Billboard Hot 100: 05/04/2024

[Choco]

Apr 23, 2024 11:42:50 GMT -5 sedrickwilhelm said:

So is it not questionable that we are supposed to believe more people on earth are listening to Taylor Swift than all non-Taylor Swift music combined?
Does it really make sense for every song on her album to be played more in 3 days than the top 1 playing songs of the full weeks prior to it?
There's a difference between being the biggest by plurality and being the majority. No one artist should (or, CAN) be the MAJORITY.

What even is your point? Similar things have happened in the past. Beatlemania, the huge and continued resurgence of Michael Jackson's catalogue when he passed away... Thankfully it's rare but an act can, and has in the past, ruled the culture and most consumption metrics. Michael in particular ruled for months in a way that felt like no other act could quite catch up to his numbers until the effect of his death slowed down.

At this point people trying to deny that Taylor is having the biggest peak an act has gotten in well over a decade is just delusion and nonsense. The numbers are there.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2024 11:59:25 GMT -5 mms82 said:

Another cool thing about TTPD is that the songs aren’t just charting in an order somewhat similar to the album track list - it looks like it’ll be
Fortnight
Down Bad
I Can Do It With A Broken Heart
as the top 3 charting songs on the bomb, which are songs 1-4-13 respectively.

They were mimicking it almost exactly at first though (except Heart has been pulling ahead of its death spot on the album since day 1), but she stuck two absolute stinkers at the front and I think people started getting wise to that the more streams the album has picked up…

[GW]

Apr 23, 2024 11:42:26 GMT -5 85la said:

Apr 23, 2024 10:42:50 GMT -5 GW said:

There are some good examples of limited singles shipments hindering Hot 100 runs, but TGIFY is definitely not one of them.  Its "limited" shipment was actually its saving grace in terms of longevity on the Hot 100.

It shipped somewhere between 500,000 and 999,999 given its Gold certification at the time. Which is a fairly standard quantity, at least for an initial shipment, and was ultimately enough to keep it on the Hot 100 Singles Sales chart for 26 WEEKS - 17 of which were AFTER it fell off Hot 100 Airplay.

Even with the discounting which drove its initially-big sales numbers (resulting in its 2 weeks at #1 on the Hot 100 while peaking on Airplay), there were clearly many copies left after its Hot 100 run was over.  Its final week on the Hot 100 was April 22, and its final week on Hot 100 Singles Sales was July 29. 

The reality is, TGIFY's Hot 100 Airplay performance killed its Hot 100 run - it peaked at #15 and tumbled down quickly (falling off after 6 more weeks, for a total of just 17 weeks). Sales are what kept it from falling off the Hot 100 before its 20th week.

TGIFY's sales weren't bad, especially at the time (687,000 by February 2001 according to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_God_I_Found_You) with or without the limited release (I'm not really sure extending the release would've helped it much more), but an airplay peak of #15 and 17 weeks on the chart isn't horrible at all either, and not too far off from her other briefer #1s, such as Honey (#11) and My All (#15 as well). Not saying it was a huge huge hit, but it did reach #22 on airplay alone on the Hot 100 before its single release, had a run of 3 weeks in the top 2 after (actually first rising to #2 and then #1, 2-1-2-4, meaning it probably didn't exactly drop like a rock after its first week), and ranked in the top 50 of the year-end Hot 100, so while probably her weakest #1, I would still call it fairly substantial and far far off from being one of the weakest #1s of all time, many of which fall right out of the top 10 after debut week and off the chart entirely within a dozen.

Way to totally miss the point of my reply to someone else, I guess?

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2024 11:50:19 GMT -5 mms82 said:

Swift aside I’m so happy we’re having a monoculture event again, and I really hope it happens again with someone not named Taylor Swift (even though I’m a fan).

There’s something special about a big hit that everyone is talking about that we as chart watchers can appreciate, and we haven’t had many of those lately. Really only Drivers License and WAP and now Fortnight (really TTPD the album) have achieved 600+ points without unreal single sales (sorry Dynamite) in the 2020s and that’s a bummer, it’s an awesome part of popular music

I mean this whole post is pretty much the reason I was arguing so much in here about wanting to see a change in h100 methodology. A h100 #1, for the most part, used to feel special and be special. That just isn’t the case anymore as of this decade. It’s almost more the exception than the rule now, and I don’t think it has to be that way if you do something to hinder the songs that just get there on a few days of huge streaming and then fall off.

