online. The chart manager that week (the Gary Trust of that day) said: "If a single was already on the Hot 100 before the inclusion of airplay-only titles (IYA wasn't), the chart histories for those singles will be linked to their performances on the published charts." So no wonder we all still question it.

I think its just simply inconsistency. If it was today, it'd be regarded as a #1 debut.

Harlem Shake was regarded as a #1 debut, when it debuted atop Hot 100 due to YouTube being included. However I'm sure on a previous week test chart with YouTube it would've already been charting. 

Billboard never specified how many streams it had the previous week, however when you consider it was #1 on streams with 103 million and the #2 had only 10 million streams, it more than likely had a good amount the previous week too.

Streaming numbers were so low then. You probably could've charted on Hot 100 with just 5 million streams. I doubt Harlem Shake had below 5 million the previous week.

[korbel16]

When was Harlem shake’s peak tho? Before it was charting or while it was charting?

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2019 14:40:18 GMT -5 korbel16 said:

When was Harlem shake’s peak tho? Before it was charting or while it was charting?

Of course while it was charting. It didn't chart on Digital Song Sales at all, for example, until dat 103m week.
Looks like Billboard included the youtube in just the right week

[wavey.]

Mar 11, 2019 14:40:18 GMT -5 korbel16 said:

When was Harlem shake’s peak tho? Before it was charting or while it was charting?

It debuted at #1, but climbed to #1 to Dance/Electronic.

[Gary]

Or maybe the unpublished test charts. Unlike the 1998 change, the 2013 change didn't give a hint as to what those were

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2019 14:07:25 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Mar 11, 2019 13:59:13 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Streaming numbers were so low then. You probably could've charted on Hot 100 with just 5 million streams. I doubt Harlem Shake had below 5 million the previous week.

You could've charted on Hot 100 with just a little over 1 million streams in 2013.

Harlem Shake's numbers were the weirdest thing on Hot 100 this decade... It's like its streaming number's supposed to be from 2018, but it's hit by a time-traveling warping device beforehand to 2013.

It'll be so awesome if a song can pull an era-warping anomaly this year and sell 5 million+ copies and be year-end top 5 by sales number alone. Shallow who?

[wjr15]

Congrats to the Jonas Brothers! I would'be never expected them to be at #1 on the Hot 100 before last week. I guess it goes to show you that anyone can have a comeback. (Gaga's return to #1 last week is further proof).

Also, it's nice to see Pop returning to the top of the Hot 100 this year. 5 #1's this year and all are pop songs.