Do you agree with the Hot 100?

[Nycboy 1,053]

In light of the news of Taylor occupying the entire Hot 100, I started thinking about it…

Honestly, I feel like the Hot 100 is chaotic in the age of streaming, when major albums like Midnights can propel dozens of songs up the charts, only for the non-singles to fall in the coming weeks. When we look back on the charts in 10 years will we really think of Snow on the Beach as a Top 5 hit song?! It will probably never be played on radio. 

Imagine how it was done before streaming/digital sales. Songs would need lots of radio airplay, meaning only Anti Hero would have probably registered on the charts. It kind of feels more accurate and organic that way, like the charts actually represented songs that were inescapable over a long period of time, songs that everybody knew. Songs that made the charts back then are kind of assumed to have had longevity and the distinction felt grander. Today, all the charts kind of show is that Taylor has a huge army of fans who are streaming these songs at home nonstop due to the novelty of her album.

The paradox is: before the era of streaming, albums were actually more likely to be consumed in their entirety (because we didn’t have digital singles), but those albums never clogged up the charts because nobody could track our listening habits for the non-singles.

Do you feel like it’s time to get rid of the Hot 100? Maybe the chart should only allow “official” singles? Otherwise I feel like it just becomes the Spotify top 10. 

[SimonBaetens 8,273]

Mmmm I think it makes sense that the chart evolves with how people consume music? If it would be Gaga taking up the top 10, would you be questioning the system?

[Evil R 1,084]

I wrote in the other thread. Drake having 59 top 10 songs or Taylor having 40 are no way comparable to the numbers of MJ, Madonna or Beatles. Back in the day, only singles were charting because they were the ones sent to radio or the ones physically available as singles. There was no streaming and there was no way of an artist charting all her songs in Top 100 unless they sent and pressed all the songs as singles.

There should be a distinction made in these type of charts in terms of pre and post streaming era.

[BillieGOAT 5,214]

5 minutes ago, Nycboy said:

Otherwise I feel like it just becomes the Spotify top 10. 

This is the most important thing to point out.

I feel like the formula Billboard uses WAYYY overvalues streaming. 

In my mind, the main purpose of the Billboard Hot 100 is to show what the 100 most popular songs are across all platforms/ways people interact with music.  “In 10 years will we think of Snow On The Beach as a top 5 hit song?” is a great point.. and it supports the idea that maybe radio play/physical single sales are not as highly weighted as they should be.

It feels like the BBH100 has become a stan-fueled streaming p*ssing match rather than an actual measurement of the most popular songs in the US.

Either way, this is a huge accomplishment for Taylor & I’m not bitter at the record being set.. but you raised some great points.

[holy scheisse 22,170]

I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that for years the radio is just a payola machine. Your label pays and your song takes off. Only few get lucky making it to that level without big money propelling them onto airwaves in the first place. So idk how organic the chart was or is now. But streaming requires the listener to opt in to consuming it which feels more organic to me ? Perhaps the tuning is off in how they calculate numbers, idk, but streaming is the new radio so I don’t see the problem with its high valuation by the chart

[Economy 49,280]

I think it's fine. That "top 5" was really popular that week and hot 100 is measuring songs popularity on a weekly basis not how popular they are long term

 

Also yeah it's a crazy aberration but Taylor's achievement here is unusual it's not like occupying most of the top 10 is a regular thing

[Economy 49,280]

3 minutes ago, holy scheisse said:

I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that for years the radio is just a payola machine. Your label pays and your song takes off. Only few get lucky making it to that level without big money propelling them onto airwaves in the first place. So idk how organic the chart was or is now. But streaming requires the listener to opt in to consuming it which feels more organic to me ? Perhaps the tuning is off in how they calculate numbers, idk, but streaming is the new radio so I don’t see the problem with its high valuation by the chart

Streaming imo is even more accurate than sales so tbh, I don't get the hate

[Pennywise 36,079]

If it counted only sales, y'all would be like "now it's the fans mass buying!!!". Just say that you're bitter, it's okay 

[River 114,521]

Billboard is dying, it's their only way to make some buzz.. the chart lost it's value the moment songs like Closer were #1 for weeks, these days even a frog can hit #1 if you stream it enough

[andy232000 11,109]

1 hour ago, Nycboy said:

In light of the news of Taylor occupying the entire Hot 100, I started thinking about it…

Honestly, I feel like the Hot 100 is chaotic in the age of streaming, when major albums like Midnights can propel dozens of songs up the charts, only for the non-singles to fall in the coming weeks. When we look back on the charts in 10 years will we really think of Snow on the Beach as a Top 5 hit song?! It will probably never be played on radio. 