[dremolus - solarpunk]

Apr 23, 2024 12:39:36 GMT -5 @pikandru said:

Apr 23, 2024 11:50:19 GMT -5 mms82 said:

Swift aside I’m so happy we’re having a monoculture event again, and I really hope it happens again with someone not named Taylor Swift (even though I’m a fan).

There’s something special about a big hit that everyone is talking about that we as chart watchers can appreciate, and we haven’t had many of those lately. Really only Drivers License and WAP and now Fortnight (really TTPD the album) have achieved 600+ points without unreal single sales (sorry Dynamite) in the 2020s and that’s a bummer, it’s an awesome part of popular music

I mean this whole post is pretty much the reason I was arguing so much in here about wanting to see a change in h100 methodology. A h100 #1, for the most part, used to feel special and be special. That just isn’t the case anymore as of this decade. It’s almost more the exception than the rule now, and I don’t think it has to be that way if you do something to hinder the songs that just get there on a few days of huge streaming and then fall off.

And as we know, the way to accurately measure how a song is doing is to INTERNTIONALLY hinder movement on an arbitrary basis

[jenglisbe]

Apr 23, 2024 10:42:50 GMT -5 GW said:

Apr 22, 2024 15:06:19 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

The funny thing is "TGIFY" was a limited single, which is why it had a shorter chart run that prevented it from a higher year-end position. If it hadn't been limited, it would have had a longer run (that's true for a lot of her singles, including Can't Let Go, I'll Be There, Fantasy, and Heartbreaker). Having said that "TGIFY" was released in a time when not a lot of songs had a commercial release, so that obviously helped it get to #1 at all.

There are some good examples of limited singles shipments hindering Hot 100 runs, but TGIFY is definitely not one of them.  Its "limited" shipment was actually its saving grace in terms of longevity on the Hot 100.

It shipped somewhere between 500,000 and 999,999 given its Gold certification at the time. Which is a fairly standard quantity, at least for an initial shipment, and was ultimately enough to keep it on the Singles Sales chart for 26 WEEKS - 17 of which were AFTER it fell off the Airplay chart.

Even with the discounting which drove its initially-big sales numbers (resulting in its 2 weeks at #1 on the Hot 100 while peaking on Airplay), there were clearly many copies left after its Hot 100 run was over.  Its final week on the Hot 100 was April 22, and its final week on Singles Sales was July 29. 

The fact is, TGIFY's Airplay chart performance was why it didn't chart longer - it peaked at #15 and tumbled down quickly, charting just 17 weeks.  Without its continued sales, it wouldn't have reached 20 weeks on the Hot 100.

"TGIFY" was limited to 700k, and it sold over 225k in its first 2 weeks. So, roughly 1/3 of the available copies were gone in its first 2 weeks. Of course singles then not being available as supplies ran out in various stores would affect its chart run; that's just common sense. The fact that it was still charting on sales months later off whatever small amount of copies were still available shows there was still interest from the buying public, so common sense tells us if supplies had been larger then its weekly sales would have been larger (and thus its Hot 100 run might have been longer). It actually outsold "Doesn't Really Matter," "Come On Over," and "He Wasn't Man Enough," but maybe those were limited singles as well.

[mms82]

Apr 23, 2024 12:39:36 GMT -5 @pikandru said:

Apr 23, 2024 11:50:19 GMT -5 mms82 said:

Swift aside I’m so happy we’re having a monoculture event again, and I really hope it happens again with someone not named Taylor Swift (even though I’m a fan).

There’s something special about a big hit that everyone is talking about that we as chart watchers can appreciate, and we haven’t had many of those lately. Really only Drivers License and WAP and now Fortnight (really TTPD the album) have achieved 600+ points without unreal single sales (sorry Dynamite) in the 2020s and that’s a bummer, it’s an awesome part of popular music

I mean this whole post is pretty much the reason I was arguing so much in here about wanting to see a change in h100 methodology. A h100 #1, for the most part, used to feel special and be special. That just isn’t the case anymore as of this decade. It’s almost more the exception than the rule now, and I don’t think it has to be that way if you do something to hinder the songs that just get there on a few days of huge streaming and then fall off.

