Billboard Hot 100 - 03/27/2010

[badrobot]

BB should reconsider the music video rule since they allow sales #s for the BB200 for titles available only at a singular retailer (and to my knowledge they don't disqualify singles that are only available at one digital retailer either?). But it sounds like it depends on iTunes actually providing the #s.

[Deleted]

Albums in general are available all over the place

Video singles are not

[HolidayGuy]

^Yes. It's one thing for a title here or there to be an iTunes (or whatever retailer) exclusive- but, when every sales tally comes from just one retaielr- I can see iTunes' resistance in providing those numbers. I am curious, though, how much they sell in an average week.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Mar 18, 2010 13:14:31 GMT -5 @2m said:

Albums in general are available all over the place

Video singles are not

That doesn't matter. Videos are widely available for sale on the internet. Even if they aren't they still should be including them just for the principle alone. The sales should count towards the HOT 100 as well as the sales of the ring tones.

[HolidayGuy]

^What other big-name retailers sell videos like iTunes does?

[Deleted]

Ring tones aren't songs.....but anyway

Regarding videos the previous post said it all, if videos were included as a component, then it would be itunes alone.

The only chance for videos is if other outlets besides aren't started selling them

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2010 13:22:56 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

^What other big-name retailers sell videos like iTunes does?

I have only seen this on itunes.

Last I checked you can't pick one up at Walmart

[HolidayGuy]

Yeah, I didn't think so- was asking, as Adonis said videos are widely available for sale on the Internet, which I didn't think is the case. (and, hence, why Billboard doesn't include video sales). Granted, a bulk of digital sales comes from iTunes, but at least a number of other sites sell tracks in digital form.

[Deleted]

72 76 76 19 Someday, Rob Thomas

:'(

Just about to go recurrent... I hope not; it just started to gain on Top40. Could this be the reason why they're releasing an EP?

[imbondz]

forgive me if this was already asked, but does Need You Now have any chance at hitting #1 ?

[wavetunes]

Mar 18, 2010 14:08:01 GMT -5 @reidlos20 said:

72 76 76 19 Someday, Rob Thomas

:'(

Just about to go recurrent... I hope not; it just started to gain on Top40. Could this be the reason why they're releasing an EP?

Really? That would suck. It just started to gain nicely on the CHR chart like a couple of weeks ago. What is the recurrent rule for the hot 100?

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2010 16:12:56 GMT -5 imbondz said:

forgive me if this was already asked, but does Need You Now have any chance at hitting #1 ?

At this point? Not really. That BOB song is likely to jump up to #1 next week, shutting them out again, and they are already in their 32 week on the chart, it's rare for a song to hit the top spot with that many weeks behind them.

Not to mention their sales are going down.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2010 16:58:12 GMT -5 wavetunes said:

Mar 18, 2010 14:08:01 GMT -5 @reidlos20 said:

:'(

Just about to go recurrent... I hope not; it just started to gain on Top40. Could this be the reason why they're releasing an EP?

Really? That would suck. It just started to gain nicely on the CHR chart like a couple of weeks ago. What is the recurrent rule for the hot 100?

I think that a song goes recurrent after residing below #50 in its 21th week... Right?

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2010 18:41:45 GMT -5 @reidlos20 said:

Mar 18, 2010 16:58:12 GMT -5 wavetunes said:

Really? That would suck. It just started to gain nicely on the CHR chart like a couple of weeks ago. What is the recurrent rule for the hot 100?

I think that a song goes recurrent after residing below #50 in its 21th week... Right?

I think...unless it is still gaining at radio

[songkaiwen]

Mar 18, 2010 19:36:50 GMT -5 fridayteenage said:

Well, Rihanna is growing at a faster rate than Lady A and remains higher on iTunes.

Worldwide, RiRi also hits no. 1. And Adam Lambert's Whataya Want from Me debuts at #25; I believe that's higher than Live Like We're Dying's peak.

21st century #1’s by lead artist worldwide: Rihanna 6, Madonna/BEP 5, Shakira 4
US: Usher 7, Beyonce & Rihanna 5, Nelly 4
So Rihanna not only is on top worldwide but she's the only one with at least 4 on both lists.

Uh... no! Madonna still dominates worldwide!

