Billboard Hot 100: 08/01/2020

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jul 27, 2020 15:43:08 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

Jul 27, 2020 15:27:06 GMT -5 Gary said:

Drakes records are like hitting home runs in baseball on steroids. Numbers are higher and more impressive but impossible to compare to others

Tell that to the people who feel like his achievements shouldn't count or matter at all like he didn't see success in both the digital era (the era he debuted in) and the streaming era. People will just have to keep being mad at his success, I guess. I even prefer it that way.

Oh we know. Tbh I’m not even sure if you like Drake for his music or for his chart achievements. Either way, never change :kii:

[𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿]

Jul 28, 2020 4:00:17 GMT -5 iamsorare said:

Jason Derulo closing to a Top 10 hit in 2020, let that sink in

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

A 6ix9ine-free Hot 100!

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jul 27, 2020 16:26:44 GMT -5 divasummer said:

Jul 27, 2020 13:11:18 GMT -5 Naos said:

I feel so old buying digital music. And CDs.

I feel old because I don't even think streaming music should be the same as buying it....
I feel like when I start streaming I probably won't feel the same about the song I "streamed" if I didn't buy it...
I felt the same way with digital over cd and ownership.
Perhaps I will get over it or just listen to the radio and get over music and stop stanning etc????
It's a weird time right now with music.

I feel the same. I FINALLY switched to streaming this year. I still buy my favourites on vinyl and have bought a few cds since as well but I’m limiting myself only to my favourites or albums I really enjoy.

As for the other discussion, I do agree that streaming doesn’t equal buying, but I think we’ve lived with charts that measure sales for so long, it’s all we’ve known and all we’ve used to measure popularity and success. Yet, a person can only buy an album once (99.9% of the time) whereas a song/album can be streamed for weeks or months after so I do think streaming has a better chance at capturing what people like and listen to. But its reach so far is still so limited that it’s imbalanced and I think still has a lot of bugs to work out.

And also, when we look at records like most chart hits and most top tens, those are going to be great achievements no matter how we look at them. I think the reason why many (or at least why I) don’t consider Drake’s achievement to be as extraordinary as it would be on paper is because of what didn’t count before. Drake earned his numbers. No doubt about that. But he earned them in a time that allowed them to be earned. Adele, Britney, Mariah, Michael, Bee Gees, whoever - they had major albums and major eras but only their singles counted toward their totals. I know I know, if ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, but I’ve no doubt in my mind that the numbers totals for many of these past artists would be much much higher if the landscape were like it was now. With that said, Drake’s output was also much higher so I’m sure he’d still be among the record holders regardless so maybe it’s a moot point. I guess my point is, it’s less impressive when there are fewer restrictions that allow it to happen.

[Enigma.]

In retrospect, crazy that Swalla wasn't a top ten or even a top 20 hit in the US. Reached #6 in the UK.

[GP]

Jul 28, 2020 7:52:26 GMT -5 𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿 said:

Jul 28, 2020 4:00:17 GMT -5 iamsorare said:

Jason Derulo closing to a Top 10 hit in 2020, let that sink in

it's been sinking in for a while now, it's been huge WW

[thegreatdivine]

Rose "Payola" Nylund I have no idea why you mentioned Adele with the rest of those names. She released her first album in 2008. Drake released his first album 2 years later.

Adele doesn't release music as frequently as Drake does. She has released 3 albums since 2008. That's 3 albums in 12 years. Of course she won't have that many top 10 hits when compared to another artist who not only releases a lot of solo music, but appears on a ton of features as well. This is how it seems like when pop stans complain about rappers scoring a lot of hot 100 entries? Why wouldn't they? With the amount of music they release compared to pop stars? I'm always lost when I see arguments like that.

It's never just as simple as saying "he earned his numbers in a time that allowed them to be earned." As true as that is, he has a lot of peers who release a lot more music than he does who don't have his achievements.

Also, that point can be related back to the '50's - '90's when acts who knew they could move a lot of album units would drop 5 albums a year. That's something the Beatles took advantage of in their 7-year run. Yet, none of their achievements are frowned upon. What's the difference between that and what Drake/other rappers are doing now?

The Beatles and other acts who knew they could sell a ton of albums took advantage of that by releasing a ton of music they know would be mostly successful. That earned them millions of albums sold and a ton of hit singles. Nowadays, under a new methodology and with album sales mostly dead in the water, a successful artist releasing music that frequently will score a ton of Hot 100 entries and a lot more hit singles. Yet, people like you, who are a fan of that era of music, have the most to say about the streaming era, forgetting that the music industry is cyclical in nature and everything that's happening now has happened before in some shape or form.