Even if you change the chart to be more inaccurate, that wouldn't make songs be bigger hits. Unfortunately, this decade we just haven't had many mega-hits. 
Like here's a random week in 2022: 

/photo/1

Changing the methodology to irrationally penalize songs that you don't think are "real" number ones, wouldn't make the songs any more popular that week, there just wasn't any song that was widely resonating with America and being mass consumed that week (no hate to Bad Habit, great song but it wasn't a mega hit that week)

 

[85la]

Apr 23, 2024 12:36:44 GMT -5 GW said:

Apr 23, 2024 11:42:26 GMT -5 85la said:

TGIFY's sales weren't bad, especially at the time (687,000 by February 2001 according to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_God_I_Found_You) with or without the limited release (I'm not really sure extending the release would've helped it much more), but an airplay peak of #15 and 17 weeks on the chart isn't horrible at all either, and not too far off from her other briefer #1s, such as Honey (#11) and My All (#15 as well). Not saying it was a huge huge hit, but it did reach #22 on airplay alone on the Hot 100 before its single release, had a run of 3 weeks in the top 2 after (actually first rising to #2 and then #1, 2-1-2-4, meaning it probably didn't exactly drop like a rock after its first week), and ranked in the top 50 of the year-end Hot 100, so while probably her weakest #1, I would still call it fairly substantial and far far off from being one of the weakest #1s of all time, many of which fall right out of the top 10 after debut week and off the chart entirely within a dozen.

Way to totally miss the point of my reply to someone else, I guess?

Huh? Uh, I did read your post and get the "point" of it. I was responding to what both you and Jeng said, both agreeing and disagreeing with some of the points, while adding more data and ideas of my own.

[sedrickwilhelm]

Apr 23, 2024 13:09:35 GMT -5 85la said:

Apr 23, 2024 12:36:44 GMT -5 GW said:

Way to totally miss the point of my reply to someone else, I guess?

Huh? Uh, I did read your post and get the "point" of it. I was responding to what both you and Jeng said, both agreeing and disagreeing with some of the points, while adding more data and ideas of my own.

I appreciated your contribution.

[GW]

Apr 23, 2024 12:53:19 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Apr 23, 2024 10:42:50 GMT -5 GW said:

There are some good examples of limited singles shipments hindering Hot 100 runs, but TGIFY is definitely not one of them.  Its "limited" shipment was actually its saving grace in terms of longevity on the Hot 100.

It shipped somewhere between 500,000 and 999,999 given its Gold certification at the time. Which is a fairly standard quantity, at least for an initial shipment, and was ultimately enough to keep it on the Singles Sales chart for 26 WEEKS - 17 of which were AFTER it fell off the Airplay chart.

Even with the discounting which drove its initially-big sales numbers (resulting in its 2 weeks at #1 on the Hot 100 while peaking on Airplay), there were clearly many copies left after its Hot 100 run was over.  Its final week on the Hot 100 was April 22, and its final week on Singles Sales was July 29. 

The fact is, TGIFY's Airplay chart performance was why it didn't chart longer - it peaked at #15 and tumbled down quickly, charting just 17 weeks.  Without its continued sales, it wouldn't have reached 20 weeks on the Hot 100.

"TGIFY" was limited to 700k, and it sold over 225k in its first 2 weeks. So, roughly 1/3 of the available copies were gone in its first 2 weeks. Of course singles then not being available as supplies ran out in various stores would affect its chart run; that's just common sense. The fact that it was still charting on sales months later off whatever small amount of copies were still available shows there was still interest from the buying public, so common sense tells us if supplies had been larger then its weekly sales would have been larger (and thus its Hot 100 run might have been longer). It actually outsold "Doesn't Really Matter," "Come On Over," and "He Wasn't Man Enough," but maybe those were limited singles as well.

The fact is, the song didn't sell out in the middle of its chart run, or even at the end... it was available on some level for at least 3 months AFTER it fell off the Hot 100.  I was still in the top 40 sales but was in the bottom quarter of the Hot 100 when it fell off - it didn't have airplay support anymore.  It would have fallen off the Hot 100 prior to 20 weeks had it not been for sales, because its airplay dissipated relatively quickly.  Thus it wasn't the limited single aspect that shortened its run.   Plain and simple.  (For a real example, see MHWGO).

