Billboard Hot 100 - 5/22/2010

[renfield75]

May 13, 2010 15:26:59 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

Actually, ƒony (Les taches faibles™), one can say that any track that had a CD single after airplay-only tracks became eligible for the Hot 100 had an advantage over tracks that did not have a CD Single. But, again, it was the labels' decision to release singles or not, and some played the charts game better than others (or, cared more about it than others, I guess). For instance, any label that did not release a CD single for a radio hit from 1998-2003 cannot complain about chart peaks- they had the option to release a CD single to boost a track's chart-peak potential. In some cases, that meant "missing out" on a top 10 hit/possible #1, whatever.

Anyhow, the "Glee" count now stands at a whopping 38 Hot 100 entries. Of course, most of those are short-lived hits- we likely won't be seeing the "Glee" cast featured in Billboard's next ranking of the top 100 acts. :)

You never know! Joel Whitburn's last Top Pop Albums book (from 2006) had Bill & Gloria Gaither listed as the number one artist of the 2000s, just ahead of Jay-Z. They never peaked higher than number 35 but charted dozens of albums for one or two weeks. If Glee runs for four or five seasons and continues to perform like this, the sheer volume of tracks charted will get them on the all-time list.

Okay, probably not in the top 100...but it will be interesting to see how long this phenomenon lasts. I wonder if they can outpace Elvis for most Hot 100 appearances? If they send 50+ songs per season onto the Hot 100, they'll be the all-time chart leaders by the end of 2012 (I guess that will be the end of the world then, lol).

[Deleted]

May 13, 2010 15:26:59 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

Actually, ƒony (Les taches faibles™), one can say that any track that had a CD single after airplay-only tracks became eligible for the Hot 100 had an advantage over tracks that did not have a CD Single. But, again, it was the labels' decision to release singles or not, and some played the charts game better than others (or, cared more about it than others, I guess). For instance, any label that did not release a CD single for a radio hit from 1998-2003 cannot complain about chart peaks- they had the option to release a CD single to boost a track's chart-peak potential. In some cases, that meant "missing out" on a top 10 hit/possible #1, whatever.

Anyhow, the "Glee" count now stands at a whopping 38 Hot 100 entries. Of course, most of those are short-lived hits- we likely won't be seeing the "Glee" cast featured in Billboard's next ranking of the top 100 acts. :)

That's why I have my doubts that "Glee" will ever spawn a #1 hit on the Hot 100. Their songs sell well, but don't last long enough to make any real impact near the top of the chart. That might change if a "Glee" song ever sells a few 100k copies in a week or so, then they might score a very high chart position, or even a #1. But until that happens, "Glee"s influence on the Hot 100 will always be somewhat limited.

Their complete lack of airplay doesn't help either.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2010 15:39:59 GMT -5 renfield75 said:

Repression never guaranteed a number one single but it did help some songs on the chart; If 10,000 people hear a song the first week it comes out and like it enough to buy it, then it only sold 10,000 copies and would chart accordingly. If the label withheld that single, and it performed well on radio and television, then by the time of its release possibly 150,000 people had heard and liked it by then. The single would have sold the same cumulative number of copies, but if it could shift 150,000 in one week instead of 150,000 over the course of 3-4 weeks then obviously it would chart higher in that given week.

If people didn't like a song then none of this mattered, but repression could give a song one week with 200,000 copies sold, as opposed to 4 weeks performing like this: 15,000-40,000-70,000-75,000. And that could make the difference between a top ten hit and a number one hit.

And that's exactly what most of us have been saying.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2010 16:39:32 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

May 13, 2010 15:39:59 GMT -5 renfield75 said:

Repression never guaranteed a number one single but it did help some songs on the chart; If 10,000 people hear a song the first week it comes out and like it enough to buy it, then it only sold 10,000 copies and would chart accordingly. If the label withheld that single, and it performed well on radio and television, then by the time of its release possibly 150,000 people had heard and liked it by then. The single would have sold the same cumulative number of copies, but if it could shift 150,000 in one week instead of 150,000 over the course of 3-4 weeks then obviously it would chart higher in that given week.

If people didn't like a song then none of this mattered, but repression could give a song one week with 200,000 copies sold, as opposed to 4 weeks performing like this: 15,000-40,000-70,000-75,000. And that could make the difference between a top ten hit and a number one hit.

