Billboard Hot 100: 05/07/2022

[phieaglesfan712]

May 3, 2022 7:52:28 GMT -5 Gary said:

May 3, 2022 7:38:51 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. As I said, I would have been okay with this was a two week thing, but this is 4 whole months now. No reason why these songs should still be on the charts in May 2022.

Clearly you are not okay LOL


Billboard Explains: is running a video in the chart section this week it is about recurrent rules but I think it applies here too --- with a meaningful reason for being there - age doesn't matter

Both are still big on radio and both are top 40 on streaming
and in the case of Levitating - still top 50 on Digital


Basically the "meaningful reason" is that people are still listening to the songs in big numbers



Change the station or stream something else if you are tired of these songs

Yeah, because it is perfectly normal for an over 2-year-old song like Save Your Tears to be charting higher now than at any point in the last 6 months. Not to mention, it is charting higher than much newer songs like Industry Baby, Easy On Me, and WDTAB. All this while the artist in question has moved on from this project and even released a new album 4 months ago (of which he has already released 3 singles, two of which have come and gone and the third going nowhere).

[livelightning]

May 3, 2022 9:21:23 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

May 3, 2022 7:52:28 GMT -5 Gary said:

Clearly you are not okay LOL


Billboard Explains: is running a video in the chart section this week it is about recurrent rules but I think it applies here too --- with a meaningful reason for being there - age doesn't matter

Both are still big on radio and both are top 40 on streaming
and in the case of Levitating - still top 50 on Digital


Basically the "meaningful reason" is that people are still listening to the songs in big numbers



Change the station or stream something else if you are tired of these songs

Yeah, because it is perfectly normal for an over 2-year-old song like Save Your Tears to be charting higher now than at any point in the last 6 months. Not to mention, it is charting higher than much newer songs like Industry Baby, Easy On Me, and WDTAB. All this while the artist in question has moved on from this project and even released a new album 4 months ago (of which he has already released 3 singles, two of which have come and gone and the third going nowhere).

Why should old songs be removed in favor of newer songs if people are still listening to them??? That's the rebuttal to your argument and you have no response. All of this is sour grapes because you're bored of these songs or something. 

[nathanalbright]

People listen to what they want to listen to. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

[Gary]

phieaglesfan712 I think of these charts as a summary of WHAT OTHER PEOPLE listen too

Streaming - which is "other people" choice has 12 songs in this weeks top 50 alone - that have charted 40 or more weeks.


2 of those 12 are in their 3rd year

This is what people are listening too - by choice

The newer projects by The Weeknd have not caught on -- it happens



You though are free to try and impact the chart by binge streaming his new project if you want --- or as I have said before --- create your own chart and follow that one

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

[Verisimilitude]

^ Classic smashas. The Dawn FM. singles deserved their longevity too.

[Enigma.]

Whoa Morgan Wallen's latest really collapsed.

[Mayman]

May 3, 2022 7:42:03 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Obviously people are still listening to it. Not sure why that’s not a good enough reason.

I know, I don't get the constant complaints. Both songs are streaming well and have good airplay. It's really not hard to understand why they're still charting.

[Choco]

May 3, 2022 12:32:49 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

Whoa Morgan Wallen's latest really collapsed.

Sales fueled and religion-related are both good ways to ensure you have no longevity.

Streaming and radio are what gives songs longevity these days.

[atg]

May 3, 2022 9:21:23 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

May 3, 2022 7:52:28 GMT -5 Gary said:

Clearly you are not okay LOL


Billboard Explains: is running a video in the chart section this week it is about recurrent rules but I think it applies here too --- with a meaningful reason for being there - age doesn't matter

Both are still big on radio and both are top 40 on streaming
and in the case of Levitating - still top 50 on Digital


Basically the "meaningful reason" is that people are still listening to the songs in big numbers



Change the station or stream something else if you are tired of these songs

Yeah, because it is perfectly normal for an over 2-year-old song like Save Your Tears to be charting higher now than at any point in the last 6 months. Not to mention, it is charting higher than much newer songs like Industry Baby, Easy On Me, and WDTAB. All this while the artist in question has moved on from this project and even released a new album 4 months ago (of which he has already released 3 singles, two of which have come and gone and the third going nowhere).

