lazer
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2018
Posts: 2,523
|
Post by lazer on Nov 19, 2020 9:39:39 GMT -5
For some chart watchers, this has been one of the worst years to observe the charts, not because of the quality of the songs but songs have been staying on the charts for a long and droning run and it’s all thanks to radio and the pandemic.
I would forgive all of that if radio wasn’t corrupt. Radio is at its worst state right now and they are severely disconnected from the current zeitgeist. They continuously play songs from last year and hesitant to play newer songs. Radio plays songs with extremely low callouts while songs with positive callouts don’t get their chance to shine. Radio also gives airplay to songs that have devastatingly low streaming numbers.
This is all influencing the Hot 100 charts. If you look at the Kworb radio numbers, the audience is at its lowest in ages. There is no way that radio should have this much power in the charts.
|
|
|
Post by After Minutes on Nov 19, 2020 9:48:50 GMT -5
Personally, I don't find the songs with extreme longevity (Circles, Blinding Lights) annoying. IMO the problem is that so many songs are staying on the charts for that long.
|
|
Michael1973
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,546
|
Post by Michael1973 on Nov 19, 2020 10:42:05 GMT -5
Personally, I don't find the songs with extreme longevity (Circles, Blinding Lights) annoying. IMO the problem is that so many songs are staying on the charts for that long. I agree with you. I've long believed that the charts should reflect what's popular now, not what songs from a year ago are still on the radio.
|
|
renaboss
Platinum Member
I don't want to miss a thing.
|
Post by renaboss on Nov 19, 2020 11:06:13 GMT -5
I agree that the longevity of some songs is ridiculous, but the fact of the matter is, radio songs reach everyone, whereas stream-based hits don't feel like hits. As evidenced by the numerous #1 or top 10 debuts this year that free-fell in their 2nd week. The general populace isn't gonna know what those songs are, but they will know the songs that get played on the radio. Give 'em their due.
But yes, a quicker turnover should be imposed on radio stations. It shouldn't be like in the 80's, where songs were pushed by radio payola until they topped the charts and then were discarded altogether, but it shouldn't be the way it is now either. A middle ground should not be too much to ask for. But yeah, I don't think that's on the charts themselves, it's radio that needs to get with the times.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Nov 19, 2020 11:37:03 GMT -5
Doesn't US terrestrial radio still command a billion plus individual impressions a week? That's a lot of audience representation to de-value.
|
|
kalmanta
Gold Member
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 775
|
Post by kalmanta on Nov 19, 2020 11:42:46 GMT -5
I agree that the longevity of some songs is ridiculous, but the fact of the matter is, radio songs reach everyone, whereas stream-based hits don't feel like hits. As evidenced by the numerous #1 or top 10 debuts this year that free-fell in their 2nd week. The general populace isn't gonna know what those songs are, but they will know the songs that get played on the radio. Give 'em their due. But yes, a quicker turnover should be imposed on radio stations. It shouldn't be like in the 80's, where songs were pushed by radio payola until they topped the charts and then were discarded altogether, but it shouldn't be the way it is now either. A middle ground should not be too much to ask for. But yeah, I don't think that's on the charts themselves, it's radio that needs to get with the times. The songs that you speak of were mostly benefited by mass-buying of the stans. Correct me if I’m wrong, but streaming is actually rather stable for most hits, unless they were very video on-demand driven the first week.
|
|
renaboss
Platinum Member
I don't want to miss a thing.
|
Post by renaboss on Nov 19, 2020 12:15:14 GMT -5
I agree that the longevity of some songs is ridiculous, but the fact of the matter is, radio songs reach everyone, whereas stream-based hits don't feel like hits. As evidenced by the numerous #1 or top 10 debuts this year that free-fell in their 2nd week. The general populace isn't gonna know what those songs are, but they will know the songs that get played on the radio. Give 'em their due. But yes, a quicker turnover should be imposed on radio stations. It shouldn't be like in the 80's, where songs were pushed by radio payola until they topped the charts and then were discarded altogether, but it shouldn't be the way it is now either. A middle ground should not be too much to ask for. But yeah, I don't think that's on the charts themselves, it's radio that needs to get with the times. The songs that you speak of were mostly benefited by mass-buying of the stans. Correct me if I’m wrong, but streaming is actually rather stable for most hits, unless they were very video on-demand driven the first week. No, you're absolutely right, judging by how stable streaming #1's are compared to sales #1's (and to the actual Hot 100). My bad.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Nov 19, 2020 12:55:42 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Nov 19, 2020 13:00:28 GMT -5
It comes down to what the hot 100 is meant to measure. I feel like it’s become a mishmash of comparing apples to oranges when trying to end up with the most popular grape. The fact of the matter is, radio still reaches audiences and people still listen to radio, therefore the songs they hear are part of what determines how popular (or how heard) a song is in a given week. If the issue is with how radio programs their playlists, that’s not Billboard’s concern, nor should they reduce radio’s weight just because radio plays currents for too long. If people are listening, it should be counted. If the issue is with listenership being lower this year, if that’s already been reflected in radio calibrations, wouldn’t that also be reflected with what gets reported to Billboard? Therefore, radio’s impact would already be lower?