And that's exactly what most of us have been saying.

My point:

Why would those 150,000 people (in this example), purchase that song in the first place?

Repression?
OR Are there other factors at play?

Perhaps I am wrong but:

My personal opinion is the reasons you buy a "repressed" itunes single are no different than the reasons you would walk into Walmart and purchase a CD. (personal appeal and choice)

[Tanisha Thomas.]

I thought the repression thing deals with a build up of airplay vs sales as well. Repression is a method used by artists and labels to garner a high position on the charts. I doubt the general public cares or even knows about repression.

[felipe]

May 13, 2010 17:22:10 GMT -5 @2m said:

May 13, 2010 16:39:32 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

And that's exactly what most of us have been saying.

My point:

Why would those 150,000 people (in this example), purchase that song in the first place?

Repression?
OR Are there other factors at play?

Perhaps I am wrong but:

My personal opinion is the reasons you buy a "repressed" itunes single are no different than the reasons you would walk into Walmart and purchase a CD. (personal appeal and choice)

2m, do you think all of those 16 songs would have hit #1 even if they hadn't been repressed?
Do you think those songs were simply destined to be #1, and that repression played no part in it?

[WotUNeed]

In the interest of expediting this discussion, I'm going to try to summarize my understanding of the position I've seen 2m express in the past on this issue. 2m, please correct anything I say in error.

I believe his usual point is:
*Repression can be a factor in a song reaching #1, but it is not the only factor. For example, people still have to have some incentive to buy the single
*Based on that, we can conclude that repression does not guarantee a single will hit #1.
*It's impossible to know whether a song would or would not have hit #1 had repression been a factor; we can only say that it may still have hit number one, since we know that repression was not the only reason for it topping the chart.

Does that look about right, sir?

[Deleted]

May 13, 2010 17:44:20 GMT -5 WotUNeed said:

In the interest of expediting this discussion, I'm going to try to summarize my understanding of the position I've seen 2m express in the past on this issue. 2m, please correct anything I say in error.

I believe his usual point is:
*Repression can be a factor in a song reaching #1, but it is not the only factor. For example, people still have to have some incentive to buy the single
*Based on that, we can conclude that repression does not guarantee a single will hit #1.
*It's impossible to know whether a song would or would not have hit #1 had repression been a factor; we can only say that it may still have hit number one, since we know that repression was not the only reason for it topping the chart.

Does that look about right, sir?

Yes

Those are the points I am trying to convey. Probably not doing a very good job of expressing it though :o

Thanks

[cking33]

^ I agree with all of that. People who argue over this incessantly are going to get nowhere. Repression obviously helps songs get to #1, but there's nothing illegal about it, and people still have to like a song enough to buy it to help it get to #1.

[badrobot]

You know, I don't think anyone was questioning whether Mariah's songs would have hit #1 without repression.

What we were discussing is that repression allowed them to debut at #1. Which is almost undoubtedly the case. All of them could have certainly hit #1 (and most, if not all, probably would have) without repression.

I think the bottom line is that record company tactics can probably push a song's peak a few positions but not much. There are many other factors as well. Songs that hit #1 now might not have in a different chart climate (and vice versa). But for a song to do well, people must like it.

Really, the biggest thing record labels could do to affect a chart position was to affect it NEGATIVELY -- any song in the ten year time period from 1995-2004 that was not released commercially either didn't chart at all (95-98) or likely fared worse than it would have with a single (98-04).

[Rodze]

May 13, 2010 10:09:10 GMT -5 NeRD said:

HOW many times has this same debate been discussed?

It's SoundScan's fault. =\

[Myth X]

May 13, 2010 17:38:37 GMT -5 felipe said:

May 13, 2010 17:22:10 GMT -5 @2m said:

My point:

Why would those 150,000 people (in this example), purchase that song in the first place?

Repression?
OR Are there other factors at play?

Perhaps I am wrong but:

My personal opinion is the reasons you buy a "repressed" itunes single are no different than the reasons you would walk into Walmart and purchase a CD. (personal appeal and choice)

2m, do you think all of those 16 songs would have hit #1 even if they hadn't been repressed?
Do you think those songs were simply destined to be #1, and that repression played no part in it?

16 songs? "Not Afraid", "3" and the American Idol songs weren't repressed.