You're suggesting the song might have continued to sell in large enough quantities to chart in the top 50 after airplay was long gone, and you know better than that.  It would have disappeared from the sales chart long before it did had there been that level of demand.  And I'm not even harping on the discount aspect, which was a key factor in its ability to sell.  And none of this is intended to knock the song's overall hit factor or Mariah, btw.  it's just a fact that it's not an example of "limited single" hinderance on the Hot 100, which was the sole point of my original reply to your post.  It's misleading at MINIMUM.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2024 12:50:46 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

Apr 23, 2024 12:39:36 GMT -5 @pikandru said:

I mean this whole post is pretty much the reason I was arguing so much in here about wanting to see a change in h100 methodology. A h100 #1, for the most part, used to feel special and be special. That just isn’t the case anymore as of this decade. It’s almost more the exception than the rule now, and I don’t think it has to be that way if you do something to hinder the songs that just get there on a few days of huge streaming and then fall off.

And as we know, the way to accurately measure how a song is doing is to INTERNTIONALLY hinder movement on an arbitrary basis

Well as you know I made my points in depth to you on why that isn’t the way I see it… if a song can’t sustain momentum more than a few days due to some sort of “qualifying week” rule on the hot 100, you will not convince me it deserved a #1 or top ten peak on the industry’s 70 year old most prestigious chart. It didn’t hardly happen before this decade, it shouldn’t happen all the time now.

[mms82]

Apr 23, 2024 13:43:14 GMT -5 @pikandru said:

Apr 23, 2024 12:50:46 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

And as we know, the way to accurately measure how a song is doing is to INTERNTIONALLY hinder movement on an arbitrary basis

Well as you know I made my points in depth to you on why that isn’t the way I see it… if a song can’t sustain momentum more than a few days due to some sort of “qualifying week” rule on the hot 100, you will not convince me it deserved a #1 or top ten peak on the industry’s 70 year old most prestigious chart. It didn’t hardly happen before this decade, it shouldn’t happen all the time now.

If a song doesn’t have a vinyl “45” release, you will not convince me it deserved a #1 or top ten peak on the industry’s 55 year old most prestigious chart. It didn’t hardly happen before this decade, it shouldn’t happen all the time now.

That argument made no sense 15 years ago, your argument doesn’t make any sense now. The way music is consumed is changed, and the Billboard Hot 100 is doing what it always has tried to do - measure the most popular songs in America. If anything it’s more accurate now, and adding fake irrational rules will just make the chart worse.

[jenglisbe]

Apr 23, 2024 13:34:08 GMT -5 GW said:

Apr 23, 2024 12:53:19 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

"TGIFY" was limited to 700k, and it sold over 225k in its first 2 weeks. So, roughly 1/3 of the available copies were gone in its first 2 weeks. Of course singles then not being available as supplies ran out in various stores would affect its chart run; that's just common sense. The fact that it was still charting on sales months later off whatever small amount of copies were still available shows there was still interest from the buying public, so common sense tells us if supplies had been larger then its weekly sales would have been larger (and thus its Hot 100 run might have been longer). It actually outsold "Doesn't Really Matter," "Come On Over," and "He Wasn't Man Enough," but maybe those were limited singles as well.

The fact is, the song didn't sell out in the middle of its chart run, or even at the end... it was available on some level for at least 3 months AFTER it fell off the Hot 100.  I was still in the top 40 sales but was in the bottom quarter of the Hot 100 when it fell off - it didn't have airplay support anymore.  It would have fallen off the Hot 100 prior to 20 weeks had it not been for sales, because its airplay dissipated relatively quickly.  Thus it wasn't the limited single aspect that shortened its run.   Plain and simple.  (For a real example, see MHWGO).

You're suggesting the song might have continued to sell in large enough quantities to chart in the top 50 after airplay was long gone, and you know better than that.  It would have disappeared from the sales chart long before it did had there been that level of demand.  And I'm not even harping on the discount aspect, which was a key factor in its ability to sell.  And none of this is intended to knock the song's overall hit factor or Mariah, btw.  it's just a fact that it's not an example of "limited single" hinderance on the Hot 100, which was the sole point of my original reply to your post.  It's misleading at MINIMUM.