Not that any of that even matters. If these records were so easy to break, a lot more people would be breaking them. All people need to do is just give a successful, dominant and consistent artist his credit during HIS time the same way people did for other acts during their time. It shouldn't be THAT HARD to do. Jesus.

[Gary]

Beatles released 5 albums a year in their 7 year run? - did not know that


Drake is certainly one of the biggest artist of the streaming/digital era - obvious, we all know that

Drake's numbers in most categories have topped everyone that came before.  Partly due to Drake being as big as Drake is.  Partly due to drastically different markets

Is Drake the greatest artist who ever lived?  Bigger than the Beatles or <insert artist here>

That is for you to decide.

We all know how big Drake is /was/has been  --- reminding us in every post is probably why you are getting a little pushback -- just sayin

[thegreatdivine]

Jul 28, 2020 8:39:09 GMT -5 Gary said:

Beatles released 5 albums a year in their 7 year run? - did not know that

STUDIO ALBUMS
1963 - 2
1964 - 9
1965 - 5
1966 - 2
1967 - 2
1968 - 1
1969 - 2
1970 - 1

COMPLIATION ALBUMS
1964 - 6
1965 - 6
1966 - 2
1967 - 2
1968 - 0
1969 - 1
1970 - 3

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jul 28, 2020 8:23:18 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

Rose "Payola" Nylund I have no idea why you mentioned Adele with the rest of those names. She released her first album in 2008. Drake released his first album 2 years later.

Adele doesn't release music as frequently as Drake does. She has released 3 albums since 2008. That's 3 albums in 12 years. Of course she won't have that many top 10 hits when compared to another artist who not only releases a lot of solo music, but appears on a ton of features as well. This is how it seems like when pop stans complain about rappers scoring a lot of hot 100 entries? Why wouldn't they? With the amount of music they release compared to pop stars? I'm always lost when I see arguments like that.

Sorry, yes, that’s a fair point. I mentioned Adele kind of reflex because last year when the record was most songs in the top ten or something, i think when Ariana did it. I always think about Adele and her domination during 21 and 25 and how I could see the entirety of 25 charting in the top 20 if physical sales were treated the same as digital streams.

Jul 28, 2020 8:23:18 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

It's never just as simple as saying "he earned his numbers in a time that allowed them to be earned." As true as that is, he has a lot of peers who release a lot more music than he does who don't have his achievements.

Also, that point can be related back to the '50's - '90's when acts who knew they could move a lot of album units would drop 5 albums a year. That's something the Beatles took advantage of in their 7-year run. Yet, none of their achievements are frowned upon. What's the difference between that and what Drake/other rappers are doing now?

While you’re right Drake has peers with as much output as him who don’t chart as much, that’s impressive. And I should stress that his achievements are impressive, and I’ve said it before, they are, but context is where I jump in. The Beatles were still limited by the singles requirement. As was Michael Jackson, and Mariah, and Madonna, and other big names over the years who both moved albums but also moved singles consistently for years. Today the Hot 100 includes album-streams because the line between singles and albums have blurred due to streaming. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes. If the goal is accuracy, this way is closer. But that line was there and clear before streaming and it’s what kept the numbers where they were for everyone before last decade. So when I say he earned them in a time that allowed them to be earned. That’s what I meant.

How many album tracks between Like A Virgin and Music would Madonna have added to her hot 100 total if there had been a way to incorporate music consumption through album sales back then the way it is now? We don’t know, but as much as we acknowledge Drake’s achievements, and yes they are incredible achievements that shouldn’t be dismissed, they are what they are because they’re being compared to everyone else that came before. But when we compare to everyone else, we have to also acknowledge and compare what the landscape was then to now.

[thegreatdivine]

Jul 28, 2020 8:39:09 GMT -5 Gary said:

Beatles released 5 albums a year in their 7 year run? - did not know that


Drake is certainly one of the biggest artist of the streaming/digital era - obvious, we all know that

Drake's numbers in most categories have topped everyone that came before. Partly due to Drake being as big as Drake is. Partly due to drastically different markets

Is Drake the greatest artist who ever lived? Bigger than the Beatles or <insert artist here>

That is for you to decide.

We all know how big Drake is /was/has been --- reminding us in every post is probably why you are getting a little pushback -- just sayin

I don't think he's bigger/more popular or even generally more successful than the Beatles or Michael Jackson or most of the acts who dominated 60/50/40/30 years ago.

