Billboard Hot 100: 09/05/2020

[Au$tin]

Y'all really just want to argue and nitpick on everything, huh?

My point was that #1 for 100 weeks just because it was a moderate mainstream hit that currently only gets small amounts of airplay, streams, and sales points to the Christian music market being tiny. That's all. We really don't need to have an argument over how big "You Say" was. Jesus.

[renfield75]

Sept 1, 2020 19:04:45 GMT -5 85la said:

Aug 31, 2020 20:12:09 GMT -5 renfield75 said:

As has happened with albums and movies over the years, it kinda makes sense that songs will become front loaded too. An event single with maximum viral hype and looking for #1 doesn't need or care about longevity, and they don't need radio or sustained streaming/sales if they can be big enough that first week. 6ix9ine got his number one hit, he didn't care if it spent 47 weeks in the top 20.

Not really sure if I agree, that doesn't really make sense from a revenue standpoint. Yes, this is becoming more of the case, that labels are caring more and more about debut peaks, but of course ongoing streams, airplay, etc., over many weeks and months will lead to FAR more exposure that will drive album sales and other sources of revenue than any one week could. A #1 is a good selling point, but unless it actually leads to more sales, it is useless, unless the artist/label cares solely about bragging rights of the #1 in itself.

They can still do that with albums for major artists. Folklore has been #1 for 5 weeks even though Cardigan has plummeted after entering at #1. I'm sure they'd love Cardigan to linger forever but that doesn't seem to be the priority. Maybe short-sighted in the long run but then the industry has a looooong history of being short-sighted. Look how long it took them to embrace digital sales and streaming.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 1, 2020 19:04:45 GMT -5 85la said:

Aug 31, 2020 20:12:09 GMT -5 renfield75 said:

As has happened with albums and movies over the years, it kinda makes sense that songs will become front loaded too. An event single with maximum viral hype and looking for #1 doesn't need or care about longevity, and they don't need radio or sustained streaming/sales if they can be big enough that first week. 6ix9ine got his number one hit, he didn't care if it spent 47 weeks in the top 20.

Not really sure if I agree, that doesn't really make sense from a revenue standpoint. Yes, this is becoming more of the case, that labels are caring more and more about debut peaks, but of course ongoing streams, airplay, etc., over many weeks and months will lead to FAR more exposure that will drive album sales and other sources of revenue than any one week could. A #1 is a good selling point, but unless it actually leads to more sales, it is useless, unless the artist/label cares solely about bragging rights of the #1 in itself.

I think it depends on what's driving listening trends. If labels could extend album eras far beyond the release of the album, they probably would, but the way it is now, with so many people streaming, the shelf life of the album is limited to just those first few weeks. So other than a few exceptions (Harry Styles, Dua Lipa), once those few weeks have passed, the album is old news and streaming audiences (as a whole) have moved on to the next thing and no amount of promo is going to change that. So I'm guessing labels have responded to that by emphasizing and attempting to capitalize off the release week. The part where the discussion gets interesting is if radio somehow gets on board with a post-album single. Harry Styles and Dua Lipa are a few artists who have been able to get that. Even better for the artist/label/album is if radio (or streaming audiences really) can latch on to a particular song for an extended period of time. I think this helps in the long run anyway the way it always did because then that song will benefit from recurrent and gold radio airplay while also leaving its mark on that particular year in music, which leaves it as a go-to for years to come. Not a huge deal but it contributes to the artist/album legacy, etc, etc. But as far as getting bang for your buck, that first week is crucial and where it's at.

[fridayteenage]

Both break my heart and watermelon were released before their parent albums.
Not sure why you would list those artists twice to emphasize a point that's not accurate.

[Naos]

Sept 1, 2020 22:19:17 GMT -5 renfield75 said:

Sept 1, 2020 19:04:45 GMT -5 85la said:

Not really sure if I agree, that doesn't really make sense from a revenue standpoint. Yes, this is becoming more of the case, that labels are caring more and more about debut peaks, but of course ongoing streams, airplay, etc., over many weeks and months will lead to FAR more exposure that will drive album sales and other sources of revenue than any one week could. A #1 is a good selling point, but unless it actually leads to more sales, it is useless, unless the artist/label cares solely about bragging rights of the #1 in itself.

They can still do that with albums for major artists. Folklore has been #1 for 5 weeks even though Cardigan has plummeted after entering at #1.

At least "Cardigan" stayed in the 30s for a second week this week. 

[kimberly]

Sept 2, 2020 1:33:51 GMT -5 fridayteenage said:

Both break my heart and watermelon were released before their parent albums.
Not sure why you would list those artists twice to emphasize a point that's not accurate.

"Break My Heart" is debatable, as it was released alongside the album and had its steady climb and peak months after the album and is currently at its peak on the Hot 100 5 months after the album was released, but "Watermelon Sugar" definitely became a single 6 months after the album was released. Clearly you don't have a clue about how things work.

[85la]

Sept 1, 2020 22:28:16 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Sept 1, 2020 19:04:45 GMT -5 85la said:

Not really sure if I agree, that doesn't really make sense from a revenue standpoint. Yes, this is becoming more of the case, that labels are caring more and more about debut peaks, but of course ongoing streams, airplay, etc., over many weeks and months will lead to FAR more exposure that will drive album sales and other sources of revenue than any one week could. A #1 is a good selling point, but unless it actually leads to more sales, it is useless, unless the artist/label cares solely about bragging rights of the #1 in itself.

I think it depends on what's driving listening trends. If labels could extend album eras far beyond the release of the album, they probably would, but the way it is now, with so many people streaming, the shelf life of the album is limited to just those first few weeks. So other than a few exceptions (Harry Styles, Dua Lipa), once those few weeks have passed, the album is old news and streaming audiences (as a whole) have moved on to the next thing and no amount of promo is going to change that. So I'm guessing labels have responded to that by emphasizing and attempting to capitalize off the release week. The part where the discussion gets interesting is if radio somehow gets on board with a post-album single. Harry Styles and Dua Lipa are a few artists who have been able to get that. Even better for the artist/label/album is if radio (or streaming audiences really) can latch on to a particular song for an extended period of time. I think this helps in the long run anyway the way it always did because then that song will benefit from recurrent and gold radio airplay while also leaving its mark on that particular year in music, which leaves it as a go-to for years to come. Not a huge deal but it contributes to the artist/album legacy, etc, etc. But as far as getting bang for your buck, that first week is crucial and where it's at.

Good point. I think the shelf life of the biggest albums extends beyond just the first few weeks, but I get what you're saying. Times have definitely changed, and post-album hit singles are becoming increasingly rare.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 2, 2020 1:33:51 GMT -5 fridayteenage said:

Both break my heart and watermelon were released before their parent albums.
Not sure why you would list those artists twice to emphasize a point that's not accurate.

And both didn’t become (traditional) singles until after the album came out (looking back, break my heart hit radio the week the album dropped). Unless you’re suggesting the key to post-album hits is releasing the track pre-album first and then pushing it to radio a month or two after the album?

[Choco]

Sept 1, 2020 20:12:17 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Y'all really just want to argue and nitpick on everything, huh?

My point was that #1 for 100 weeks just because it was a moderate mainstream hit that currently only gets small amounts of airplay, streams, and sales points to the Christian music market being tiny. That's all. We really don't need to have an argument over how big "You Say" was. Jesus.

Kinda like how Panic! at the Disco's moderate hit "Hey Look Ma I Made It" topped the rock charts for months basically because it had no competition. There's no argument here, some of the genre charts have way less competition than others.