"TGIFY" spent 3 weeks at #1 in sales, selling over 100k each of those weeks. It sold out half of its stock in those 3 weeks. It then fell 2-6-13 in sales the following 3 weeks. Of course the limited supply hurt its sales. Again, that's common sense. And yes, something like "MHWGO" had its chart run affected in a bigger way due to being a limited single since it was a bigger hit, but that doesn't mean "TGIFY" didn't also have its chart run impacted. I am not saying it would have stayed top 10 for months or something, just that it's chart run was affected. If it would have gotten even 1 more week on the Hot 100 with more singles being available, that means its chart run was affected. I don't even know why this is a hill you are trying to die on but do you.

By the way, both "Heartbreaker" and "TGIFY" were limited singles. The week each of them fell 1-2, Billboard noted how close the race for #1 was (the week "Heartbreaker" fell 1-2 Billboard noted it was the tightest race for #1 in 1999). Even just 1000 more sold or whatever could have kept the songs at #1 for another week.

[iHype.]

The fact during Taylor-mania week this thread somehow turned into debating a Mariah #1 from 25 years ago’s chart run is a perfect example of how absurdly funny Pulse is.

Almost every single song by 2000s either had absolutely no physical single or a relatively limited amount though. I’m not sure you could claim specifically TGIFY’s run was limited by that when I mean… you could say that for nearly every song that charted that year. Having a physical single, let alone 500k+ available by 2000 was actually a rarity and high advantage compared to most of the chart.

Half the chart were airplay only songs, so who’s to say if they all did have physicals available throughout the year (along with songs that did have limited physicals all having more) if TGIFY would’ve even reached #1 on Sales or charted as long as it did.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Apr 23, 2024 11:50:19 GMT -5 mms82 said:

Swift aside I’m so happy we’re having a monoculture event again, and I really hope it happens again with someone not named Taylor Swift (even though I’m a fan).

There’s something special about a big hit that everyone is talking about that we as chart watchers can appreciate, and we haven’t had many of those lately. Really only Drivers License and WAP and now Fortnight (really TTPD the album) have achieved 600+ points without unreal single sales (sorry Dynamite) in the 2020s and that’s a bummer, it’s an awesome part of popular music

Yeah, I think that’s my favourite part of this album. And similarly with Cowboy Carter. I miss the event albums that people can talk about generally. Before streaming, you could talk about the big hits with anyone and they’d know what you’re talking about. Now it’s such a limited thing.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Apr 23, 2024 13:43:14 GMT -5 @pikandru said:

Apr 23, 2024 12:50:46 GMT -5 dremolus - solarpunk said:

And as we know, the way to accurately measure how a song is doing is to INTERNTIONALLY hinder movement on an arbitrary basis

Well as you know I made my points in depth to you on why that isn’t the way I see it… if a song can’t sustain momentum more than a few days due to some sort of “qualifying week” rule on the hot 100, you will not convince me it deserved a #1 or top ten peak on the industry’s 70 year old most prestigious chart. It didn’t hardly happen before this decade, it shouldn’t happen all the time now.

I know what you mean from your other posts and I don’t think you’re wrong. However if you truly believe what you’re saying in the post I’ve quoted, I don’t think you understand how charts work. You’re not wrong that songs that can make #1 these days aren’t always big hits, but that isn’t Billboard’s fault by any means. You’re simply misdirecting the blame.

[85la]

To go back to Beyonce for a bit, I'm not sure at all that there will even be a third single. They only released a second, Cuff It, from Act I because it went viral after a while and they were forced to, II Most Wanted still isn't taking off in a major way, and still absolutely no visuals from either Act yet, so Beyonce is definitely not playing the traditional album rollout game anymore.

[GW]

Apr 23, 2024 14:09:21 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Apr 23, 2024 13:34:08 GMT -5 GW said:

The fact is, the song didn't sell out in the middle of its chart run, or even at the end... it was available on some level for at least 3 months AFTER it fell off the Hot 100.  I was still in the top 40 sales but was in the bottom quarter of the Hot 100 when it fell off - it didn't have airplay support anymore.  It would have fallen off the Hot 100 prior to 20 weeks had it not been for sales, because its airplay dissipated relatively quickly.  Thus it wasn't the limited single aspect that shortened its run.   Plain and simple.  (For a real example, see MHWGO).