Madonna (9 #1's): American Pie (8 weeks), Music (12 weeks), Don't Tell Me (2 weeks), Die Another Day (4 weeks), American Life (4 weeks), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Hung Up (15 weeks), Sorry (7 weeks), 4 Minutes (11 weeks)

Britney Spears (7 #1's): (You Drive Me) Crazy (1 week), Born To Make You Happy (1 week), Oops!... I Did It Again (9 week), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Toxic (5 weeks), Everytime (1 week), Womanizer (2 weeks)

P!nk (5 #1's): Lady Marmalade (9 weeks), Get The Party Started (5 weeks), Don't Let Me Get Me (1 week), Stupid Girls (2 weeks), So What (6 weeks)

Rihanna (5 #1's): S.O.S. (2 weeks), Umbrella (10 weeks), Don't Stop The Music (4 weeks), Take A Bow (3 weeks), Rude Boy (1 week so far)

[TroublemakerOlly]

Mar 18, 2010 13:13:13 GMT -5 badrobot said:

BB should reconsider the music video rule since they allow sales #s for the BB200 for titles available only at a singular retailer (and to my knowledge they don't disqualify singles that are only available at one digital retailer either?). But it sounds like it depends on iTunes actually providing the #s.

Both iTunes and Zune carry music videos, average #1 on iTunes is selling around 10k copies per week, Zune's #1 around 100 copies.

[dbt88]

Mar 18, 2010 21:38:23 GMT -5 songkaiwen said:

Mar 18, 2010 19:36:50 GMT -5 fridayteenage said:

Well, Rihanna is growing at a faster rate than Lady A and remains higher on iTunes.

Worldwide, RiRi also hits no. 1. And Adam Lambert's Whataya Want from Me debuts at #25; I believe that's higher than Live Like We're Dying's peak.

21st century #1’s by lead artist worldwide: Rihanna 6, Madonna/BEP 5, Shakira 4
US: Usher 7, Beyonce & Rihanna 5, Nelly 4
So Rihanna not only is on top worldwide but she's the only one with at least 4 on both lists.

Uh... no! Madonna still dominates worldwide!

Madonna (9 #1's): American Pie (8 weeks), Music (12 weeks), Don't Tell Me (2 weeks), Die Another Day (4 weeks), American Life (4 weeks), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Hung Up (15 weeks), Sorry (7 weeks), 4 Minutes (11 weeks)

Britney Spears (7 #1's): (You Drive Me) Crazy (1 week), Born To Make You Happy (1 week), Oops!... I Did It Again (9 week), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Toxic (5 weeks), Everytime (1 week), Womanizer (2 weeks)

P!nk (5 #1's): Lady Marmalade (9 weeks), Get The Party Started (5 weeks), Don't Let Me Get Me (1 week), Stupid Girls (2 weeks), So What (6 weeks)

Rihanna (5 #1's): S.O.S. (2 weeks), Umbrella (10 weeks), Don't Stop The Music (4 weeks), Take A Bow (3 weeks), Rude Boy (1 week so far)

For someone her age, RiRi has accomplished so much. What took Britney and other high profile and mainstream artists a decade to achieve took RiRi less than 5 years.

I'm kinda confused why you included YDMC on Britney's list when it topped worldwide in 1999. So she had 6 worldwide

[fridayteenage]

Oh I know what I did. I have a list of most year-end top 10's in the 21st century, and I forgot and thought it was a list of weekly #1's.

So that was actually BEP/Rihanna 5, Madonna/Shakira 4.

#1's WW: 6 Madonna; 5 Rihanna/BEP, 4 Pink/Brit/Destiny's
US: Usher 7, Beyonce & Rihanna 5, Nelly 4

[Whi$tlin' Pete]

"Poker Face" crosses the 5 million mark in digital sales next week!

[stooki3]

'I Got A Feeling' gonna be the first to hit the 6 million mark

[Deleted]

Mar 19, 2010 1:56:51 GMT -5 stooki3 said:

'I Got A Feeling' gonna be the first to hit the 6 million mark

That would be awesome! BBP & IGF are already pass the 5 Mill mark! They are doing amazing digitally :) And their album ain't doing shabby either which is always good!

[songkaiwen]

Mar 18, 2010 22:46:23 GMT -5 @dbt88 said:

Mar 18, 2010 21:38:23 GMT -5 songkaiwen said:

Uh... no! Madonna still dominates worldwide!

