Billboard Hot 100: 06/05/2021

[Gary]

[phieaglesfan712]

Jun 1, 2021 20:23:27 GMT -5 mms82 said:

Jun 1, 2021 20:13:01 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

With there being 15 debuts, I'd be willing to bet at least one went recurrent. It's pretty much impossible to have that many debuts, and none go recurrent, unless at least ten J Cole songs fell off. Either On Me or One Too Many fell off. I hope it's the latter because that song really has no business being on the Hot 100.

How many J Cole songs are falling off?

It's probably going to end up being 7 or 8.

[SPRΞΞ]

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

[garrettlen]

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

It definitely pads the all time numbers for today's top acts compared to ones from the past.

[garrettlen]

In 2005 Mariah Carey released her hit single "We Belong Together" and I distinctly remember it getting to #1 one week earlier than it should have and would have because Mariah's fans used a loop hole available to them at the time; they downloaded FREE digital singles of WBT and per Billboard's rules at the time, they were counted as part of her overall points on the Hot 100 that week thus giving her the #1. Shortly thereafter, Billboard closed that particular loop hole by not allowing free digital singles to count on their chart anymore.

Isn't this BTS situation basically the same thing? Yes, it's chart manipulation, and it's really not the right thing to do, but, under the current Billboard rules is it not totally allowed and not illegal (yet)?  Was Mariah's first week at #1 in 2005 any less legitimate than all the other weeks she spent there that summer? If it can be said that BTS got a fraudulent #1 debut, than can't the same be said of Mariah's first week at #1 back then as well? Just curious.

BTW, Even if that first week of WBT with the free downloads hadn't counted, Mariah still ultimately held for 13 additional weeks at #1 with that song so...it's not like it wasn't going to be a monster hit anyway.

Just wondering, and no, I'm not specifically trying to pick on Mariah, her situation is just the first one I could think of that reminded me of what is going on with BTS today.

[Choco]

Billboard has changed. In 2005 it was still a semi-profitable printed magazine.

Nowadays it's more of a glorified website and it needs the traffic. It's why we get 36 articles about BTS even on weeks where they haven't even dropped a song.

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

So doing chart games is fine but album tracks that we're organically streamed shouldn't chart? If album tracks weren't allowed to chart, the charts would be even more inaccurate than how they already are

[jayhawk1117]

Jun 1, 2021 21:45:08 GMT -5 garrettlen said:

In 2005 Mariah Carey released her hit single "We Belong Together" and I distinctly remember it getting to #1 one week earlier than it should have and would have because Mariah's fans used a loop hole available to them at the time; they downloaded FREE digital singles of WBT and per Billboard's rules at the time, they were counted as part of her overall points on the Hot 100 that week thus giving her the #1. Shortly thereafter, Billboard closed that particular loop hole by not allowing free digital singles to count on their chart anymore.

Isn't this BTS situation basically the same thing? Yes, it's chart manipulation, and it's really not the right thing to do, but, under the current Billboard rules is it not totally allowed and not illegal (yet)?  Was Mariah's first week at #1 in 2005 any less legitimate than all the other weeks she spent there that summer? If it can be said that BTS got a fraudulent #1 debut, than can't the same be said of Mariah's first week at #1 back then as well? Just curious.

BTW, Even if that first week of WBT with the free downloads hadn't counted, Mariah still ultimately held for 13 additional weeks at #1 with that song so...it's not like it wasn't going to be a monster hit anyway.

Just wondering, and no, I'm not specifically trying to pick on Mariah, her situation is just the first one I could think of that reminded me of what is going on with BTS today.

yes but look at the likes on the charts of Mood getting number one and the likes on the tweet about butter debuting at number one. That's why nothing will be done. If anything I'd believe Billboard would INCREASE the weight of sales before they downplay it

[SPRΞΞ]

Jun 1, 2021 22:46:09 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

So doing chart games is fine but album tracks that we're organically streamed shouldn't chart?

No

name every Drake Top 10 right now. I'll wait.

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

I hate that consequence of letting album tracks chart, yes. However, I’d rather the chart be accurate. I abhor the UK chart rule of letting max 3 songs by an artist chart simultaneously.

And yeah, it sucks that drake had an easier time passing Madonna and the two aren’t easily compared, but also...no one else is close. He deserves it. I hope they collab tbh

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Jun 1, 2021 22:53:02 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

Jun 1, 2021 22:46:09 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

So doing chart games is fine but album tracks that we're organically streamed shouldn't chart?

No

name every Drake Top 10 right now. I'll wait.

What does that prove though? What just because you can't name every single Top 10 hit that should mean they shouldn't chart? I'll do you one: name every single Riah and Janet Top 10 single without looking it up

If you are so against non-singles charting then you should've had a problem with Streets, The Box, telepatia, and other songs that were hits by accident/happenstance. I hope you know that the rule that prevented songs that weren't radio singles or album singles is one of the more notorious and hated rules in Billboard's existence so we should all be glad it's not enforced anymore. We live in the age of streaming and the charts should reflect that.

It doesn't matter legends didn't have this convenience or that it's just padding stats, it's more accurate this way.