[nicole]

Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles
Issue Date: 2010-05-22

This Week Last Week Two Weeks Ago Weeks Title, Artist Peak
on Producer(Songwriter) Position
Chart Imprint | Catalog No. | Distributing Label
1 1 Still Standing, Monica Featuring Ludacris 1
2 13 24 4 Somebody To Love, Justin Bieber 2
3 3 1 8 Hip To My Heart, The Band Perry 1
4 10 19 6 The Good Life, Three Days Grace 4
5 15 25 3 Lay Me Down, The Dirty Heads Featuring Rome 5
6 11 21 4 She Got It Made, Plies 6
7 9 15 4 Every Dog Has Its Day, Toby Keith 7
8 5 6 4 Hold You (Hold Yuh), Gyptian 5
9 8 11 3 Animal, Neon Trees 8
10 19 2 You're The One, Dondria 10
11 1 Can't You See (Live), Zac Brown Band Featuring Kid Rock 11
12 18 14 5 Mi Nina Bonita, Chino Y Nacho 12
13 4 3 Farmer's Daughter, Rodney Atkins 4
14 14 2 Finding My Way Back, Jaheim 14
15 1 The Only Exception, Paramore 15
16 12 13 5 Between The Lines, Stone Temple Pilots 3
17 17 17 33 Savior, Rise Against 2
18 24 6 All Of Creation, MercyMe 11
19 23 2 Te Pido Perdon, Tito "El Bambino" 19
20 16 23 4 Make It Shine (Victorious Theme), Victorious Cast Featuring Victoria Justice 16
21 1 Sponsor, Teairra Mari Featuring Gucci Mane & Soulja Boy Tell'em 21
22 20 18 20 Dile Al Amor, Aventura 2
23 1 I Like It, Enrique Iglesias Featuring Pitbull 23
24 1 Let Me Hear You Scream, Ozzy Osbourne 24
25 1 California Gurls, Katy Perry Featuring Snoop Dogg 25

[fridayteenage]

Katy: up 124 spots next week?

[Deleted]

thanks for the chart nicole

[Deleted]

May 13, 2010 23:52:13 GMT -5 fridayteenage said:

Katy: up 124 spots next week?

it would register as a debut(since it is a different chart), not a jump from #125

[HolidayGuy]

reinfeld, Joel Whitburn assigns a set number of points just for peak position, and then adds weeks on the chart. That's a lot different than Billboard's methodology, which assigns points for weekly rankings (also weighting pre-BDS/-SoundScan-era tracks more than post-BDS-SoundScan ones). For that reason, Glee Cast probably wouldn't factor into a top 100 acts list, unless they started having entries with longevity (which is unlikely to occur).

At some point, the "Glee" bubble will burst- happens to the best of them. But, at the rate it's going, it could challenge for most Hot 100 entires.

[ΣGØ.©[/IMG]]

May 12, 2010 10:09:00 GMT -5 Spidey said:

Not Afraid debuts at #1

www.billboard.com/#/news/eminem-to-enter-hot-100-at-no-1-1004090374.story?tag=hpfeed

Kelly didn't make the list I see....

[Deleted]

Kelly though is on the other list a couple times

"Biggest Jump to #1"

[stetz]

hey, you know what'd be awesome. if i could see the digital rock songs chart for this week and last week

[stooki3]

Katy is gonna snatch wigs this summer

[Quixotic Music Lover]

May 13, 2010 17:24:39 GMT -5 Tanisha Thomas. said:

I thought the repression thing deals with a build up of airplay vs sales as well. Repression is a method used by artists and labels to garner a high position on the charts. I doubt the general public cares or even knows about repression.

So called repression was far more prevalent in the 1990s then it is now. Very few songs are held back from Itunes these days, and when they are released digitally they are not deleted (unlike in the 90s when labels often deleted singles after 500K to 1M were made).

Labels are realizing that by doing so the biggest beneficiaries seem to be the P2P sites.

The biggest change I have noticed in the HOT100 in recent years is the number of songs that make a big splash in digital sales one week then plummet the next.

[HolidayGuy]

Ooh, I was a week behind in my counting- the 'Glee" count is up to 43.

