Billboard Hot 100: 07/24/2021

[Gary]

Jul 21, 2021 14:30:17 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Jul 21, 2021 13:28:26 GMT -5 nathanalbright said:

Yes, but when has such logic ever been consistent?

Just think, if logic was consistent, then the 50/20 rule would have pushed One Too Many into recurrency.

How do you know what the 50/20 rule even is and how it is applied?

It seems clear we do know in detail all of the rules being applied.

I have seen songs stay on in week 21 before as an oversight but removed the next week.

This is now week 31, obviously no oversight.

There must be another portion of the 50/20 rule that you are missing

[phieaglesfan712]

Jul 22, 2021 7:45:09 GMT -5 Groovy said:

Jul 22, 2021 7:31:59 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

If One Too Many's weeks count, then so too should the week Blinding Lights missed due to Christmas. 

This logic makes no sense at all. 

Blinding Lights had 167 points that week, and was the 6th or 7th biggest non-Christmas song (along with Levitating). For context, Calling My Phone charted/avoided recurrency with just about half as many points this week. OTM had even less than that when it charted in the 60s and 70s all of these weeks. So basically, BL lost the equivalent of 2+ weeks of some other songs.

[Groovy]

Jul 22, 2021 9:58:40 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Jul 22, 2021 7:45:09 GMT -5 Groovy said:

This logic makes no sense at all. 

Blinding Lights had 167 points that week, and was the 6th or 7th biggest non-Christmas song (along with Levitating). For context, Calling My Phone charted/avoided recurrency with just about half as many points this week. OTM had even less than that when it charted in the 60s and 70s all of these weeks. So basically, BL lost the equivalent of 2+ weeks of some other songs.

But how can you count points for a song that's not charting, how does that make sense?

[nathanalbright]

Technically you can know how many chart points a song would have in recurrency based on its airplay, sales, and streaming numbers, and then figure that the song deserved having those points. Given the current state of statistics, it would not be an overwhelmingly difficult task to figure out how many chart points a perennially popular song has earned since leaving the charts, although given the large number of recurrent songs and weeks of recurrency, it would be an immensely tedious and time consuming task to record such information for all charting songs, so most people only chose to do it for songs they particularly like.

[GW]

[nathanalbright]

What are you applying this definition to, exactly?

[kindofbiased]

You guys wanna know a band I like? Green Day. Those guys made some really good songs in the 90s and 00s. I’m particularly fond of their 1997 song “Redundant”

[nathanalbright]

I wish they were still making music that was a)good and b)charting. The reason I don't talk very much about my favs is because they seldom appear on the charts.

[phieaglesfan712]

Jul 22, 2021 11:46:08 GMT -5 kindofbiased said:

You guys wanna know a band I like? Green Day. Those guys made some really good songs in the 90s and 00s. I’m particularly fond of their 1997 song “Redundant”

I love Green Day, and the song I am most fond of is Good Riddance (Time of Your Life). If one song defines life in the 1990s, that is it.

[Naos]

Jul 22, 2021 9:57:17 GMT -5 Gary said:

Jul 21, 2021 14:30:17 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Just think, if logic was consistent, then the 50/20 rule would have pushed One Too Many into recurrency.

How do you know what the 50/20 rule even is and how it is applied?

It seems clear we do know in detail all of the rules being applied.

I have seen songs stay on in week 21 before as an oversight but removed the next week.

This is now week 31, obviously no oversight.

There must be another portion of the 50/20 rule that you are missing

Yes, songs that still are gaining in airplay (but not sales and streaming) will continue to chart.

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Jul 22, 2021 11:41:07 GMT -5 GW said:

I̸t̸ ̶i̶s̶ ̷o̷k̸a̶y̶ ̸t̶o̷ ̵h̵a̶v̷e̸ ̴o̷p̴i̵n̷i̸o̷n̸s̸.̸ ̵I̶t̵ ̵i̴s̵ ̸e̸v̴e̶n̸ ̴o̷k̶a̵y̶ ̷t̴o̶ ̶d̸i̴s̵a̸g̶r̶e̵e̶ ̷w̷i̸t̸h̶ ̵o̴t̴h̶e̶r̴ ̷p̸e̶o̶p̸l̵e̵’̵s̴ ̶o̷p̸i̴n̶i̸o̸n̴s̶.̸ ̵I̴f̶ ̶y̶o̴u̶ ̴d̸o̵n̸’̴t̸ ̷l̶i̵k̶e̴ ̷m̸y̸ ̸o̴p̶i̴n̴i̷o̴n̶,̷ ̶e̶i̸t̷h̸e̵r̸ ̴c̴o̴m̸e̷ ̸b̵a̷c̶k̷ ̶w̵i̸t̶h̴ ̵r̶e̷a̸s̷o̸n̴s̸ ̶w̷h̵y̶ ̶I̷’̷m̷ ̵w̴r̵o̴n̸g̸ ̶o̶r̵ ̶j̴u̸s̷t̸ ̸i̴g̵n̸o̶r̵e̴ ̶i̴t̸.̸ ̷W̸h̴a̷t̴ ̵i̶s̴n̴’̴t̵ ̶o̴k̸a̴y̵ ̸i̶s̴ ̵b̴l̶a̶t̷a̵n̶t̶l̴y̴ ̸c̶r̶o̵s̴s̷i̵n̴g̶ ̷t̶h̵e̷ ̸l̵i̶n̶e̸ ̶a̸n̸d̵ ̸i̴n̴s̸u̸l̶t̷i̷n̷g̵ ̷o̷t̵h̵e̴r̴ ̴p̶e̷o̵p̷l̸e̷ ̷a̴n̸d̴ ̵s̴a̵y̵i̷n̶g̸ ̸t̴h̷e̸y̶ ̶s̸h̵o̶u̶l̶d̸ ̷b̸e̴ ̷s̶h̵o̸v̴e̶d̷ ̸i̷n̴ ̶l̸o̵c̵k̷e̷r̶s̶.̴ ̸T̷h̴a̵t̸ ̶h̵a̶s̸ ̶a̷b̷s̷o̴l̸u̶t̴e̶l̸y̷ ̵n̴o̵ ̷p̶l̸a̴c̷e̸ ̶i̷n̸ ̵t̸h̵i̷s̶ ̸f̶o̸r̸u̵m̸.̴

[nathanalbright]

Do we need a new pulse bingo space for explaining exemptions to recurrency?

[Gary]

With one or two exceptions, most of us get it

[nathanalbright]

But where there are exceptions, it gets explained over and over again. I remember us doing this when we were all looking at the P**** Fairy chart run and then the Talk You Out Of It chart run. Any time a song lasts longer than 20 weeks in the lower reaches of the chart it becomes an issue.

[GW]

The way I look at online behavior is: think of it like you're a real person in a real room full of real people having a group conversation. If you're the person who has this warped, biased opinion on something that literally nobody else agrees with, and keeps bringing it up using the same talking points while bypassing the inconvenient facts, it's not going to end well for that person. At some point it is objectively trolling, if not by definition, at least by consensus of literally EVERYBODY else in the room. Perhaps there would be a vote and that person would be voted out of the room. It's not censoring, it's recognizing selfish delusion that is derailing the conversation in the room, repeatedly.

I don't for even one second believe that a mentally healthy person with good intentions would act this way in a real room full of real people. Being an avatar online allows people to act this way without any real life repercussions, so trolls and twats behave this way because they can. Not because they actually would if it were in-person interaction. Debates are one thing, facts that support a point of view score more points than biased opinions. One person who has been proven wrong with facts and keeps popping off with the same nonsense is not a debate. It's trolling behavior by the insufferable loser of the debate.

[nathanalbright]

Online behavior is a lot different than face to face behavior. We certainly deal with these repercussions on a daily basis.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Jul 22, 2021 11:51:08 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Jul 22, 2021 11:46:08 GMT -5 kindofbiased said:

You guys wanna know a band I like? Green Day. Those guys made some really good songs in the 90s and 00s. I’m particularly fond of their 1997 song “Redundant”

I love Green Day, and the song I am most fond of is Good Riddance (Time of Your Life). If one song defines life in the 1990s, that is it.

Literally can’t stand that song 😂😂😂

[phieaglesfan712]

Jul 22, 2021 12:04:20 GMT -5 nathanalbright said:

But where there are exceptions, it gets explained over and over again. I remember us doing this when we were all looking at the P**** Fairy chart run and then the Talk You Out Of It chart run. Any time a song lasts longer than 20 weeks in the lower reaches of the chart it becomes an issue.