People so often on here complain about how chart runs are too erratic. I think we need to stop looking at charts in a wide-range way and instead look at them as they’re meant to be, a week by week snapshot of how people are engaging with songs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2020 13:33:37 GMT -5
I find a lot of times when people complain about the Hot 100, it's because it's not showing that individual what they want to see... but the Hot 100, and other Billboard charts, are not designed for the entertainment of the consumer (even though chartwatching is a hobby for many.. which is why this board was created). If a song is on the Hot 100 for over a year, it's because it's still being widely consumed for a long period of time and that's what the Hot 100 is reflecting. The song is still very popular.
As someone who started following charts 20+ years ago, the recent trend of songs debuting at #1 and then falling completely off the Hot 100 a few weeks later seems absurd to me but that doesn't necessarily mean Billboard is doing something wrong in determining how it measures popularity. Each chart is just a snapshot of the week.. so it's possible a song has a massive week because of initial interest and that interest dies off quickly. People just consume music differently now than they used to. However, radio is still a huge business, so if radio is contributing to songs hanging around longer, it's not necessarily that Billboard is doing something wrong in how they choose to measure and weight radio play.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Nov 19, 2020 13:54:01 GMT -5
People have been complaining that Radio is not in touch with the current zeitgeist for generations. Just leaf through enough Billboards from the early 70s and read those complaint letters: "The kids are all buying Led Zeppelin & Pink Floyd - why is radio only playing the Carpenters & Bread?!?"
|
|
kierz7
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 2,642
|
Post by kierz7 on Nov 19, 2020 20:28:25 GMT -5
People have been complaining that Radio is not in touch with the current zeitgeist for generations. Just leaf through enough Billboards from the early 70s and read those complaint letters: "The kids are all buying Led Zeppelin & Pink Floyd - why is radio only playing the Carpenters & Bread?!?" 1986. • “The Kids are buying Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel and Heart. Why is radio obsessed with playing just Janet Jackson and Madonna?”. 1994. • “All the Kids in my school are talking about Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots and Soundgarden. Why am I only hearing TLC, Boyz II Men and Ace Of Base on the radio”?.
|
|
Michael1973
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,546
|
Post by Michael1973 on Nov 20, 2020 12:47:29 GMT -5
I guess you can't really blame the charts for listing older songs when said songs are still getting wide airplay. That's radio's fault. Somewhere along the line, they became very resistant to adding new music and in my mind the charts have suffered for this. In the 1980s, you'd never see year-old songs on the Hot 100, even though they still got regular airplay, and nobody seemed to mind. Pop radio was thriving then, more so than it would in the 1990s.
My other complaint with the current Billboard charts is their insistence on including literally everything people saw/heard during the week. This includes charting every track off a new album (many for one week only), old songs by recently-deceased artists, random songs from TV commercials and viral videos and of course Christmas songs. Whatever you think of the charts, I feel they should be a resource you can look back on decades later to see what was popular. If Bing Crosby and Andy Williams are charting in the 2010s, that's not reflective of anything. Those songs were widely played throughout the 1970s-1990s but they never charted then. So why now?
|
|
renaboss
Platinum Member
I don't want to miss a thing.
|
Post by renaboss on Nov 20, 2020 16:22:36 GMT -5
I do think the Hot 100 going back to being a singles chart (as opposed to a songs chart) might be nice, but of course artists and record companies would find loopholes around that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2020 16:30:01 GMT -5
I do think the Hot 100 going back to being a singles chart (as opposed to a songs chart) might be nice, but of course artists and record companies would find loopholes around that. I think that would be pretty much impossible now because the concept of a "single" has become much more fluid. When Billboard had the rule prior to 1998, the label needed to issue a physical single for purchase for it to be eligible to chart. With digital and streaming, pretty much everything an act releases would meet the definition of being available to "purchase".