[SPRΞΞ]

Jun 1, 2021 22:58:50 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

Jun 1, 2021 22:53:02 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

No

name every Drake Top 10 right now. I'll wait.

What does that prove though? What just because you can't name every single Top 10 hit that should mean they shouldn't chart? I'll do you one: name every single Riah and Janet Top 10 single without looking it up

If you are so against non-singles charting then you should've had a problem with Streets, The Box, telepatia, and other songs that were hits by accident/happenstance. I hope you know that the rule that prevented songs that weren't radio singles or album singles is one of the more notorious and hated rules in Billboard's existence so we should all be glad it's not enforced anymore. We live in the age of streaming and the charts should reflect that.

It doesn't matter legends didn't have this convenience or that it's just padding stats, it's more accurate this way.

I agree, but i can still hate it and bitch about it at the same time.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

That’s generally how I feel about the hot 100 as a whole. Granted, I prefer a more open approach to allowing album charts and album bombs and all that. It’s just annoying that technology and metrics weren’t able to capture all of that before, so it goves the impression that albums are stronger now than they were before, as if the Michael Jackson’s, Mariah’s, Whitney’s and others didn’t have major impacts with theirs. Or that N Sync and Backstreet Boys (as much as I don’t care about them) wouldn’t have dominated the chart upon their album release dates.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jun 1, 2021 21:45:08 GMT -5 garrettlen said:

In 2005 Mariah Carey released her hit single "We Belong Together" and I distinctly remember it getting to #1 one week earlier than it should have and would have because Mariah's fans used a loop hole available to them at the time; they downloaded FREE digital singles of WBT and per Billboard's rules at the time, they were counted as part of her overall points on the Hot 100 that week thus giving her the #1. Shortly thereafter, Billboard closed that particular loop hole by not allowing free digital singles to count on their chart anymore.

Isn't this BTS situation basically the same thing? Yes, it's chart manipulation, and it's really not the right thing to do, but, under the current Billboard rules is it not totally allowed and not illegal (yet)?  Was Mariah's first week at #1 in 2005 any less legitimate than all the other weeks she spent there that summer? If it can be said that BTS got a fraudulent #1 debut, than can't the same be said of Mariah's first week at #1 back then as well? Just curious.

BTW, Even if that first week of WBT with the free downloads hadn't counted, Mariah still ultimately held for 13 additional weeks at #1 with that song so...it's not like it wasn't going to be a monster hit anyway.

Just wondering, and no, I'm not specifically trying to pick on Mariah, her situation is just the first one I could think of that reminded me of what is going on with BTS today.

Depends - did fans get the free download multiple times and each downtown counted separately? I get the point and it makes for an interesting discussion, but I’m not sure it’s similar enough based on what some of the issues are.

Granted, Billboard allows it to happen so while we might harp on the fans and their organized approach to purposely manipulate the chart, it is still allowable. I know it’s been said many times but maybe I need to reframe it in my own mind that Billboard needs to refresh its own tabulation. It’s frustrating from an information capture point of view to know or think that fans will just find some other way to manipulate and fraud the numbers. It really does take the fun out of chart watching knowing how inaccurate they can really be.

[nathanalbright]

It's just that before streaming was a thing there wasn't a way to measure the consumption of album tracks on their own. To be sure, a great many artists in the past may have benefitted from better rollout strategies if strong album tracks could have been recognized by the support of fans and promoted as post-album singles, but that wasn't available at the time. I much prefer the system we have to the UK rules that only the top three songs by an artist can chart, but there are always tradeoffs to any sort of allowances or restrictions.

[kimberly]

Jun 1, 2021 23:04:23 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

That’s generally how I feel about the hot 100 as a whole. Granted, I prefer a more open approach to allowing album charts and album bombs and all that. It’s just annoying that technology and metrics weren’t able to capture all of that before, so it goves the impression that albums are stronger now than they were before, as if the Michael Jackson’s, Mariah’s, Whitney’s and others didn’t have major impacts with theirs. Or that N Sync and Backstreet Boys (as much as I don’t care about them) wouldn’t have dominated the chart upon their album release dates.

times change. Britney sold 10 million copies of her debut album in the US in under a year, while Olivia Rodrigo will be lucky to hit 1 million sales. we make up new records and accomplishments to adjust the times. 

another food for thought: had we invented music streaming & social media 50 years ago, would those artists be as popular/record-smashing as they have been? right now, you can have an artist like Lil Nas X buy a beat from a Dutch producer and upload a song on Soundcloud and go on to achieve great success that is yet to be replicated, with no label support at first. so my instinct is to say that if we had all this technology back then, there is no guarantee that those artists would for certain be what the gp gravitated toward.

[Naos]

The only big gain I found besides the obvious "Driver's License" was "Minimum Wage", which moves up 26 spots to #70.

[Naos]

Notable dropouts:
- "Street Runner" by Rod Wave (#16 peak, 10 weeks)
- "Lady" by Brett Young (#52 peak, 19 weeks)
- "La Noche De Anoche" by Bad Bunny & Rosalia (#53 peak, 17 weeks)
- "The Business" by Tiesto (#69 peak, 13 weeks)

"Back In Blood", "The Good Ones, "What You Know About Love", "On Me", and "One Too Many" all avoid recurrency and chart for another week.