If you want to know the real reason why I have an issue with these exceptions is because of the implementation of the 25/52 during the tail end of Uptown Funk’s run. I don’t have a problem with it, it’s just the suspect timing. If they did this immediately after the Radioactive/Sail runs, or even waited until UF’s run was over, I would have been fine with it. But UF was robbed off 20 weeks in its run, and at 100 points per week, it would have an additional 2k real points, putting its total above 21k real points.

OTM’s weeks 21-31 in the 60s and 70s, while creating a rule to artificially end UF’s charting run early, just goes to show how arbitrary these recurrent rules are.

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Jul 22, 2021 12:27:08 GMT -5 GW said:

The way I look at online behavior is: think of it like you're a real person in a real room full of real people having a group conversation. If you're the person who has this warped, biased opinion on something that literally nobody else agrees with, and keeps bringing it up using the same talking points while bypassing the inconvenient facts, it's not going to end well for that person. At some point it is objectively trolling, if not by definition, at least by consensus of literally EVERYBODY else in the room. Perhaps there would be a vote and that person would be voted out of the room. It's not censoring, it's recognizing selfish delusion that is derailing the conversation in the room, repeatedly.

I don't for even one second believe that a mentally healthy person with good intentions would act this way in a real room full of real people. Being an avatar online allows people to act this way without any real life repercussions, so trolls and twats behave this way because they can. Not because they actually would if it were in-person interaction. Debates are one thing, facts that support a point of view score more points than biased opinions. One person who has been proven wrong with facts and keeps popping off with the same nonsense is not a debate. It's trolling behavior by the insufferable loser of the debate.

I'm actually neurodivergent and have struggled reading social cues. Sometimes I read the room wrongly or I interpret things wrong or even I dont realize how serious people are. I take full responsibility of my mistakes and whenever someone sincerely has an issue, I've always done my best to apologize and change my behavior.

Even with my handicap I do know this though. If even a handful of people have told you repeatedly that you are annoying in a bad way and not in a fun joking manner and you still dont change, that is a you problem, not anyone else. Especially if you start calling people idiots or wrong just because they disagree with you about something as insignificant as chart movement.

[nathanalbright]

^

I can imagine the conversation went something like this: The rise of streaming and the fact that some songs (UF, Circles, BL, Sunflower, Radioactive, Sail) have had particularly lengthy runs driven by remarkably consistent streaming and radio led to there being complaints that too many boomer songs were filling up the chart and not giving new songs the chance to thrive. Labels might have grudgingly accepted this to be the case, as all of them want those chart positions to promote new songs as being successful as soon as possible, but countered that some songs in some genres (country, ac, hot ac, urban ac in particular) take a long time to catch on, sometimes far beyond twenty weeks (as we see with OTM), which then led to the carve out exception that we see at least once a year being prominently mentioned to support a song's run that has had a slow start.

It is clear that because you tend to like songs that have had a long chart run and seen this chart run cut off because of the tail-end that has been whacked off when a song falls below certain thresholds, you tend to express your irritation at slow-rising songs that spend most of their time (if not all of their time) in the lower reaches of the chart, where it is entirely understandable that a label would not want a song to be stuck in recurrency while it is still being actively pushed and promoted on at least one radio format in order to increase the marketability of the album/artist associated with the song, while it is willing to lose the chart points at the tail end of a song, as those chart points are mainly of interest to chart nerds like ourselves. For labels, it is in their benefit for these tail weeks to be cut off, because a song that has popular resonance that does not require active promotion can gain money with no promotion and because songs with extremely long chart runs can hinder the promotional cycle of new music for that artist or other label artists. The recurrency rules and their exceptions were made to keep old songs from clogging up a chart while keeping songs that were still being actively on the charts as long as they were being pushed by the labels.

If one wanted to summarize the situation, it would be that the chart rules are designed to reflect the money that record label companies are putting into pushing songs in some fashion in the hope that they will catch on with audiences, and not the money that songs bring through their revenue. Lucrative catalog sales were long not included on the Billboard Hot 200 and catalog songs are not included on the Billboard Hot 100, no matter how much additional revenue these songs bring in through streaming and sales after falling off the charts. If BL continues to chart well beyond taking the record from Radioactive, we can expect something to be done like the 10/100 rule to add yet another layer of recurrency to keep boomer songs from clogging up the charts as is becoming more and more common in the current music era.