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,539
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Nov 20, 2020 23:15:45 GMT -5
I love when people complain about these long lasting radio hits as if streaming for these hits isn't also long lasting. And no one seems to ever complain about the songs streaming is long for but radio and sales gave up on.
|
|
lurker2
Gold Member
Joined: April 2019
Posts: 644
|
Post by lurker2 on Nov 20, 2020 23:37:18 GMT -5
If the Hot 100 was a singles chart, I believe The Box would've debuted at number one, which would've been kind of absurd. Album bombs are kind of annoying, but at least for me the Hot 100 has always been a songs chart so it makes sense to me that's the way it is. Although if it got artists to make single art more often, I wouldn't complain that much. Singles without art are one of my pet peeves.
If Billboard were to reweight a metric, I'd have to pick sales. The way acts like Nicki, Travis, Bieber, Ariana, and BTS have gamed the system there is IMO the real issue with chart accuracy rn.
|
|
shayonce
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 2,197
|
Post by shayonce on Nov 21, 2020 1:47:24 GMT -5
I mean.. the radio has been messy this year. nobody can deny this. recent radio AI re-weight mess shows that impression(which is "estimation") is not that trust worthy. and seems like pop radio have been stuck on same songs more than any year. HDD discussed this mess few months ago " The biggest hits aren’t leaving and going into recurrent rotation; they’re remaining in the Top Ten and blocking the next group of legitimate smashes from getting the spins they’d typically be getting by now." Why are all the records now lingering in the Mediabase Top 10 much longer than in previous years? As one head of promotion told me, “The hardest job we have right now is moving real hits in the #17-8 range on the chart. Once we get them there, they tend to stay. But getting through that logjam is the hardest it’s ever been.” That logjam—and the inertia at the top of the chart—is the reason radio feels increasingly behind the curve as new records rocket up the DSP charts. It appears the real challenge going forward is this: What will it take for radio to speed up and lead in breaking artists as they have for decades?" hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=322105
|
|
lazer
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2018
Posts: 2,523
|
Post by lazer on Nov 21, 2020 9:14:29 GMT -5
I mean.. the radio has been messy this year. nobody can deny this. recent radio AI re-weight mess shows that impression(which is "estimation") is not that trust worthy. and seems like pop radio have been stuck on same songs more than any year. HDD discussed this mess few months ago " The biggest hits aren’t leaving and going into recurrent rotation; they’re remaining in the Top Ten and blocking the next group of legitimate smashes from getting the spins they’d typically be getting by now." Why are all the records now lingering in the Mediabase Top 10 much longer than in previous years? As one head of promotion told me, “The hardest job we have right now is moving real hits in the #17-8 range on the chart. Once we get them there, they tend to stay. But getting through that logjam is the hardest it’s ever been.” That logjam—and the inertia at the top of the chart—is the reason radio feels increasingly behind the curve as new records rocket up the DSP charts. It appears the real challenge going forward is this: What will it take for radio to speed up and lead in breaking artists as they have for decades?" hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=322105THIS That’s the problem I’m talking about. Songs have been lingering on radio for quite some time but this year has been special and the worse case. Honestly, this is the beginning of the downfall for radio if things don’t change any time soon. I'm not saying radio should be completely removed from the metric of the Hot 100, it's just that radio has to change their methods and promote more records. They have to get more songs in their playlists if they want to survive in the music industry and be a legitimate competition with streaming.
|
|
nak
Gold Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 603
|
Post by nak on Nov 21, 2020 9:18:25 GMT -5
If Billboard wants to keep the Hot 100 as a representation of general music consumption, radio must be included or else it is not reflective of all consumption. It's annoying that radio keeps songs lingering in the top 20 for so long but excluding radio will compromise the Hot 100, maybe stations should just.,you know..have a playlist larger than 10 songs.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Nov 21, 2020 12:18:45 GMT -5
The problem is that radio consumers are a totally different mindset from Sales and Streaming consumers - who are much more active music fans. Radio listeners are more passive - and it could be argued they are the majority of the country.
I grew up in the era where new hit follow-up songs were cycled in every three months like clockwork - everything older was basically retired with VERY minimal recurrent play (There were no slots available with all the new music).