At this point, when Heat Waves and Stay are still current hits despite them clearly being past their peaks, then we shouldn’t complain about Levitating and SYT still being here. Obviously they’ll go away in the next 1-4 weeks from now because there’s no way that they’ll survive all the album bombs. Why can’t we just all be happy that they’re all basically all time hits that we’re seeing chart in real time?

[Gary]

Gotta protect the Blinding Lights record at all costs LOL

[jenglisbe]

May 3, 2022 7:38:51 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. As I said, I would have been okay with this was a two week thing, but this is 4 whole months now. No reason why these songs should still be on the charts in May 2022.

Aren't you one who has argued against rules for recurrency, or am I getting people mixed up?

Anyway, we have to adjust and realize this is the new normal. More than having the recurrency rules adjusted, I think the 'all time' charts need to be reconsidered. It just isn't right to me that the all-time charts will lean so heavily toward the past 5 or so years.

[phieaglesfan712]

May 3, 2022 13:02:53 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

May 3, 2022 7:38:51 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. As I said, I would have been okay with this was a two week thing, but this is 4 whole months now. No reason why these songs should still be on the charts in May 2022.

Aren't you one who has argued against rules for recurrency, or am I getting people mixed up?

Anyway, we have to adjust and realize this is the new normal. More than having the recurrency rules adjusted, I think the 'all time' charts need to be reconsidered. It just isn't right to me that the all-time charts will lean so heavily toward the past 5 or so years.

For me, recurrency depends on how many songs are on the charts. If there are 50, then I'd prefer the accuracy and no recurrent rules. With 100, I think the recurrent rules are necessary. Otherwise, songs like Uptown Funk, Perfect, Sunflower, and Blinding Lights would never fall off.

As for the all-time charts, I think the only songs in the streaming era that deserve to be really high on the all-time chart are Uptown Funk, Blinding Lights, and maybe Stay. I'd also argue that despite the all-time charts leaning heavily towards the streaming era, Sunflower's placement on the all-time chart is low in comparison to its peers.

[Gary]

That all time list formula has changed a few times over the years and i am sure will change again to account for the streaming era impact

People are streaming stuff longer and clinging to older favorites longer.
\
Recurrency rules aren't going to help that

[85la]

May 3, 2022 13:02:53 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

May 3, 2022 7:38:51 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. As I said, I would have been okay with this was a two week thing, but this is 4 whole months now. No reason why these songs should still be on the charts in May 2022.

Aren't you one who has argued against rules for recurrency, or am I getting people mixed up?

Anyway, we have to adjust and realize this is the new normal. More than having the recurrency rules adjusted, I think the 'all time' charts need to be reconsidered. It just isn't right to me that the all-time charts will lean so heavily toward the past 5 or so years.

This is not a new normal I look forward to though, nor does it have to be. What people don't get is that the Hot 100 is already not a strict ranking of the 100 most-consumed songs, nor are almost all of Billboard's other airplay and genre charts. There is a strong focus, within reason of course, of including what is the newest, freshest, and most current, hence the very word "hot." There are already recurrent rules that remove songs from certain regions of the charts if they linger there for too long, so I don't really see a problem with re-adjusting them, as they are all the time, if the same few songs come to dominate upper regions for exceedingly lengthy periods of time as well.

[rimetm]

May 3, 2022 13:36:30 GMT -5 85la said:

so I don't really see a problem with re-adjusting them, as they are all the time

11/30/1991 - Recurrents established, reached once below #20 after 20 weeks
01/25/1992 - Rule shifted to be #40 after 20 weeks
04/??/1992 - Rule shifted to be #50 after 20 weeks
...
12/05/2015 - Second recurrent rule added, impacting songs below #25 after 52 weeks

These are the grand total of rules adding or modifying ways to get sent to recurrency. I would not characterize that as "all the time", as it's basically 2 times with tweaks the first time when it became clear that it was too harsh, with over 20 years in between.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

May 3, 2022 9:21:23 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

May 3, 2022 7:52:28 GMT -5 Gary said:

Clearly you are not okay LOL


Billboard Explains: is running a video in the chart section this week it is about recurrent rules but I think it applies here too --- with a meaningful reason for being there - age doesn't matter

Both are still big on radio and both are top 40 on streaming
and in the case of Levitating - still top 50 on Digital


Basically the "meaningful reason" is that people are still listening to the songs in big numbers



Change the station or stream something else if you are tired of these songs

Yeah, because it is perfectly normal for an over 2-year-old song like Save Your Tears to be charting higher now than at any point in the last 6 months. Not to mention, it is charting higher than much newer songs like Industry Baby, Easy On Me, and WDTAB. All this while the artist in question has moved on from this project and even released a new album 4 months ago (of which he has already released 3 singles, two of which have come and gone and the third going nowhere).