Madonna (9 #1's): American Pie (8 weeks), Music (12 weeks), Don't Tell Me (2 weeks), Die Another Day (4 weeks), American Life (4 weeks), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Hung Up (15 weeks), Sorry (7 weeks), 4 Minutes (11 weeks)

Britney Spears (7 #1's): (You Drive Me) Crazy (1 week), Born To Make You Happy (1 week), Oops!... I Did It Again (9 week), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Toxic (5 weeks), Everytime (1 week), Womanizer (2 weeks)

P!nk (5 #1's): Lady Marmalade (9 weeks), Get The Party Started (5 weeks), Don't Let Me Get Me (1 week), Stupid Girls (2 weeks), So What (6 weeks)

Rihanna (5 #1's): S.O.S. (2 weeks), Umbrella (10 weeks), Don't Stop The Music (4 weeks), Take A Bow (3 weeks), Rude Boy (1 week so far)

For someone her age, RiRi has accomplished so much. What took Britney and other high profile and mainstream artists a decade to achieve took RiRi less than 5 years.

I'm kinda confused why you included YDMC on Britney's list when it topped worldwide in 1999. So she had 6 worldwide

Sorry! My mistake! ;)
Rihanna did accomplish a lot, although I feel that Rude Boy does not seem to be #1 material. Disturbia, which peaked at #2 for weeks behind Katy Perry seems more suitable.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Mar 18, 2010 16:12:56 GMT -5 imbondz said:

forgive me if this was already asked, but does Need You Now have any chance at hitting #1 ?

They would need to continue to grow at radio, sell around 140 to 150 thousand digital downloads, and have their main competitors stumble on Itunes (I consider Rihanna and B.O.B. the toughest competitors right now).

Not likely but not impossible.

[slw84]

Mar 18, 2010 22:46:23 GMT -5 @dbt88 said:

Mar 18, 2010 21:38:23 GMT -5 songkaiwen said:

Uh... no! Madonna still dominates worldwide!

Madonna (9 #1's): American Pie (8 weeks), Music (12 weeks), Don't Tell Me (2 weeks), Die Another Day (4 weeks), American Life (4 weeks), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Hung Up (15 weeks), Sorry (7 weeks), 4 Minutes (11 weeks)

Britney Spears (7 #1's): (You Drive Me) Crazy (1 week), Born To Make You Happy (1 week), Oops!... I Did It Again (9 week), Me Against The Music (4 weeks), Toxic (5 weeks), Everytime (1 week), Womanizer (2 weeks)

P!nk (5 #1's): Lady Marmalade (9 weeks), Get The Party Started (5 weeks), Don't Let Me Get Me (1 week), Stupid Girls (2 weeks), So What (6 weeks)

Rihanna (5 #1's): S.O.S. (2 weeks), Umbrella (10 weeks), Don't Stop The Music (4 weeks), Take A Bow (3 weeks), Rude Boy (1 week so far)

For someone her age, RiRi has accomplished so much. What took Britney and other high profile and mainstream artists a decade to achieve took RiRi less than 5 years.
/quote]

I see what you are saying and I agreed up until you said what took other artist a decade Rir did in 5 years. Try to keep things in perspective. You are talking about an artist (that I love) that has sells more singles than albums and comparing it against artists that have proven to accomplish both...minus re-releases, double singles, or any other gimmicks etc.

It's like with the Gaga 6#'1s in a row...quite a feat yes but had the tracking began prior to 1993 Mariah would have 10 in a row-something that has occured with three/four albums of singles.

I am glad that our comtemporary artist are accomplishing this but like achieving 3#1's like she did with GGGB is a huge accomplishment versus amassing 5#1's in 5 years because she has put out four albums.

Back on topic, I see B.O.B being number one for a week maybe two and then Riri taking it for many weeks to come. i wonder what song will over take Rude boy.

[👑 Eloquent ™]

Mar 21, 2010 7:30:20 GMT -5 slw84 said:

Try to keep things in perspective. You are talking about an artist (that I love) that has sells more singles than albums and comparing it against artists that have proven to accomplish both

Speaking of trying to keep things in perspective, let's try and apply that perspective with album sales as well. You're comparing the album sales of an artist who debuted at one of the most lucrative points in the music industry, to an artist who debuted well after said industry began its nose-dive. Had Britney debuted in 2005, her overall sales would not be nearly as note-worthy.