Would I love to go back to that time? Of course! But Radio does its research meticulously and plays what its audience wants. If they didn't, they would lose advertising revenue due to crashing ratings and go out of business.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 21, 2020 12:39:12 GMT -5
Make no mistake, there are considerable issues with radio. And it's absolutely unfortunate that these problems impact placement on the Hot 100.
The issue with these kinds of arguments, however, is that they tend to ignore or downplay the existence of manipulation and bias issues in the streaming and sales worlds. We know playlisting plays a massive role in driving streaming numbers. And we know playlisting isn't a purely just, meritocratic endeavor.
We also know that playlisting and storefront positioning play an impact on sales. It looks like they've gotten rid of it/rebranded it recently, but the "New Music Daily" listing had been making a comically large and obvious impact on iTunes sales for the past few years.
Not saying that these are equivalent to radio playlisting, as there's still a degree of "intent" on the sales/streaming side that doesn't as directly exist in radio. But the point is that it's disingenuous to make the argument that sales and streaming are some sort of "pure" barometer of marketplace interest, whereas radio is a totally bogus metric with no connection whatsoever to public demand.
The other issue is that people tend to be hypocritical when it comes to these issues. Very few impartial people, for example, were complaining that radio essentially gave "positions" the #1 over "Forever After All." But you'll have plenty of people argue that radio is helping country and older-skewing songs chart HIGHER than they should on the Hot 100.
Us even debating the merits of each side, of course, ignores the reality that there are business incentives (for all parties) to keep radio relevant.
|
|
Michael1973
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,546
|
Post by Michael1973 on Nov 21, 2020 14:08:49 GMT -5
I love when people complain about these long lasting radio hits as if streaming for these hits isn't also long lasting. And no one seems to ever complain about the songs streaming is long for but radio and sales gave up on. I'm not a big fan of counting streaming towards the charts. I feel like it should be strictly based on radio airplay and digital sales. The way I see it, streaming drastically skews the numbers. It's the equivalent of going back to the 1980s and not only tracking record sales but calling every American every day and asking how many times they played the record. Just because it's easy to track streaming doesn't mean it should be included. Consider other forms of entertainment. Movies and TV, for example. Every week a list of the most widely viewed movies comes out, but it doesn't include 20-50 year old films that got heavily streamed on Hulu or Amazon. But if an oldie gets heavily streamed on YouTube for a few days, suddenly it's back in the national top 10? I grew up in the era where new hit follow-up songs were cycled in every three months like clockwork - everything older was basically retired with VERY minimal recurrent play (There were no slots available with all the new music). Would I love to go back to that time? Of course! But Radio does its research meticulously and plays what its audience wants. If they didn't, they would lose advertising revenue due to crashing ratings and go out of business. I grew up in the same era and have missed it greatly. What I've never understood is why the old-school method of frequent new music worked great for decades but somehow would be a disaster if done today. I feel like corporate radio people randomly decided that things should change and now it's been like that so long that nobody who matters even remembers anything else. My problem with that is, the public had no say in the change. It just gradually came to accept it, to the point where you could never go back.
|
|
tanooki
Diamond Member
2019 Breakthrough
lucia gta 6
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 10,080
Pronouns: they/she/fae
|
Post by tanooki on Nov 21, 2020 23:13:55 GMT -5
I love when people complain about these long lasting radio hits as if streaming for these hits isn't also long lasting. And no one seems to ever complain about the songs streaming is long for but radio and sales gave up on. I'm not a big fan of counting streaming towards the charts. I feel like it should be strictly based on radio airplay and digital sales. The way I see it, streaming drastically skews the numbers. It's the equivalent of going back to the 1980s and not only tracking record sales but calling every American every day and asking how many times they played the record. Just because it's easy to track streaming doesn't mean it should be included. Consider other forms of entertainment. Movies and TV, for example. Every week a list of the most widely viewed movies comes out, but it doesn't include 20-50 year old films that got heavily streamed on Hulu or Amazon. But if an oldie gets heavily streamed on YouTube for a few days, suddenly it's back in the national top 10? I grew up in the era where new hit follow-up songs were cycled in every three months like clockwork - everything older was basically retired with VERY minimal recurrent play (There were no slots available with all the new music). Would I love to go back to that time? Of course! But Radio does its research meticulously and plays what its audience wants. If they didn't, they would lose advertising revenue due to crashing ratings and go out of business. I grew up in the same era and have missed it greatly. What I've never understood is why the old-school method of frequent new music worked great for decades but somehow would be a disaster if done today. I feel like corporate radio people randomly decided that things should change and now it's been like that so long that nobody who matters even remembers anything else. My problem with that is, the public had no say in the change. It just gradually came to accept it, to the point where you could never go back. can you name me an old hit that wasn't a christmas hit that has re-entered the top 10 due to YouTube streaming?