You constantly getting angry at Billboard is no different than grandpa constantly getting angry at the weatherman. It doesn’t make sense and you look foolish.

[inverse]

Why tf did Never Say Never drop to 41 its still stable on radio???

[rihannabiggestfan]

Get Into It (Yuh) got a 21st week, wow. I thought it would have gone recurrent but idk, there are many exceptions to that lol

Jellyhead by Crush peaking at #72 and charting for 21 weeks teas? www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/1997-01-03/

[85la]

May 3, 2022 14:45:02 GMT -5 rimetm said:

May 3, 2022 13:36:30 GMT -5 85la said:

so I don't really see a problem with re-adjusting them, as they are all the time

11/30/1991 - Recurrents established, reached once below #20 after 20 weeks
01/25/1992 - Rule shifted to be #40 after 20 weeks
04/??/1992 - Rule shifted to be #50 after 20 weeks
...
12/05/2015 - Second recurrent rule added, impacting songs below #25 after 52 weeks

These are the grand total of rules adding or modifying ways to get sent to recurrency. I would not characterize that as "all the time", as it's basically 2 times with tweaks the first time when it became clear that it was too harsh, with over 20 years in between.

Ok, but that's still 3 changes within one year because they felt they needed to, you can't just sort of discount that, so over that 30 year period it's on average about once every eight years, but you're forgetting earlier years of the chart pre-Soundscan, such as when the Beatles songs were charting in which they would also remove songs after a certain time (at that time specifically, it was after they fell below position #30 and were decreasing in points for two consecutive weeks, I believe; surely there were other rules that I don't have time to research now), and there are other recurrency rules they've changed to other charts, which I'm also including in my overall discussion and which is relevant, as well as other numerous changes they've made not involving specific week cut-offs (the 20/50 and 52/25 rules) involving what qualifies or disqualifies a song to leave recurrency and chart again, exceptions granted, etc., not to mention the total number of positions they have changed for each chart as well. All taken in total, these amount to fairly frequent modifications, at least once every couple years. Whether this is "all the time" or not, I won't debate the semantics on that with you, but even if say for the last 30 years there were no changes, does that mean every two years from now henceforward changes can't be made at all if it's apparent there's a real need for them? The industry is always changing and in flux, but not always at regular intervals, so rules can be adjusted as frequently or infrequently as needed.

[Gary]

A new rule they were tweaking that they felt worked for 20 years

Prior to 1991 there was no such thing as recurrent rules for the Hot 100

[DJDaveMick69]

Between 1963 and 1972, I feel there was a "silent rule" that once-top 40 songs were falling out of the top 40 after peaking at least 2 weeks ago, the songs fell off the HOT 100 cleanly, to allow newer songs move up the bottom half of the chart.

[Gary]

Between 1968 and around 1972. The top 50 portion of the Hot 100 bucks as actually sales only

[roadrunner]

I don’t understand why Lizzo’s “About Damn Time” moves from 50 to 60 with only two weeks on the Hot 100. It’s No. 3 on iTunes and although not a smash hit, I’m at a loss. Lizzo hosted and sang the song on SNL a couple weeks ago.. I think I am done with the Hot 100 forever. No. 19 and 21 on Adult top 40 and and pop respectively…34 in Canada. I guess I’m just out of touch and stuck in some other decade.

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

May 3, 2022 20:01:54 GMT -5 roadrunner said:

I don’t understand why Lizzo’s “About Damn Time” moves from 50 to 60 with only two weeks on the Hot 100. It’s No. 3 on iTunes and although not a smash hit, I’m at a loss. Lizzo hosted and sang the song on SNL a couple weeks ago.. I think I am done with the Hot 100 forever. No. 19 and 21 on Adult top 40 and and pop respectively…34 in Canada. I guess I’m just out of touch and stuck in some other decade.

That fall from 50 to 60 was before the TikTok trend. Next week (05/14/2022) it'll enter the top 40 for sure, it's currently #7 on Spotify and #41 on AM.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

I'm glad that Doja Cat somehow prevented you know who from returning to #1 in the Artist 100.