...minus re-releases, double singles, or any other gimmicks etc.

Eh, at the end of the day (regardless of whether it's a re-release or double singles) the audience has to actually be interested in the product to make said product successful. To me, a re-release is like any other promotional tool. Some people here act as if it's "cheating" or something. It's not as if the artist's label is forcing the public to purchase the re-release or that a re-release guarantees extended success for an era.

It's like with the Gaga 6#'1s in a row...quite a feat yes but

There's no need for the but. Six number #1s in a row is very impressive regardless of whether or not another artist had ten prior. The previous artist's achievement isn't going to take anything away from GaGa's accomplishment.

accomplishment versus amassing 5#1's in 5 years because she has put out four albums.

I'm not sure how the frequency of output, in relation to #1 singles, can potentially make those #1s any less impressive. Whether it took 30 years and 18 albums or 5 years and 4 albums, 5 #1s is still impressive (at least to me). It's not as if you automatically have a better chance of hitting the top spot if you rush-release your albums, so I'm not quite sure of the point there.

[Love Plastic Love]

Mar 21, 2010 9:41:20 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Mar 21, 2010 7:30:20 GMT -5 slw84 said:

Try to keep things in perspective. You are talking about an artist (that I love) that has sells more singles than albums and comparing it against artists that have proven to accomplish both

Speaking of trying to keep things in perspective, let's try and apply that perspective with album sales as well. You're comparing the album sales of an artist who debuted at one of the most lucrative points in the music industry, to an artist who debuted well after said industry began its nose-dive. Had Britney debuted in 2005, her overall sales would not be nearly as note-worthy.



Eh, at the end of the day (regardless of whether it's a re-release or double singles) the audience has to actually be interested in the product to make said product successful. To me, a re-release is like any other promotional tool. Some people here act as if it's "cheating" or something. It's not as if the artist's label is forcing the public to purchase the re-release or that a re-release guarantees extended success for an era.



There's no need for the but. Six number #1s in a row is very impressive regardless of whether or not another artist had ten prior. The previous artist's achievement isn't going to take anything away from GaGa's accomplishment.

accomplishment versus amassing 5#1's in 5 years because she has put out four albums.

I'm not sure how the frequency of output, in relation to #1 singles, can potentially make those #1s any less impressive. Whether it took 30 years and 18 albums or 5 years and 4 albums, 5 #1s is still impressive (at least to me). It's not as if you automatically have a better chance of hitting the top spot if you rush-release your albums, so I'm not quite sure of the point there.

Yay go Will!


I would also like to point out that there have been a few major "flops" for re-releases recently. I think people assume re-release=AUTOMATIC MAJOR HUGE SALES BUMP THOSE CHEATERS!!!
It doesn't. That is why not every album is re-released. Like Will said, you still have to have a product that interests people coming at the right time with the right presentation. You still have to have an audience interested in you and your product just like a "Normal" release.
IT reminds me of specialty releases to Walmart and Target-90% of them did NOT sell that well. Most did NOT sell huge numbers at all. Then one or two bands sell very well because it works for them at that moment, that time in their career, and with that backing and suddenly all specialty cds released to Wal-Mart and Target are supposed to sell 4 million+ cds or it is a flop. Doesn't work that way folks. Look beyond the flashy huge example or two and look at the overall trend. That brings more accurate analysis of a situation.

[slw84]

Mar 21, 2010 9:41:20 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Mar 21, 2010 7:30:20 GMT -5 slw84 said:

Try to keep things in perspective. You are talking about an artist (that I love) that has sells more singles than albums and comparing it against artists that have proven to accomplish both

Speaking of trying to keep things in perspective, let's try and apply that perspective with album sales as well. You're comparing the album sales of an artist who debuted at one of the most lucrative points in the music industry, to an artist who debuted well after said industry began its nose-dive. Had Britney debuted in 2005, her overall sales would not be nearly as note-worthy.

Not sure why you are so fixated on Britney but I was referring to many other artist in addition that her. You must be referring to the other poster I responded to.