|
|
|
Post by Ezekiel 23:20–21 on Nov 21, 2020 23:29:57 GMT -5
Radio plays songs with extremely low callouts A lot of really good songs that got low callout scores got dropped though.
|
|
walt91
5x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2018
Posts: 5,819
Pronouns: he/they
|
Post by walt91 on Nov 21, 2020 23:32:20 GMT -5
I love when people complain about these long lasting radio hits as if streaming for these hits isn't also long lasting. And no one seems to ever complain about the songs streaming is long for but radio and sales gave up on. I'm not a big fan of counting streaming towards the charts. I feel like it should be strictly based on radio airplay and digital sales. The way I see it, streaming drastically skews the numbers. It's the equivalent of going back to the 1980s and not only tracking record sales but calling every American every day and asking how many times they played the record. Just because it's easy to track streaming doesn't mean it should be included. literally no one except people on pulse and soccer moms listen to the radio or use digital sales mediums anymore, they're becoming more and more obsolete everyday. nearly all music in America is consumed via streaming platforms so it makes sense that they should be given more weight. not saying radio shouldn't be considered at all, there's still (mostly older) people who use radio as their primary music source, but it's definitely going the way of the dinosaurs and eliminating streaming makes zero sense
|
|
SPRΞΞ
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2009
Posts: 21,732
|
Post by SPRΞΞ on Nov 21, 2020 23:40:19 GMT -5
streaming has ruined the Hot 100, not radio.
|
|
willapted33
9x Platinum Member
blonded
Joined: February 2017
Posts: 9,354
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by willapted33 on Nov 21, 2020 23:42:29 GMT -5
this thread
|
|
|
Post by Ezekiel 23:20–21 on Nov 21, 2020 23:54:49 GMT -5
streaming has ruined the Hot 100, not radio. Streaming is a lot more accurate a measure of popularity of a song. People have to actively seek out a certain song, unless we are talking passive streaming. There are so many instances when radio is either slow to play a certain song or can't/won't play it, like in the situation with Cardi B's "WAP." We also have the many issues with Country radio where they won't play most female artists' songs yet they will play every mediocre song by a male artist without fail.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2020 0:29:02 GMT -5
Isn't the US one of the few markets (maybe the only?) where airplay is factored into the the 'overall' singles chart? I know the Official Singles Chart (UK), ARIA Top 50 (Australia), and Oricon Singles Chart (Japan) don't include radio. There are other charts in the UK that measure airplay or include it in a formula, but those would be more comparable to Billboard's component charts, or (for the one that uses a formula) to AT40/Hits charts that chart watchers don't give the same amount of formal respect. The Hot 100 is the only 'main' chart I know of that considers airplay a form of consumption, and it's always been a point of contention because it's the most passive form of consumption there is and impressions don't always directly correlate to likes (as indicated by the 'active' forms of consumption i.e. streams and sales).
The US doesn't have to do what anyone else is doing but if we're the only ones doing that, I do think it's worth taking a step back and asking why. Yes, radio has massive reach still, but does that necessarily mean it should be counted? However, I don't really have a concrete answer for my own question because consumption as an overall concept feels so fluid to me now. It's not just the apparent disconnect between radio and streaming audiences, but also a disconnect between different genre audiences and the way they choose to consume. Urban fans are heavy into streaming, but pop fans are still not as strongly on board (and seem heavily guided by playlists), country and (H)AC fans are still relying on radio and digital sales, the kids are checking for TikTok, and older music listeners haven't figured out where the power button on their computers are yet...it's entirely possible that radio should still be fully counted for say, country and UAC, but downweighted for CHR and HAC and ignored completely for urban and rock. How does one properly synthesize all that information into one chart? Should we even want to?
I'm still mostly convinced that labels use the Hot 100 to measure profit more than popularity, which for a while made me less invested in following it as a hobby but then led back to me being even more interested when I figured that it could be like watching the stock market, except for music instead of Wall Street.
|
|