Billboard Hot 100: 12/04/2021

[jenglisbe]

Nov 23, 2021 10:42:28 GMT -5 Choco said:

Nov 23, 2021 10:28:17 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

I'm not defending "Yummy," but I don't get why people equate the Hot 100 to the Grammys. They are two different entities with very different aims.

Not even you could make a case where Yummy was more deserving of a nod over Blinding Lights (or like 200 other songs from that year).

"Yummy" apparently got more votes, so that would be the case right there. I can't speak to why more voters voted for it (and there have been theories I know), but at the end of the day more votes means more deserving on some level.

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Nov 23, 2021 10:44:47 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Nov 23, 2021 10:42:28 GMT -5 Choco said:

Not even you could make a case where Yummy was more deserving of a nod over Blinding Lights (or like 200 other songs from that year).

"Yummy" apparently got more votes, so that would be the case right there. I can't speak to why more voters voted for it (and there have been theories I know), but at the end of the day more votes means more deserving on some level.

"deserving on some level"

Yeah because it made sense that a song that was and is universally panned beat out:

1. The biggest song of last year
2. One of the most critically beloved songs of last year

Like what is the case exactly? Also cultural impact is always at the center of award shows. The entire idea and concept was literally based around celebrating the music the industry wanted to share.

[phieaglesfan712]

I don’t take the Grammys seriously anymore. The last few years with Billie Eilish winning all those awards over Lizzo and LNX as well as The Weeknd debacle were the nails in the coffin for me. I don’t think I’ll watch this upcoming year’s Grammys.

[dremolus - solarpunk]

I mean the Grammys don't celebrate what's actually "culturally impactful" in music to begin with but to act like they don't want to be the standard bearers for that is stupid.

[jenglisbe]

Nov 23, 2021 10:53:44 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

Like what is the case exactly? Also cultural impact is always at the center of award shows. The entire idea and concept was literally based around celebrating the music the industry wanted to share.

But see, you are doing it again here; you jump from "cultural impact" to "music the industry wanted to share." Those are not necessarily the same thing.

At the end of the day, the Grammy Awards are industry people - singers, musicians, producers, writers - voting for the music they like. For one, they aren't a monolith and they are all voting for their own reasons, just like we as individuals on this board; it would be weird to us for people to talk about "Pulse posters" in a general sense as we aren't all alike. For another, since they are in the industry, they likely come from a different place than we as listeners do.

Nov 23, 2021 10:56:57 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

I mean the Grammys don't celebrate what's actually "culturally impactful" in music to begin with but to act like they don't want to be the standard bearers for that is stupid.

Who is the "they" you mean, though? Are you saying you think the president of the organization has the same aim as a singer, and that both of them have the same aim as a session musician?

[Groovy]

It’s the fact that The Weeknd didn’t get a single nomination for either Blinding Light or After Hours that got me upset but Bummy got one.

[Choco]

It was my fault for bothering tbh. Apologies.

[Groovy]

I honestly thought they got it right with Billie winning all those awards.

[whales10268]

Nov 23, 2021 10:54:44 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

I don’t take the Grammys seriously anymore. The last few years with Billie Eilish winning all those awards over Lizzo and LNX as well as The Weeknd debacle were the nails in the coffin for me. I don’t think I’ll watch this upcoming year’s Grammys.


LNX maybe deserved record of the year but nothing else. His EP was garbage

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Nov 23, 2021 10:59:12 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Nov 23, 2021 10:53:44 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

Like what is the case exactly? Also cultural impact is always at the center of award shows. The entire idea and concept was literally based around celebrating the music the industry wanted to share.

But see, you are doing it again here; you jump from "cultural impact" to "music the industry wanted to share." Those are not necessarily the same thing.

At the end of the day, the Grammy Awards are industry people - singers, musicians, producers, writers - voting for the music they like. For one, they aren't a monolith and they are all voting for their own reasons, just like we as individuals on this board; it would be weird to us for people to talk about "Pulse posters" in a general sense as we aren't all alike. For another, since they are in the industry, they likely come from a different place than we as listeners do.

Nov 23, 2021 10:56:57 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

I mean the Grammys don't celebrate what's actually "culturally impactful" in music to begin with but to act like they don't want to be the standard bearers for that is stupid.

Who is the "they" you mean, though? Are you saying you think the president of the organization has the same aim as a singer, and that both of them have the same aim as a session musician?

Okay I feel like I need to explain some terms so you understand my point.

First off: it isn't just "music the industry wants to share". It's specifically choosing the music that makes the industry look good and yes, songs that they deem make cultural impact are included. I'm confused as to why they're supposedly mutually exclusive when art and it's critical praise isn't in a bubble, it's affected by culture and the impact it could have.

Also I think you're being a pedant with the "they aren't a monolith". Obviously when you break it down, however excuse doesn't fly when their most recent president resigned after failed attempts at making the Academy more inclusive to other demos. Again, if they were actually celebrating music released within the year; they wouldn't be so much drama about politicking nominations and snubs. This is exactly like saying members of a certain church voting on something isn't a monolith because everyone voted individually. Like if you look at things without context and just what things are objectively, you can arrive at that conclusion. But just like a Church: there are clear agendas and points all the members have in voting a certain way. 

Imo: we'd all be better off cancelling both the Grammys and by extension the Oscars.

[Choco]

Billie was the moment and it made sense to me. If she sweeps next year I can see the argument tho. But that year she had the hype, the sales, the critical and audience support...

Lil Nas X's EP was terrible and the only reason it was even considered was because OTR was a huge hit. I'd love to see his new album get awards tho, it's much better in every single way.