You're suggesting the song might have continued to sell in large enough quantities to chart in the top 50 after airplay was long gone, and you know better than that.  It would have disappeared from the sales chart long before it did had there been that level of demand.  And I'm not even harping on the discount aspect, which was a key factor in its ability to sell.  And none of this is intended to knock the song's overall hit factor or Mariah, btw.  it's just a fact that it's not an example of "limited single" hinderance on the Hot 100, which was the sole point of my original reply to your post.  It's misleading at MINIMUM.

"TGIFY" spent 3 weeks at #1 in sales, selling over 100k each of those weeks. It sold out half of its stock in those 3 weeks. It then fell 2-6-13 in sales the following 3 weeks. Of course the limited supply hurt its sales. Again, that's common sense. And yes, something like "MHWGO" had its chart run affected in a bigger way due to being a limited single since it was a bigger hit, but that doesn't mean "TGIFY" didn't also have its chart run impacted. I am not saying it would have stayed top 10 for months or something, just that it's chart run was affected. If it would have gotten even 1 more week on the Hot 100 with more singles being available, that means its chart run was affected. I don't even know why this is a hill you are trying to die on but do you.

By the way, both "Heartbreaker" and "TGIFY" were limited singles. The week each of them fell 1-2, Billboard noted how close the race for #1 was (the week "Heartbreaker" fell 1-2 Billboard noted it was the tightest race for #1 in 1999). Even just 1000 more sold or whatever could have kept the songs at #1 for another week.

Since you keep mentioning common sense, if it was so in-demand then why didn't its *limited availability* sell out in a few more weeks, let alone months after it fell off the chart, if ever?  Hits that are actually negatively affected by their "limited single" status are ACTUALLY affected, not hypothetically-potentially-maybe-just-by-one-week-but-still-hindered-so-it-counts hindered.  Be real.  Your original statement may have been technically true in your mind, but it's really just delusional stan narrative bs. 

Mentioning other hits like Fantasy is ridiculous, literally every physical single by any artist was "limited", everything had a cap, gauged by how well it was selling and how well the album was selling, among other factors. TGIFY didn't exactly smash on radio as programmers started dropping it after 11 weeks, and the album was underperforming.  So printing more copies of the single would have been stupid for two obvious reasons. But yeah, let's stick to the "but it was a limited release" narrative.  *sigh*

It's also ok to be honest and real about... reality.  And stay on one very specific topic.  I'm a fan and can be honest and embrace objective chart facts.  It's not hard.  

[GW]

Apr 23, 2024 14:56:33 GMT -5 iHype. said:

The fact during Taylor-mania week this thread somehow turned into debating a Mariah #1 from 25 years ago’s chart run is a perfect example of how absurdly funny Pulse is.

Almost every single song by 2000s either had absolutely no physical single or a relatively limited amount though. I’m not sure you could claim specifically TGIFY’s run was limited by that when I mean… you could say that for nearly every song that charted that year. Having a physical single, let alone 500k+ available by 2000 was actually a rarity and high advantage compared to most of the chart.

Half the chart were airplay only songs, so who’s to say if they all did have physicals available throughout the year (along with songs that did have limited physicals all having more) if TGIFY would’ve even reached #1 on Sales or charted as long as it did.

Lol. Thank you for your common sense on this matter.  Fans can be so revisionist and reachy for no reason.

[sayhey]

In 2000 only ~40.3 million physical singles were sold in the US and only one single sold a million copies (Madonna's Music). Most singles charted either only on airplay (Aaliyah's Try Again becoming the first airplay-only #1) or with limited physical releases, so it is true that TGIFY not only should not be considered a limited release, but it technically had an advantage over many singles of the time.

I would also like to add that in the 90s, when physical single releases were still widespread, but on a steady decline in an effort to boost the burgeoning and more profitable album market, singles were technically always "limited". Practically all singles that were commercially available were deleted soon after their radio peaks to both avoid "cannibalization" of album sales and to rapidly move on to the next single. However, certain highly-demanded commercially available singles like MHWGO were severely limited, as that single was limited to 658K copies and sold 360K in its debut week. Given a wider release, MHWGO would have easily sold over 2-3M physical copies and maybe even more, given the hoopla surrounding Titanic, but of course it was preferable to sell Celine's LTAL and the OST.

So, personally, I'd describe 90s singles as being limited releases only when their physical formats were very restricted in quantities compared to the demand, as in MHWGO's case. Most other singles whose physical configurations got eventually deleted shouldn't be viewed as limited as that was the norm. Actually, very few singles had wide releases in the 90s, the most prominent example being Elton John's blockbuster single CITW.