By the way, we have no idea what anyone's sales would be if they debuted at a different time (Madonna, Beyonce, Whitney etc.). That could be said for any artist; however, there are no exact numbers to say specifically what.


Eh, at the end of the day (regardless of whether it's a re-release or double singles) the audience has to actually be interested in the product to make said product successful.
>>>Really :o :PTo me, a re-release is like any other promotional tool. Well it's cool that you offer your opinion...and then what Some people here act as if it's "cheating" or something. It's not as if the artist's label is forcing the public to purchase the re-release or that a re-release guarantees extended success for an era.
Blah...blah...blah... You are not telling me anything I don't know. It seems as though because i mention one of the tools you went off on a tangent about ideas other's feel about re-releases. I never said it was a bad thing. Some have needed it more than others. You can count to ten now. I understand your frustration with people's ideas of re-releases LOL.



There's no need for the but. Six number #1s in a row is very impressive regardless of whether or not another artist had ten prior. The previous artist's achievement isn't going to take anything away from GaGa's accomplishment.

Very true. I stated that it was quite a feat. Again, you are not stating anything I don't know. The idea that artist have achieved it yet she is the artist getting press about it because she debuted after 1993 is what I was referring to. I can actually see her coming for 7 or 8...10 a long shot. But the press about her achieving it and being the first one Kind of like when they tweeted about her going diamond and Perez was all giddy. I am sure he knows that an album can not go diamond Worldwide as the certs are different per country but do many casual people reading that news know this

accomplishment versus amassing 5#1's in 5 years because she has put out four albums.

I'm not sure how the frequency of output, in relation to #1 singles, can potentially make those #1s any less impressive.
>>> I didn't say they were less impressive. But I understand you are a Rihanna s.tan so the defensive suggestive approach is obviously the way you will go.

Whether it took 30 years and 18 albums or 5 years and 4 albums, 5 #1s is still impressive (at least to me). It's not as if you automatically have a better chance of hitting the top spot if you rush-release your albums, so I'm not quite sure of the point there.

I will say that I should not have said this last statement because many people have put out that amount of output yet hadn't achieved that success.

I believe I was responding to the previous poster and I was coming from a place of seeing one referring to amassing such success in such a short period of time as if it was normal for artist to push out as many products and promote so frequently that it would not have an impact. We'll see with Gaga if she puts out 4 or 5 albums within 4 or 5 years if she can amass such success in such a short period of time. It might go to show that constant media saturation plays a role and it is not just about the music...hmmm that would be a shocker ;)

[slw84]

Mar 21, 2010 11:38:22 GMT -5 Love Plastic Love said:

Mar 21, 2010 9:41:20 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Yay go Will!
LOL


I would also like to point out that there have been a few major "flops" for re-releases recently. I think people assume re-release=AUTOMATIC MAJOR HUGE SALES BUMP THOSE CHEATERS!!!

Wow...where did I ever associate a re-release with automatic success. I didn't
It doesn't. That is why not every album is re-released. Like Will said, you still have to have a product that interests people coming at the right time with the right presentation.
>>>True. But why not put out another album? If you are going to saturate the media with constant presence a new album would make more sense. I find it hard to believe that an artist/label wouldn't re-release something without the hope that it will boost sales. So if a popular artist isn't selling like projected then a re-release is surely around the corner. It seems to me that in many instances the interest is there yet the sales are not. What other reasons would they have to re-release?

[👑 Eloquent ™]

Mar 21, 2010 11:48:25 GMT -5 slw84 said:

Wow...where did I ever associate a re-release with automatic success. I didn't

I believe she was speaking generally and not specifically at you.

I find it hard to believe that an artist/label wouldn't re-release something without the hope that it will boost sales.

No one claimed a label wouldn't hold hope for a boost when deciding to re-release a project. We are simply saying that re-releases do not guarantee extended success. Just like a regular release, they're hit or miss. Essentially, I don't see a re-release as "the easy way out" or "cheating".

So if a popular artist isn't selling like projected then a re-release is surely around the corner.

Eh, labels push re-releases for many different reasons; it's not always due to a project failing to meet expectations. Take The Emancipation Of Mimi or Fearless for example. The original editions were already performing phonemically before their re-release. Sometimes, re-releases are approached to simply maximize potential.

[nighttime]

slw84