Many of those acts had careers that lasted several decades. Drake is only 11 years in and no one knows how long he'll remain successful.

We all know that the current methodology Billboard uses is what allows Drake and a lot of other acts break some of the records they do. My thing is that why can't people simply acknowledge an artist being successful in their time and leave it at that. That's like undermining the achievements of an artist who was dominant in the digital era and saying "well, now people can just click on a link and buy songs/albums but in my time, they had to physically go to stores to buy them so they mean more!" It's a lazy way of thinking. And I don't think this has been said at all/enough times, but every era of music (consumption) had it's advantages/disadvantages and had it's group of artists who were successful/who weren't.

[Gary]

Jul 28, 2020 8:48:33 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

Jul 28, 2020 8:39:09 GMT -5 Gary said:

Beatles released 5 albums a year in their 7 year run? - did not know that

STUDIO ALBUMS
1963 - 2
1964 - 9
1965 - 5
1966 - 2
1967 - 2
1968 - 1
1969 - 2
1970 - 1

COMPLIATION ALBUMS
1964 - 6
1965 - 6
1966 - 2
1967 - 2
1968 - 0
1969 - 1
1970 - 3

I know you are quoting wikipedia but you might want to research those numbers a bit

Multiple labels had rights to the Beatles early recordings and rushed to get anything and everything out to market to cash in

One particular example that wikipedia lists as a Beatles album

Jolly What! England's Greatest Recording Stars: The Beatles and Frank Ifield on Stage

Here is the tracklist

Track listing
Applies to both original ("Jolly What!") and reissued version ("The Beatles & Frank Ifield on Stage" with picture of Beatles on front).[3][4][5]

Side 1[5][6]

"Please Please Me" – The Beatles
"Anytime" – Frank Ifield
"Lovesick Blues" – Frank Ifield
"I'm Smiling Now" – Frank Ifield
"Nobody's Darling" – Frank Ifield
"From Me to You" – The Beatles
Side 2[5][7]

"I Remember You" – Frank Ifield
"Ask Me Why" – The Beatles
"Thank You Girl" – The Beatles
"The Wayward Wind" – Frank Ifield
"Unchained Melody" – Frank Ifield
"I Listen to My Heart" – Frank Ifield



Not really a Beatles album - and not something the Beatles themselves released - there are lots of other examples

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

And I know this probably makes me look like a bitter Betty who’s stuck living in the past. I promise, it’s not even that. While I don’t care for Drake’s music for the most part, I can’t ignore that he clearly is a hit maker who has connected with an audience. He’s also not the only one who can rack up hits and obviously the record books are going to change. I admit Drake is an easy target because of the defensiveness lol, but for me it’s less about Drake and more about how the achievements and records are often presented by Billboard and other sources themselves. It’s that the missing line between albums and singles that I think remains Billboard’s biggest fault. Obviously they can’t change the past and how things were tabulated, nor can they change how people listen to music today or in the future, but it’s something that needs to be acknowledged or given context. With as much accuracy as the chart has now, it exposes and highlights how inaccurate and limited Billboard’s own measurements during previous chart eras really were. An album with an explosive first week today can have an album bomb, as it should. An album with an explosive first week before last decade couldn’t. So an artist with dozens or hundreds of songs charting on the Hot 100 since 2013 have that because of the landscape of how music is consumed and how Billboard measures it, not because their album tracks are listened to more than all the songs from Oops I Did It Again, No Strings Attached, 21, The Eminem Show, and whatever other albums had big first weeks were. General overall achievements as presented by Billboard made today are done so because they can be measured, not necessarily because they are new (with the exception of steaming-specific records of course).

[Enigma.]

Every time I see a lengthy post by thegreatdivine, I hear Look What You Made Me Do in my head

--

On a serious note, I wouldn't be against Hot 100 having a 5-track cap for album bombs. We all know that longer the album is, the more "hits" it'll produce for charts (see Juice Wrld two weeks ago).

[strongerq]

Jul 28, 2020 9:13:41 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

Every time I see a lengthy post by thegreatdivine, I hear Look What You Made Me Do in my head

--

On a serious note, I wouldn't be against Hot 100 having a 5-track cap for album bombs. We all know that longer the album is, the more "hits" it'll produce for charts (see Juice Wrld two weeks ago).

NO, NO, NO and NOO.

Why should we go back 10-20 years and have less accurate charts than today ?

