No need to get snippy about that. Please forgive me for missing your “must read” post. Literally.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
They played We Belong by Pat Benetar on KZOK
- Thread starter Cobra14
- Start date
I guess snippiness would depend on the tone of voice one uses when reading it. It wasn’t my intent, and I apologize.
There will be no artists who can match the superstardom of The Beatles or Elton John? I beg to differ. Clearly Cardi B and Megan The Stallion will prove everyone wrong.
M.H. No biggie. I wrote my reply upon waking up, not my favorite time of the day!
That's Megan THEE Stallion. Remember, the worse the spelling, the more you're "keeping it real."
As opposed to Cledus Maggard, Narvel Felts and Ferlin Husky, who were keeping it rural.
Also, Thee Midniters would like a word: Thee Midniters
Awwww, don't ruin my Weeknd.
RE: Physical Sales: Physical Sales are Physical sales. MP3 downloads are tabulated separately by the RIAA, because although they are Sales, they are not Physical Sales. MP3s are Digital Sales. Physical Sales are mostly LP records, i.e., vinyl, according to the RIAA. Sales of CDs and cassettes are much less than vinyl. The graphs and data are in the RIAA reports I linked.
RE: Taylor's goose is cooked: Re-read what I said. I said that if she, being the superstar that she is, could not outdo someone like Gunna, her goose would be cooked. A superstar with a long track record of top hits should be able to easily out-perform a relatively unknown newcomer. And she did. Gunna had 12 slots on the Hot 100 during one week a couple months ago. Taylor had 19 one week and 21 the next. Right now she's got 18.
RE: Michael Jackson: Michael Jackson did not have 28 top ten hits on the Hot 100 in the same week. If you truly believe that, show me the chart where 28% of the Hot 100 is all Michael Jackson. If you can show me the chart where he held 28 slots in the Hot 100 during a one week period, I will stand corrected.
Look we're all trying to compare apples and oranges here, even though many are stating otherwise. I've been told it's all the same exact metric, nothing's changed, it's all the same way it was 20 years ago, and it's clearly not.
It's like comparing a Golf Cart with a Tesla. Each electric vehicle has four wheels, run by battery driven electric motors. Each is designed to carry people from point A to point B. You can even license a golf cart to go down public streets in some jurisdictions. However, one electric vehicle (the Tesla) will get you to work in 45 minutes. The other one (the Golf Cart) will get you there in 4-5 days. Same metric, same platform, same motive power, but you get different results.
Yesterday's charts are like eh Golf Cart. Today's charts are like the Tesla. Technology has made them more immediate, and more far reaching than they were able to do in 1985. They are measuring everything everyone is listening to on the major streaming platforms, platforms which have replaced the home stereo system and car stereo system as well as the walkman and the MP3 player.
The charts measuring Streaming is like charts in the 1970s and 80s measuring every track consumers played on their home and car stereo systems, and then including it in the Hot 100 and other charts. They didn't do that in 1985, or even 2005.
The way music is consumed has changed, and the way charts are formulated has changed. If anyone here thinks the Hot 100 had just two artists taking up 35% of the slots in 1985, and if anyone thinks that the Hot 100 in 1985 included every song that everyone listened to on their home stereo, car stereo, and walkman as part of the tabulation, and the numbers of times every one of those songs were played, they're wrong.
Right now, Drake has 17% of the Hot 100, most of those tracks in the top 30. 16 of those tracks are new entries. Meaning 16 other tracks were kicked off the chart somewhere. Taylor Swift has 18 tracks. That's 35% of the chart taken up by just two artists. That happened all the time in the past. Yep. The Hot 100 has always looked that way. Yep.
You just repeated essentially everything I already said multiple times. Sales are sales, listening is listening. None of that has changed when it comes to Billboard Top 100 tabulation.
Comparing some flash in the pan rap artist with Taylor Swift who's been around since her teens, and 188 charting positions in Billboard, is just silly. Do you think anyone is going to remember Gunna as an artist even ten years from now? Let alone still be streaming it? Since Taylor Swift recently tied the number one group/artist 1958-2021 ranked in the Billboard Top 100, I think even you would admit it unlikely.
I never said in one week. Michael Jackson-solo, had 28 top ten hits over the span of several years. Do you really believe that your comparison with 'Gunna' equals the popularity and sales of MJ? Seriously? That's right up there with your claim that the protests in Portland were equivalent to what happened to Aleppo Syria.
But you've yet to provide information that it has changed. Or are you just saying it's changed because you 'feel like' it's changed but are unable to articulate what the changes are? Because so far you've flailed around trying to steer the subject with a bunch of false equivalencies.
If we're still talking about the way Billboard tabulates the Hot 100 and not EV's, then no, there aren't different results. Sales are sales, listening is still listening.
The way music is consumed doesn't change the principals of how that consumption is tabulated. Sales are sales, listening is listening. Rather than buying vinyl or CD's, majority download or stream. Downloading, or buying the CD is sales. When you stream music, it's the exact same thing as it is/used to be with radio playing the music.
You've yet to provide anything to back up your belief, other than disjointed metaphors.
But that's the way it's always been since Billboard started the Top 40 or Top 100. Songs have dropped off the chart within a month when something more popular comes along. Are you claiming that's something new?