[roadrunner]

May 3, 2022 20:12:13 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

May 3, 2022 20:01:54 GMT -5 roadrunner said:

I don’t understand why Lizzo’s “About Damn Time” moves from 50 to 60 with only two weeks on the Hot 100. It’s No. 3 on iTunes and although not a smash hit, I’m at a loss. Lizzo hosted and sang the song on SNL a couple weeks ago.. I think I am done with the Hot 100 forever. No. 19 and 21 on Adult top 40 and and pop respectively…34 in Canada. I guess I’m just out of touch and stuck in some other decade.

That fall from 50 to 60 was before the TikTok trend. Next week (05/14/2022) it'll enter the top 40 for sure, it's currently #7 on Spotify and #41 on AM.

OK …As long as it hits 20 or better I’m ok with that!

[Groovy]

May 3, 2022 20:25:37 GMT -5 Baby Yoda Hot100Fan said:

I'm glad that Doja Cat somehow prevented you know who from returning to #1 in the Artist 100.

He’s getting blocked everywhere.

[phieaglesfan712]

May 3, 2022 20:25:37 GMT -5 Baby Yoda Hot100Fan said:

I'm glad that Doja Cat somehow prevented you know who from returning to #1 in the Artist 100.

I'm even more amazed that this was the first time she reached #1. I would have thought that she would have done it when either Say So was #1 or the week Planet Her came out. Pretty weird, though, that it happened when she had nothing really going on this week besides Woman finally breaking through for a new peak at #7.

[85la]

May 3, 2022 17:57:23 GMT -5 DJDaveMick69 said:

Between 1963 and 1972, I feel there was a "silent rule" that once-top 40 songs were falling out of the top 40 after peaking at least 2 weeks ago, the songs fell off the HOT 100 cleanly, to allow newer songs move up the bottom half of the chart.

May 3, 2022 17:43:35 GMT -5 Gary said:

A new rule they were tweaking that they felt worked for 20 years

Prior to 1991 there was no such thing as recurrent rules for the Hot 100

Ok, but even if the rule has worked and remained unchanged for 20 or 30 or however many years, you're still not addressing my point and this doesn't change the fact that these recurrency rules DO exist and that the Hot 100 IS CURRENTLY NOT a strict down-the-line ranking of the 100 most-consumed songs in the country, which is a point that you and others keep bringing up that that is what the chart should be when discussions of tightening the recurrency rules come up, but it is an invalid talking point because the recurrency rules that are in place already remove songs that would otherwise still be charting. And also not addressing my point of why does a rule change have to be tied down to only happen every certain number of years? So even I will admit now it would be wise to wait at least another 1-2 years to see if the more pronounced longevity we are seeing lasts or whether it's just a blip, so that would be 2023 or 2024, nine years since the last recurrency rule change, is that still too frequent? just about once a decade?

And in regards to your second point about there being no recurrency rules prior to 1991, not sure if recurrency is the exact term, but songs were definitely removed after a certain time. djdavemick69's post above is exactly along the lines of what I'm referring to (though I thought I remember it being below the top 30, it's not entirely clear from looking at the chart runs, but it is definitely no lower than the 40-50 region, at least for songs that peaked in the top 10). If I am to provide the complete chart runs of the Beatles first 5 top 10 singles (all of which charted in 1964), it will illustrate my point perfectly:

I Want to Hold Your Hand: 45-3-*1*-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-4-7-19-24 (15 weeks on chart)

She Loves You: 69-21-7-3-2-2-2-2-*1*-1-3-4-8-19-36 (15 weeks on chart)

Please Please Me: 68-57-45-29- 6-4-*3*-3-4-5-9-16-29 (13 weeks on chart)

Twist and Shout: 55-7-3-*2*-2-2-2-7-11-20-41 (11 weeks on chart)

Can't Buy Me Love: 27-*1*-1-1-1-1-5-11-23-42 (10 weeks on chart)


Thus, all of these singles no longer appeared on the chart below #50 at the end of their runs, and since it is extremely unlikely that they all just happened to lose almost all of their points and left the charts organically those weeks, they must have been removed prematurely. Furthermore, as Can't Buy Me Love and Twist and Shout's only charting for 10 and 11 weeks shows, it doesn't even look like there was a minimun weeks threshold for drop-off: once they fell below a certain position, it appears they were removed no longer how many weeks they had spent up to that point. Whether you want to call it recurrency or some other term, the idea is the same, the songs were removed prematurely, while they would still have enough points to chart otherwise.