What people don't understand is: THIS IS A WEEKLY CHART. It is supposed to represent the 100 most "popular" songs by Billboard methodology THAT WEEK.

Everyone here will tell you that last weeks chart is more accurate than a random chart in 2005 for example. So why should we go back in the dark ages with more inaccurate charts ? ?

Edit: Peaking at #10 and spending 3 weeks on chart DOES NOT MAKE A SONG A HIT.

[Enigma.]

That cap wouldn't make it very inaccurate as for instance Juice WRLD would have those five top ten "hits" and Righteous peaking at 11 from his album. What more he achieves with Titanic peaking at #14 and spending two weeks in comparing to acts that are struggling to chart in the first place?

[slw84]

Jul 27, 2020 18:39:29 GMT -5 wavey. said:

I mean the career he has now after all of that isn't bad at all. He was just chillin with Drake in the Top 10 not too long ago, and now he's right in it.

True; however this is without industry backing.
imagine him having the backing. He would have a 300M grossing tour, movie hits, 15 #1s, at least a 5x platinum album if not diamond (it took Usher a few albums to reach his) etc.

I'm no fan of Chris but this proves his power without industry backing. It's just a shame his bad decisions really cost him mega success. For now, good for him to get this top 10 hit. I hear it's a good song.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jul 28, 2020 9:52:01 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

That cap wouldn't make it very inaccurate as for instance Juice WRLD would have those five top ten "hits" and Righteous peaking at 11 from his album. What more he achieves with Titanic peaking at #14 and spending two weeks in comparing to acts that are struggling to chart in the first place?

Any sort of artificial cap, whether it’s an arbitrary 5-song-per-album rule or a 26-weeks-on recurrent rule weakens the chart. The recurrent rule has logic behind it. A 5 song cap doesn’t really.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

Jul 28, 2020 4:20:24 GMT -5 Naos said:

Bubbling Under:
1. Kygo & Tina Turner - What's Love Got to Do With It (debut)

Damn. I really wanted that song to make the Hot 100. But J. Cole's late in the tracking week song release prevented that.

[Gary]

Unless it grows at radio - won't chart now

[shaz196]

Jul 28, 2020 9:52:01 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

That cap wouldn't make it very inaccurate as for instance Juice WRLD would have those five top ten "hits" and Righteous peaking at 11 from his album. What more he achieves with Titanic peaking at #14 and spending two weeks in comparing to acts that are struggling to chart in the first place?

An artificial cap would absolutely make the chart less accurate, as strongerq said the Hot 100 is a week-by-week chart and should display what the most popular songs of any given week are. We can all distinguish between a song with a high peak because of an album bomb and a legitimate hit...plus there's already a chart that measures longevity and that's the Year-end chart.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

^If I'm not mistaken, that would have been the first time that Tina Turner would have in the Hot 100 since 1996. Amazing to think she first charted there with Ike in 1960.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

[strongerq]

Ok, this is for some people who don't understand what is a hit. Billboard uses inverse point system to determine the biggest hits of all time. So lets use it to see an album bomb "hits" vs a real hit. Here is the result for Lil Uzi Vert (32 songs) vs 1 single from Harry Styles.

Song	Points
Adore You	342,158
Lil Uzi Vert (32 songs)	256,781
The songs:	/
Baby Pluto	32,144
Lo Mein	27,088
Silly Watch	24,320
P2	16,016
That Way	21,920
Homecoming	6,688
Prices	5,760
POP	4,480
Bigger Than Life	3,760
Celebration Station	3,680
You Better Move	3,520
I'm Sorry	3,440
Venetia	3,280
Chrome Heart Tags	2,800
Futsal Shuffle 2020	50,431
Bust Me	2,320
Secure The Bag	1,056
Urgency	928
Myron	15,584
Bean (Kobe)	7,424
Yessirskii	5,552
Lotus	2,800
Wassup	2,080
Strawberry Peels	1,600
Moon Relate	1,504
I Can Show You	1,312
Trap This Way (This Way)	1,216
Leaders	1,056
No Auto	928
Come This Way	752
Get The Guap	688
Money Spread	656

Now someone will be like: "How can Adore you have the same weekly peak (#6) as Baby Pluto (#6). Keyword is WEEKLY. During the BB chart week 21-Mar-20, Lil Uzi Vert had an highly anticipated album, and really huge amount of people "consumed" the song. Did it deserve the #6 peak that week ? - Absolutely. Did 'Adore You' deserver higher WEEKLY peak than #6 ? - Based on performance and charting methodology at the time - NO (personal preferences aside).