[Abbaschand]

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

Fun fact: The Box was not intended to be a single. That's right, one of the biggest songs of 2020, was an album track.

[Naos]

Jun 1, 2021 23:56:53 GMT -5 Abbaschand said:

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

Fun fact: The Box was not intended to be a single. That's right, one of the biggest songs of 2020, was an album track.

And if an album track has presence on the chart, especially when an artist doesn't particularly get album bombs, it lets them know very easily it should be a single.

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

The Box peaking right outside the Top 10 at pop radio still irritates me

[jodakyellow]

Jun 1, 2021 20:48:10 GMT -5 Gary said:

Now this is a crossover I can get behind

[SPRΞΞ]

Jun 1, 2021 23:56:53 GMT -5 Abbaschand said:

Jun 1, 2021 21:23:33 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

I can't stand album tracks being able to chart. It completely diminishes the achievements made by legends who didn't have that convenience.

Fun fact: The Box was not intended to be a single. That's right, one of the biggest songs of 2020, was an album track.

should've stayed an album track, lol.

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Jun 2, 2021 1:51:57 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

Jun 1, 2021 23:56:53 GMT -5 Abbaschand said:

Fun fact: The Box was not intended to be a single. That's right, one of the biggest songs of 2020, was an album track.

should've stayed an album track, lol.

Isn't that better though? The public choosing what should be singles by virtue of virality?

_{also The Box is one of the best songs in general of 2020}

[lucidruid]

Jun 1, 2021 23:13:47 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Jun 1, 2021 23:04:23 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

That’s generally how I feel about the hot 100 as a whole. Granted, I prefer a more open approach to allowing album charts and album bombs and all that. It’s just annoying that technology and metrics weren’t able to capture all of that before, so it goves the impression that albums are stronger now than they were before, as if the Michael Jackson’s, Mariah’s, Whitney’s and others didn’t have major impacts with theirs. Or that N Sync and Backstreet Boys (as much as I don’t care about them) wouldn’t have dominated the chart upon their album release dates.

times change. Britney sold 10 million copies of her debut album in the US in under a year, while Olivia Rodrigo will be lucky to hit 1 million sales. we make up new records and accomplishments to adjust the times. 

another food for thought: had we invented music streaming & social media 50 years ago, would those artists be as popular/record-smashing as they have been? right now, you can have an artist like Lil Nas X buy a beat from a Dutch producer and upload a song on Soundcloud and go on to achieve great success that is yet to be replicated, with no label support at first. so my instinct is to say that if we had all this technology back then, there is no guarantee that those artists would for certain be what the gp gravitated toward.

it’s true. a few decades ago going #1 without a huge label behind you was practically impossible, it’s not like songs would somehow go viral out of nowhere. you had to have a label, physical release, radio support, etc to succeed. so the ‘legends’ that frequented the #1 or even Top 10 spots back then wouldn’t fare as well when put in actual competition with today’s artists, some of which have come from questionable backgrounds, lol. your example of Lil Nas X is dead on, same for many other artists that got to where they are without the initial push of a big label (even this week’s main competition Olivia and Bts - ig you could say that Olivia comes from the Disney background, which is basically a star making factory, but nonetheless her blow up was more or less organic, even with the great label push she had, since the push came afterwards; and Bts somehow popped up in the US after like half a decade (? idk) of activity in Korea and kinda took over. that would be unimaginable a few decades ago).

[Enigma.]

There were exceptions before, such as The Look by Roxette which became huge basically by accident. And let's not forget that LNX also had a label backing by the time remix was released.

[borneoman]

Really hope BB does something with mass-buying of singles
you cannot have "organisations" like The army raising funds and mass-buying
would be fun if in the end BTS's label is behind the Army and all this mass-buying

and yes, this is mass-buying, it's not 246,000 fans each buying 1 copy with their own pocket money
if you don't have money, the Army will give you the $ to buy, how is that allowed?

it's really the definition of "buying yourself a #1 single"

[gs]

Billboard seemingly stopped adding CMA sales onto the "real" sales this week (or possibly in some prior week) which is why DL didn't end up top 10, so Olivia didn't get 4 simultaneous top 10s, in which she have been the first female artist to do so.


CMAs were responsible for songs launching way higher than they should have upon album release weeks, e.g. "ME!", "Stupid Love", "Rain on Me", etc. where "old" download activity and/or album purchase activity got added onto singles sales illogically from iTunes when the user pressed 'Complete My Album', so, it's a welcome change tbh.

[Eqbk]

If Billboard wants to do something about this fan pooling strategy, perhaps they could just reduce the amount of remixes/versions allowed to count towards one song. Any additional versions of the song that are released past that limit would chart separately. That would reduce the amount fans are able to mass buy as well as reduce the ability to give a song longevity by simply releasing a bunch of remixes later down the line for fans to mass buy.

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

^ id hate for it to have to come to that, but that seems like a logical conclusion

I mean, just look at “beat box” lmao