Imagine how it was done before streaming/digital sales. Songs would need lots of radio airplay, meaning only Anti Hero would have probably registered on the charts. It kind of feels more accurate and organic that way, like the charts actually represented songs that were inescapable over a long period of time, songs that everybody knew. Songs that made the charts back then are kind of assumed to have had longevity and the distinction felt grander. Today, all the charts kind of show is that Taylor has a huge army of fans who are streaming these songs at home nonstop due to the novelty of her album.

The paradox is: before the era of streaming, albums were actually more likely to be consumed in their entirety (because we didn’t have digital singles), but those albums never clogged up the charts because

Do you feel like it’s time to get rid of the Hot 100? Maybe the chart should only allow “official” singles? Otherwise I feel like it just becomes the Spotify top 10. 

“nobody could track our listening habits for the non-singles.”

You just answered your question in my opinion. Billboard is supposed to track on a weekly basis what people are listening to. It just so happens that now we have the technology to track listening patterns that include those non singles. If we excluded them it would’t actually represent what people are listening to. 
 

Taylor is just THAT popular and powerful, hence people listen. Yes, most likely a good chunk of these album tracks will fall next week, but thats the point. This particular week they had a spike, that spike reflects an actual reality where people mass streamed it. Longevity aside, billboard is just doing its job of tracking what people are listening.
 

If we want to talk about if these songs are actual hits, then thats another discussion. I do agree however that streaming may be held to a disproportionate value against radio and physical sales tho

[waterfall 795]

idc that much tbh… if it got the most points, then sure it should be counted… tbf most of the songs on the hot 100 will be forgotten, only a few gems will be remembered… especially with is age, u see a lot of old songs that haven’t even chatted on the hot 100 blowing up and making it big.

[Nycboy 1,053]

1 hour ago, SimonBaetens said:

Mmmm I think it makes sense that the chart evolves with how people consume music? If it would be Gaga taking up the top 10, would you be questioning the system?

I agree with your point, and no shade to Taylor, but I feel like I’m questioning it because what is considered a Top 10 song today is very different than what it used to be in the past…and I guess I’m realizing this now because of Taylor’s feat (which is great for her) 

[Replay32886 50]

To me it’s more accurate this way than it was back then. I mean they had to promo the songs to radios and basically pay their way to the top. This allows for actual music taste this week than just what is being pushed by labels

[bionic 48,802]

Radio weighting should be entirely removed from the chart calculation. Too much payola and backroom deals and its literally inaccessible for the average person. You can't really choose what songs are played.

Streaming has its own issues. I think its weighted too highly. Stans have quickly got to know how to game the algorithm. Big artists can manipulate charts by working with streaming companies to inflate streams (i.e. by inserting their tracks into every playlist going)

[StrawberryBlond 14,718]

In the UK, we cap a singer's contribution to the charts at 3 songs, that includes singles and non-singles. Only their top 3 most successful songs of the moment can chart. In theory, that allows the first 3 singles from their current album to chart simultaneously which is pretty average for most singers. That seems fair enough. It was brought in after Ed dominated the charts with all 16 tracks from his Divide album charting in our top 40 in addition to other successful singles from previous eras. It caused so much controversy as it pushed out artists whose new songs had made a good debut or were climbing every week and then got unfairly knocked back down right out the top 20 the very next week. It caused so much outrage that our charts immediately changed the rules after this to only allow the top 3 most popular songs to avoid over-dominance by whoever was the biggest artist releasing that week. America would do well to follow suit. It keeps things fair and balanced to make every artist's contribution to the charts on an equal footing and doesn't overly favour the biggest names. It also prevents random album tracks debuting in the top 10 and then never to be heard from afterwards by the GP at large, making their top 10 status ultimately meaningless.

The only good thing about every song on an album charting is that it helps the label know what are the most popular album tracks which could help to make more informed future single choices. But the record labels will still see how many streams and sales the album tracks have made and still be made aware of what's popping and what's not. The entire public doesn't need to know the exact popularity of every track on an artists album reflected in their general music charts. It's a system used primarily for bragging rights these days. And it leaves artists who aren't young and current out in the cold.