[mms82]

Apr 23, 2024 14:56:33 GMT -5 iHype. said:

The fact during Taylor-mania week this thread somehow turned into debating a Mariah #1 from 25 years ago’s chart run is a perfect example of how absurdly funny Pulse is.

I love some of this randomness. I also think an old-school internet forum like this is inaccessible to lots of younger folks so this board skews older than the average pop music consumer / even chart watcher, and you get a lot of lambs from a previous era excited about a fight from a quarter century ago. Not hating at all, it's a fun community that we can have parallel arguments in this thread about an old Mariah single and the biggest album of the 2020s in its release week thread. Maybe it'll help get this thread to 30 pages again :)

[theycallmedualian]

Apr 23, 2024 14:56:33 GMT -5 iHype. said:

The fact during Taylor-mania week this thread somehow turned into debating a Mariah #1 from 25 years ago’s chart run is a perfect example of how absurdly funny Pulse is.

How sad Taylor’s biggest week in her career is being derailed by these scoundrels ...could u do the AOTD update to amend this absurdity?🫣

[mms82]

Apr 23, 2024 17:10:14 GMT -5 Baby Yoda Hot100Fan said:

TOP 20: TAYLOR TIME

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

TOP 20: TAYLOR TIME

Taylor Swift will collect the largest-ever number of total album streams as The Tortured Poets Department (Republic) is poised to log more than 800m. Meanwhile, Pearl Jam’s Dark Matter (Monkeywrench/Republic) is headed for a Top 5 opening, and Republic could hold as many as eight of the week’s Top 10, with the two Future & Metro Boomin albums shared with Epic.

Now if you’ll excuse us, we’ve got to break in our cowboy boots.

800,000,000 streams! Even divided across 31 tracks that's still 26 million average per track

[sedrickwilhelm]

Even if 2-20 all sold 100,000 each and combined them it would not be close to as much as she’s doing.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

[David]

Wow - wasn't really expecting her to get all Top 10 again, especially with Drake putting out a song (albeit late). Good for her!

[Caviar]

Crying

[sedrickwilhelm]

Dang, I guess all the dudes talking smack about Future, Metro & Kendrick getting to #1 by dissing Drake are gonna have a lot of explaining to do about how Drake's own response doesn't do as well as "Like That" 5th week. It is confusing though, I assumed it'd be able to be the highest non-Taylor Swift showing at least.

[jenglisbe]

Apr 23, 2024 16:14:12 GMT -5 GW said:

Apr 23, 2024 14:56:33 GMT -5 iHype. said:

The fact during Taylor-mania week this thread somehow turned into debating a Mariah #1 from 25 years ago’s chart run is a perfect example of how absurdly funny Pulse is.

Almost every single song by 2000s either had absolutely no physical single or a relatively limited amount though. I’m not sure you could claim specifically TGIFY’s run was limited by that when I mean… you could say that for nearly every song that charted that year. Having a physical single, let alone 500k+ available by 2000 was actually a rarity and high advantage compared to most of the chart.

Half the chart were airplay only songs, so who’s to say if they all did have physicals available throughout the year (along with songs that did have limited physicals all having more) if TGIFY would’ve even reached #1 on Sales or charted as long as it did.

Lol. Thank you for your common sense on this matter.  Fans can be so revisionist and reachy for no reason.

Two things can be true at once. Of course "TGIFY" and other songs benefitted from having a physical single; I never said otherwise. That is an entirely separate thing from the physical single being limited affecting its chart run, though, and I have no idea why that's being mentioned as it has nothing to do with the discussion we were having.. Having more physical singles available for sale for an in-demand song of course means higher sales for that song and thus a better chart position.

sayhey by definition if a company only presses a certain number of physical singles to start with and doesn't press more, it's limited. It doesn't matter if other singles had the same thing; it just means they are all limited. To your point, labels did that to encourage album sales. What that then shows is that labels knew singles sales would be higher if there were more available, which gets back to the point I have been making.

Anyway it's a very pointless discussion in the grand scheme, so I'll move on.

[leoapp]

Thank God the so-called the most forgotton/the weakest/the most underrated Mariah's no.1 suddenly becoming a hot issue...
What a random talk