[GW]

Jul 22, 2021 13:01:58 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

Jul 22, 2021 12:27:08 GMT -5 GW said:

The way I look at online behavior is: think of it like you're a real person in a real room full of real people having a group conversation. If you're the person who has this warped, biased opinion on something that literally nobody else agrees with, and keeps bringing it up using the same talking points while bypassing the inconvenient facts, it's not going to end well for that person. At some point it is objectively trolling, if not by definition, at least by consensus of literally EVERYBODY else in the room. Perhaps there would be a vote and that person would be voted out of the room. It's not censoring, it's recognizing selfish delusion that is derailing the conversation in the room, repeatedly.

I don't for even one second believe that a mentally healthy person with good intentions would act this way in a real room full of real people. Being an avatar online allows people to act this way without any real life repercussions, so trolls and twats behave this way because they can. Not because they actually would if it were in-person interaction. Debates are one thing, facts that support a point of view score more points than biased opinions. One person who has been proven wrong with facts and keeps popping off with the same nonsense is not a debate. It's trolling behavior by the insufferable loser of the debate.

I'm actually neurodivergent and have struggled reading social cues. Sometimes I read the room wrongly or I interpret things wrong or even I dont realize how serious people are. I take full responsibility of my mistakes and whenever someone sincerely has an issue, I've always done my best to apologize and change my behavior.

Even with my handicap I do know this though. If even a handful of people have told you repeatedly that you are annoying in a bad way and not in a fun joking manner and you still dont change, that is a you problem, not anyone else. Especially if you start calling people idiots or wrong just because they disagree with you about something as insignificant as chart movement.

*applause*  Self awareness is everything, especially in a room full of people we interact with regularly.  Nobody is perfect and we are all bound to get caught up one time or another.  Like you said, it's about knowing who you are and doing your best to read the room and recognize when your behavior isn't conducive to a healthy flow in a room or virtual room full of people.  And then changing said behavior, or maybe just letting something go when nobody else agrees with you.  

People become caricatures of themselves in their attempt to prove their point or desperately try and convince others to agree with their opinion, by way of repetition.  And it's really hard to come back from that, if you even want to.  Seems like some people don't want to, and that's unfortunate for everybody else.

Thank you for sharing your truth and recognizing that even with a handicap in a social setting, you don't have to be annoying every. single. day.  

[phieaglesfan712]

Jul 22, 2021 13:06:52 GMT -5 nathanalbright said:

If one wanted to summarize the situation, it would be that the chart rules are designed to reflect the money that record label companies are putting into pushing songs in some fashion in the hope that they will catch on with audiences, and not the money that songs bring through their revenue. Lucrative catalog sales were long not included on the Billboard Hot 200 and catalog songs are not included on the Billboard Hot 100, no matter how much additional revenue these songs bring in through streaming and sales after falling off the charts. If BL continues to chart well beyond taking the record from Radioactive, we can expect something to be done like the 10/100 rule to add yet another layer of recurrency to keep boomer songs from clogging up the charts as is becoming more and more common in the current music era.

I can't see them setting a recurrency bar at 10, as that would invite the scenario where the Soko record can easily be broken artificially. I think the next recurrency bar will be at 15, and even then that would allow an outside chance where the Soko record can be broken, but at the same time, I can't see a recurrency bar of 20 because there's already one at 25. I also wouldn't be surprised if the 25 recurrency bar is capped lower than 52 weeks.

[nathanalbright]

Why would they have a problem with the Soko record being broken. If they want to clear up the chart from old songs they will pick an appropriate level to nip them once they peak and are clearly on their way out. As we have seen with Mediabase and Levitating, sometimes they can be a bit aggressive about this.

[Groovy]

Are they open to no recurrency rules again?

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

This is another week I'm glad will be in over soon ...

[phieaglesfan712]

Jul 22, 2021 20:51:13 GMT -5 Groovy said:

Are they open to no recurrency rules again?

I’d be for this. At least the rules will be applied consistently, and Blinding Lights can chart indefinitely. Then, we can watch it chart on the bottom quadrant of the Hot 100 during the entire 2048-49 charting year (which will run from September 26, 2048 to September 18, 2049) and end up at #76 on the YE chart.

[nathanalbright]

Blinding Lights would be the new Mr. Brightside, a source of income for lazy music journalists for years to come.