And, looks like the writer isn't counting Olivia's two additional trips to the Hot 100 with "I Honestly Love You' (which it should, as, one had a different catalog number than the original, and the second was a re-recording). If its popularity continues even just one more season, the "Glee Cast" credits easily will surpass that of The Beatles.

From Billboard.com/Chart Beat:

LEE": THE ROAD TO THE RECORD BOOK: While the members of William McKinley High School's glee club initially feared that joining the singing troupe would hurt their potential popularity, this week's Billboard Hot 100 illustrates that the ensemble's coolness can't be questioned. (Sorry, Sue Sylvester).

For a second consecutive week, the "Glee" cast sends five songs onto the survey, upping its count of Hot 100 hits to 43, all in less than a year. The club first charted with "Don't Stop Believin' " and "Rehab" on the chart dated June 6, 2009.

With its five debuts this week, the "Glee" cast has tied the Bee Gees for ninth-most chart appearances among non-solo acts in the Hot 100's 52-year history. Here is a look at the groups with the most chart visits:

71, the Beatles
57, the Rolling Stones
55, the Beach Boys
53, the Temptations
46, Chicago
46, the Miracles
45, Four Tops
45, the Supremes
43, Bee Gees
43, "Glee" cast

On Digital Songs, the ensemble's 49 entries to-date pass Lil Wayne's 48 for most since the chart began contributing to the Hot 100 in February 2005.

The hit Fox series has clearly benefitted from airing in an age when Gleeks can download songs immediately after they premiere on TV. (Perhaps prior TV acts such as the Monkees or the Partridge Family might have logged even heftier chart histories than they did had digital purchasing options existed during their runs).

While the "Glee" cast now ranks among the 10 non-solo acts with the most Hot 100 appearances, it's notable that its 43 entries have spent a modest 57 weeks combined on the chart. Just eight of its first 38 spent more than one week on the list, and one, "Don't Stop Believin'," charted for more than three weeks. Comparatively, the Beatles have totaled 617 chart weeks on the Hot 100, the Rolling Stones 585 and the Beach Boys 549.

Of course, the success of "Glee" recordings has been monumental, with total U.S. album sales of 1.6 million and digital track sales of 6.4 million to-date, according to Nielsen SoundScan. (The "Glee" club's nemesis Cheerios coach can't be that upset; Jane Lynch (Sue)'s vocals on such tracks as "Vogue" and "Physical" contribute to the series' lofty sales sum).


5% ECLIPSE OF THE CHART: Here is a comparison of the chart performances of the original and remade versions of the pop classics that the "Glee" cast returns to the Hot 100 this week:

"Total Eclipse of the Heart"
Bonnie Tyler: No. 1 (four weeks), 1983
"Glee" cast: No. 16 (marking the act's second-highest-peaking hit; "Don't Stop Believin' " reached No. 4)

"Run Joey Run"
David Geddes: No. 4, 1975
"Glee" cast: No. 61

"Ice Ice Baby"
Vanilla Ice: No. 1 (one week), 1990
"Glee" cast: No. 74

"Physical"
Olivia Newton-John: No. 1 (10 weeks), 1981-82
"Glee" cast: No. 89

"U Can't Touch This"
M.C. Hammer: No. 8, 1990
"Glee" cast: No. 92

The new version of "Physical" - the top-ranked song of the '80s in Billboard's Hot 100 50th anniversary recap in 2008 - features Olivia Newton-John. The superstar, who guested on last week's episode of "Glee," makes her 37th career Hot 100 appearance and first since her remake of her own "I Honestly Love You" ranked at No. 99 on the chart dated Aug. 15, 1998.

[bat1990]

"Still Standing" is Bubbling Under?!?!?

[felipe]

I didn't know Beach Boys had 55 entries! Cool!

[Rodze]

If American Idol had called their weekly studio versions "American Idol Band ft. Contestant x" and allowed them to chart, they'd be in the lead for sure. lol

[newpower99]

71, the Beatles
57, the Rolling Stones
55, the Beach Boys
53, the Temptations
46, Chicago
46, the Miracles
45, Four Tops
45, the Supremes
43, Bee Gees
43, "Glee" cast <<<<<


I refuse to recognize the Glee cast with that group of legends.

[Choco]

In the next chart, we'll have at least 4 new entries, Bad Romance, Poker Face possibly, and Dream On and I Dreamed a Dream surely.