I haven't had anything to say about this Billboard controversy until now, but Kelly, what Boombox is asking really is for you to present a Hot 100 where 35 slots are taken up by just 2 artists. Perhaps you're right that consumption hasn't changed, but Billboard is able to track it more accurately now. Billboard couldn't track how many times a song was played before streaming, which, as Boombox4 is arguing, really changes the way the charts work. On the other hand, charts that just monitor radio airplay like Mediabase seem to get slower and slower, with some songs not even hitting radio until a year after release, or in the case of Truth Hurts, almost two.
Truth Hurts was released twice by Atlantic Records: Once in 2017 for streaming and download, and the second time in 2019 for radio, streaming, and download. It didn't chart at all on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2017. It only charted after its second release as a single in 2019. It also didn't qualify for awards until the 2019 release. So even though the Hot 100 measures streaming and downloads, this particular song didn't register until 2019.
This thread has gone off the railes
I'll repeat, so you can understand my point better: Listening to individual songs, including album tracks, wasn't counted before streaming became dominant.
One could say that radio airplay was an indirect reflection of actual consumer music listening, or that album sales were an indirect reflection of consumer listening to a particular track, but actual consumer listening to individual tracks wasn't counted until streaming plays were counted.
The number of times I played the album cuts by AC/DC or Judas Priest in the 1980s was never counted. The single sale of each album was counted. The thousands of plays on my stereo, and other people's stereos, of all those songs weren't. The plays on home and car stereos and personal stereos weren't part of ANY tabulation, much less the Billboard charts. I don't know why that concept is so difficult to understand. You worked in radio, and apparently still do, but you don't grasp how that one single factor has changed the top charts?
Show me any chart in the 80s or 90s that counted the number of times Ain't No Fun Waiting Round to Be a Millionaire by AC/DC, or Steeler by Judas Priest were played on every stereo system in the US. You can't. It's guaranteed those tracks were played on people's stereos millions of times. But those plays weren't tabulated for any chart.
But those plays, if they're played on streaming sites -- which constitute over 80% of music consumption today -- are counted now.
Sure, songs have dropped off. They have to, to make room for new releases. But 12 songs by one relatively unknown artist slamming the chart one week, to drop off the chart completely just a week or two later? That didn't happen, despite your protests to the contrary.
The number of plays of a purchased transcription did not increase the revenue. Today, the revenue is determined by the number of plays in very close to 100% of the cases.
Again, what we are counting is really the number of revenue producing incidents. Each streamed or broadcast play today creates revenue, while one-time purchases of a download are getting to be fewer, and physical product is only a tiny portion of revenue-generating activities.
So... since the way revenue is generated has changed, the charts have had to change.
So radio plays aren't considered the same as a song being streamed? Seriously?
Because when a song is streamed, it's counted. When a song is played on the radio, it's counted. When a single was purchased at Tower Records, it was counted. When a song is purchased/downloaded, it's counted. When you were stoned and played the same album track over and over while eating Cheetos, that isn't counted. Same with the song today you download and play over and over. Not counted.
You seem to be the one having trouble with the simplest of concepts.
That's true. If it's played on the radio or streaming, it's counted when being listened to.
It's not my protests. Just go back in the charts over the past fifty friggin years. There are ample examples.
Give us some, then. A nobody suddenly puts a dozen songs in the top however many (40? 100?) one week, then all of those songs disappear within two weeks? Who, other than the recent rappers cited after this thread ceased to be about Pat Benatar, did what those acts just did? You seem dug in on this point, and boombox4 isn't alone in his disbelief.
Sure, I'm not a huge Wikipedia fan; but these are verified and include several examples depending on how you want to slice it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...s_and_milestones#Biggest_drop_from_number_one
Boombox's original statement, which was factually incorrect yet he insisted on shifting the topic around to make a point: Since streaming has become common; Billboard's tabulations of the Top 100 are different than back in the day's of Pat Benetar, Linda Ronstadt, The Beatles, verses today with artists like Taylor Swift. (Boombox believes Swift's "goose is cooked", which is laughable) They aren't. My entire point being: the same tabulation criteria around during the Beatles, is still used today.
Still, zero examples of multiple songs by the same artist being hits one week and nowhere (or even out of the top 40) the next. The only example of ANY song exiting the Hot 100 in a single week is in the footnote -- Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas Is You." And Carey didn't have 11 other songs in the upper reaches of the chart the same week, making the same plunge.
I am baffled why you don't understand this, really. You keep saying there are numerous examples of a nobody hitting it big and flooding the chart with songs one week, then reverting to complete nobody-hood seven days later. As your own research has shown, there are NO instances of that ever happening.
Since when was that the topic of debate? The original claim made by Boombox was that the tabulation of the Billboard Top 100 is different today than the days of the Beatles and Linda Ronstadt. Then, when proven wrong, you and he went down a diversionary rabbit hole about length of time on the chart. Even you admit below there are some examples of a song charting one week, and exiting the next. I'm still confused how that has anything to do with Boombox's claim that the Billboard Top 100 is tabulated differently than it was back when the Beatles had several hits in the same week, and you keep defending with no examples.
Again, what does this have to do with Boombox's original claim? Are you guys both hanging out at Larry's for the holidays?
There are literally hundreds of examples of different ways of slicing the historical pie. The original claim that the Billboard Top 100 is tabulated differently today than during the Beatles and Taylor Swift being the recent only example of 19-20 Top 40 hits within a single week is from the Beatles, has all been proven. Boombox then started comparing Taylor Swift with Gunna? Come on, even a Boombox apologist like you should question that comparison. Both of you are swerving all over the road.
- Status