The Weeknd was a casualty of politics and agendas to push other stuff (like the audience rejected and critically hated "Yummy" because Scooter Braun will work overtime for petty s**t like that). I can see the argument for snubbing the album, but "Blinding Lights" had the sales, the critical scores, the audience support... "bUt iT dIdN't GeT vOtEs" probably not accurate either? He probably got enough support from pop and R&B to earn nods on the general field... make no mistake, there's some shady thing that went on there, or they wouldn't have killed the committee that did that.

[Groovy]

All I’m gonna say now is, expect either Olivia Rodrigo or BTS to sweep to win big this upcoming Grammys.

[jenglisbe]

Nov 23, 2021 11:12:29 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

Nov 23, 2021 10:59:12 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

But see, you are doing it again here; you jump from "cultural impact" to "music the industry wanted to share." Those are not necessarily the same thing.

At the end of the day, the Grammy Awards are industry people - singers, musicians, producers, writers - voting for the music they like. For one, they aren't a monolith and they are all voting for their own reasons, just like we as individuals on this board; it would be weird to us for people to talk about "Pulse posters" in a general sense as we aren't all alike. For another, since they are in the industry, they likely come from a different place than we as listeners do.

Who is the "they" you mean, though? Are you saying you think the president of the organization has the same aim as a singer, and that both of them have the same aim as a session musician?

Okay I feel like I need to explain some terms so you understand my point.

First off: it isn't just "music the industry wants to share". It's specifically choosing the music that makes the industry look good and yes, songs that they deem make cultural impact are included. I'm confused as to why they're supposedly mutually exclusive when art and it's critical praise isn't in a bubble, it's affected by culture and the impact it could have.

Also I think you're being a pedant with the "they aren't a monolith". Obviously when you break it down, however excuse doesn't fly when their most recent president resigned after failed attempts at making the Academy more inclusive to other demos. Again, if they were actually celebrating music released within the year; they wouldn't be so much drama about politicking nominations and snubs. This is exactly like saying members of a certain church voting on something isn't a monolith because everyone voted individually. Like if you look at things without context and just what things are objectively, you can arrive at that conclusion. But just like a Church: there are clear agendas and points all the members have in voting a certain way. 

Imo: we'd all be better off cancelling both the Grammys and by extension the Oscars.

I think you make a lot of good points. My main point was simply to say that what the president of the organization wants (and especially what they want to convey to the public) could be very different than what session musicians who make a living getting recording jobs wants. To the public the Grammys are represented by their officers and boards, but in terms of the members voting for music they like, of course actual musicians are going to vote for music that features instrumentation since that is their livelihood. I don't think most Grammy voters are necessarily voting to send a specific message to the public, but of course the Grammys board is concerned with public perception.

[Groovy]

[Choco]

I think Olivia's era is running out of steam at the worst time possible.

As for BTS, much like LNX's first EP, if they get there it's probably just recognition for their commercial success. Even amongst K-Pop acts they're hardly revolutionary, outside of their continued hustle for success on English-speaking markets.

I expect the wins to be a little like last year and spread the wealth. You have past favorites like Billie, Taylor and relative newcomers like Doja and LNX in the mix, and of course there's gonna be a few unexpected nods on the general field from genre acts.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

Along with that the Greatest of All Time Hot 100 chart has been updated, but paywalled.

[spiritboy]

YASSS at Shape of You being in top 10.

[Fire]

surprised at no circles in the all-time top 10

[Choco]

Surprised that Rihanna is still #10 on the Artist list and Drake hasn't moved above her. She's been gone for years and he has continued a steady output since.

[whales10268]

Olivia's era is finishing up, I don't think that will hurt her at the grammys. You can't expect her post album buzz to compete with all the new releases lately.

[phieaglesfan712]

Nov 23, 2021 11:25:58 GMT -5 Fire said:

surprised at no circles in the all-time top 10

I could have seen it with a 0.8 multiplier being as low as #12, but the fact that it’s all the way down at #19 makes me think the multiplier dropped all the way down to 0.75

[jenglisbe]

Nov 23, 2021 11:26:59 GMT -5 Choco said:

Surprised that Rihanna is still #10 on the Artist list and Drake hasn't moved above her. She's been gone for years and he has continued a steady output since.

I didn't realize the Artist list was updated, too. Was anything else updated?

[Choco]

Nov 23, 2021 11:49:15 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Nov 23, 2021 11:26:59 GMT -5 Choco said:

Surprised that Rihanna is still #10 on the Artist list and Drake hasn't moved above her. She's been gone for years and he has continued a steady output since.

I didn't realize the Artist list was updated, too. Was anything else updated?

Not sure but the big deals seem to be The Weeknd joining inside top 50 and Ariana debuting on the list as well, since she's the only female that debuted on the Hot 100 post 2010 to be there.

[Groovy]

I had no idea the nominations for the Grammys were coming today.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

[joshtheking]

Nov 23, 2021 10:08:23 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

29(+15) GAYLE - abcdefu 551,952 (+127,020)

Yep-- this is gonna be huge

[Deleted]

Nov 23, 2021 10:23:13 GMT -5 korbel16 said:

Nov 23, 2021 10:21:30 GMT -5 Gary said:

"officially" by what source?

I'm not a big Weeknd fan, but I'll take Blinding Lights any day over the 60s version of Watch Me (Whip / Nae Nae.) Congrats.

[Groovy]

I had no idea ABBA have never been nominated for a Grammy award ever. 

[dremolus - solarpunk]

So surprisingly, Grammy noms weren't a s**tshow

Although they nominated Louis C.K. so....

[joshtheking]

Second year in a row where the artist with the biggest Hot 100 song of the year received absolutely no grammy nominations