[shayonce]

chart always had its own agenda and purpose with different way of counting, measuring, compiling,
I do like cap rule as random non single appearing for 1 week and bombing whole top100 is ridiculous
also Hot100 as single chart, having 5 cap doesn't really make chart less accurate for "single" chart.
I guess it's depends on how you view the hot 100 chart, there's room for interpretation.

[fhas]

Jul 28, 2020 11:43:32 GMT -5 strongerq said:

Now someone will be like: "How can Adore you have the same weekly peak (#6) as Baby Pluto (#6). Keyword is WEEKLY. During the BB chart week 21-Mar-20, Lil Uzi Vert had an highly anticipated album, and really huge amount of people "consumed" the song. Did it deserve the #6 peak that week ? - Absolutely. Did 'Adore You' deserver higher WEEKLY peak than #6 ? - Based on performance and charting methodology at the time - NO (personal preferences aside).

Also... Baby Pluto's peak in "real" points: 28,500. AY's peak: 23,400.

Don't waste your time and your high IQ with some people here.

[Enigma.]

How nicely put!

[drakefanovo]

Drake has near 60 million current monthly listeners on Spotify and probably near that on Apple Music not counting any of the other streaming platforms. If people still bought albums you don’t think he could pull 2-3 million first week with ease in the U.S.?

[Choco]

Y'all need to take a deep breath.

[85la]

Jul 28, 2020 8:57:29 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Jul 28, 2020 8:23:18 GMT -5 thegreatdivine said:

It's never just as simple as saying "he earned his numbers in a time that allowed them to be earned." As true as that is, he has a lot of peers who release a lot more music than he does who don't have his achievements.

Also, that point can be related back to the '50's - '90's when acts who knew they could move a lot of album units would drop 5 albums a year. That's something the Beatles took advantage of in their 7-year run. Yet, none of their achievements are frowned upon. What's the difference between that and what Drake/other rappers are doing now?

While you’re right Drake has peers with as much output as him who don’t chart as much, that’s impressive. And I should stress that his achievements are impressive, and I’ve said it before, they are, but context is where I jump in. The Beatles were still limited by the singles requirement. As was Michael Jackson, and Mariah, and Madonna, and other big names over the years who both moved albums but also moved singles consistently for years. Today the Hot 100 includes album-streams because the line between singles and albums have blurred due to streaming. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes. If the goal is accuracy, this way is closer. But that line was there and clear before streaming and it’s what kept the numbers where they were for everyone before last decade. So when I say he earned them in a time that allowed them to be earned. That’s what I meant.

How many album tracks between Like A Virgin and Music would Madonna have added to her hot 100 total if there had been a way to incorporate music consumption through album sales back then the way it is now? We don’t know, but as much as we acknowledge Drake’s achievements, and yes they are incredible achievements that shouldn’t be dismissed, they are what they are because they’re being compared to everyone else that came before. But when we compare to everyone else, we have to also acknowledge and compare what the landscape was then to now.

I think this aspect is the most compelling point of Rose's argument, that because these artists also released so many albums that sold so well, they surely would've charted many more songs on the Hot 100 if they were allowed/if there was some way to measure it as they are today, maybe not so much adding to their top 10 total, but especially their top 40/overall Hot 100 total, so in that regard, today's artists do in fact have a clear advantage and it is misleading. This is clear if you look at the artists who have charted the most overall Hot 100 hits, with over 100/200+ entries. Most of them have done so in the past 10-15 year short time span when this was possible with the digital/streaming age.

And because of this, I would disagree and say that album tracks, especially from first week bombs, should be limited somehow, because it CAN VERY REASONABLY BE CONCLUDED (trying to phrase that appropriately) that this just reflects interest in the album, as would be the case if you were one of the 1 million+ people who bought a Britney or *NSYNC record first week back in the day, and it doesn't really reflect any special fan interest in a particular song that gets zero radio play or any type of special focus or promotion. As to what limitations should be placed on these album cuts, I'm not quite sure yet, but to say that absolutely nothing should be done because it would make the charts inaccurate isn't a valid argument and is an extreme all-or-nothing statement, because there are already many limitations that make the chart "less accurate," and that don't truly reflect the straight-up "top 100 most popular or consumed" songs from week to week, especially regarding recurrency rules. If it were, we would have multiple songs clogging especially the lower regions of the charts for years probably.