The Hot 100 top 10 (chart dated May 4, 2024)

[Citrom 646]

Some of you are really a trash 🤮

EVERYONE ELSE has the same possibility to do the same as her COME ON

We should be proud of what she has managed to do as a female in the industry

[Illuminati 15,942]

14 hours ago, Yaaaas Gaga said:

This just proves how ridiculous the whole system is nowadays. Like this literally couldn't happen until recently so it's just not a fair comparison against previous artists. Lets not pretend that Thriller wouldn't have occupied the entirety of the top of the charts if it was possible, or other albums by some of the legends of music.

I'm sick and tired if all these "Taylor Swift breaks record" articles because it just simply isn't fair. There's really no point in even having charts at this point because there's no variety. It's just occupied mostly by the big name artists whenever they release a new album.

How I miss the days of physical/digital sales only as I feel it had a much truer, and fairer, reflection of the charts and not just who has the biggest fan base and the best management/marketing that's willing to abuse the system.

The chart is meant to represent the 100 most popular songs of the week (with some exceptions to old tracks that fall out of the top 50). It's not a curated Spotify playlist. She happens to have more than one popular song this week.

You think this wouldn't happen with digital sales but anyone could just release it as a compilation album with every song being a single like Justin Bieber's Journals.

I actually don't think Thriller would have reached that record because music consumption as a whole was different back then and not as instant. If you are against streaming you should also be against pre-orders, digital sales and probably shipping too. Just drag the entire music industry a few decades back

Not to mention that it was a 9 track album that you're arguing would have occupied the entire top 10, be for real I'm starting to think you haven't streamed it yourself

[olive specter 1,166]

34 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

I actually don't think Thriller would have reached that record because music consumption as a whole was different back then and not as instant. If you are against streaming you should also be against pre-orders, digital sales and probably shipping too. Just drag the entire music industry a few decades back

 

nobody is against streaming and any of those things

what we are against is putting it into the same category as music released when rules were different and calling it record breaking

 

how can rules be changed completely and new factors added, but the category still stays the same?

[Illuminati 15,942]

54 minutes ago, olive specter said:

nobody is against streaming and any of those things

what we are against is putting it into the same category as music released when rules were different and calling it record breaking

 

how can rules be changed completely and new factors added, but the category still stays the same?

When Katy broke MJ's record for most #1s on the album she also utilized tactics that have never been possible before. But nevertheless that achievement is uncontested.

There are records like "most ringtones sold" from back in the day when that was an extremely lucrative market for artists. That's something that has never been possible to achieve prior to ringtone popularity becoming mainstream, and will never be possible again because the ringtone sales are obsolete.

Things change and the industry adapts.

[olive specter 1,166]

4 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

When Katy broke MJ's record for most #1s on the album she also utilized tactics that have never been possible before. But nevertheless that achievement is uncontested.

There are records like "most ringtones sold" from back in the day when that was an extremely lucrative market for artists. That's something that has never been possible to achieve prior to ringtone popularity becoming mainstream, and will never be possible again because the ringtone sales are obsolete.

Things change and the industry adapts.

first of all, micheal's record was not broken, they share the same number of 1#
and i'm sure some rules did change, but surely not as much

as i said before, steaming a song is equivalent to listening to it on your cd
not to buying it

also, not sure what you were trying to say with that ringtone thing
because it goes with what i am saying, not against it

just make a new category that represents today's world, leave the old records alone and let new songs compete with each other

 

but whatever, it's not that deep : P

[AVeryGagaHolyDick 25,973]

17 hours ago, ALGAYDO said:

This reads like a 13 year old wrote it lol 

True but technically he’s right lmao

[Illuminati 15,942]

37 minutes ago, olive specter said:

first of all, micheal's record was not broken, they share the same number of 1#
and i'm sure some rules did change, but surely not as much

as i said before, steaming a song is equivalent to listening to it on your cd
not to buying it

also, not sure what you were trying to say with that ringtone thing
because it goes with what i am saying, not against it

just make a new category that represents today's world, leave the old records alone and let new songs compete with each other

 

but whatever, it's not that deep : P

The chart for the 100 most popular songs of the week would be obsolete if it didn't reflect people's music consumption habits.

[olive specter 1,166]

49 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

The chart for the 100 most popular songs of the week would be obsolete if it didn't reflect people's music consumption habits.

all i'm saying is that it would be more fair to separate today's charts from the old ones, not that we should go back to the old rules

something like hot100 2.0, but with a better name lol

so you're not breaking people's old records by doing something totally different then they did, but you're setting new standards and competing with other artists who are playing the same game as you right now

[Arcanum 5,192]

Before 1991 Billboard called record stores and utilized data to create the charts. I am very sceptical about the success of some prior artists. Post 1991 they tracked radio airplay and sales more accurately. The rules changed ever since again and again creating huge imbalances (e.g. No Doubt "Don't speak" would be a massive charts hit were it released properly in the 90s). I think it's fair to say that chart success is a thing, cultural impact and innovation through music another thing.

[Bronco 12,006]

3 hours ago, olive specter said:

what we are against is putting it into the same category as music released when rules were different and calling it record breaking

 

The charts have changed the rules multiple times since their inception. 
The records are meaningless because they apply to a specific set of rules in a specific time period of music consumer behaviour. 

In 5/10 years time, we could easily have gone through another change or even 2 changes of the rule sets and the music consumer behaviour could have changed again and what's happening now will be totally irrelavant to how the industry works in the new rules & market. 

The first boombox didn't become commercially available in the US until the 70s, the Sony Walkman got invented in 79. Massively changed the listening capability of the general public - and it's totally unfair to contrast records & sales from the era before portable music was possible with what the Boombox & Walkman revolution allowed. 

Then you get the invention of the iPod & MP3 players sparking a digital music revolution which changed the entire industry. It was even seen for awhile to have killed off the physical market. 
And then boomb, spotify. A 4th revolution in as many decades. 

My tl/dr point is this - no one used to complain about fairness when we talked about blockbuster sales during the walkman era breaking pre-walkman records. No one complained about fairness when digital sales were breaking records set in the Walkman era. I don't get why we are now doing so. 

[Yaaaas Gaga 937]

4 hours ago, Illuminati said:

The chart for the 100 most popular songs of the week would be obsolete if it didn't reflect people's music consumption habits.

On that basis we need to find out how many times people listened to each song on a vinyl, cassette or cd back in the day and treat that as a stream that can then be converted into an album-equivalent sale of today.

unfortunately we’re not going to be able to do that so as others have quite rightly said on here, a separate chart should be created solely relating to streams and the regular chart will relate to physical and digital sales.

None of this album-equivalent garbage. Literally, who decides how many streams would count as a “sale”. It’s just an entirely impossible algorithm to accurately ascertain and needs to be abolished.

[Illuminati 15,942]

2 minutes ago, Yaaaas Gaga said:

On that basis we need to find out how many times people listened to each song on a vinyl, cassette or cd back in the day and treat that as a stream that can then be converted into an album-equivalent sale of today.

unfortunately we’re not going to be able to do that so as others have quite rightly said on here, a separate chart should be created solely relating to streams and the regular chart will relate to physical and digital sales.

None of this album-equivalent garbage. Literally, who decides how many streams would count as a “sale”. It’s just an entirely impossible algorithm to accurately ascertain and needs to be abolished.

That's already factored in. Every physical sale of a song is the equivalent of 150 streams. There's a good chance people didn't even listen to the song that many times but a sale holds more value.

People don't pay vinyl subscriptions for it to require to count twice as a physical sale and as the streams it generated.

Billboard has like a trillion charts, if you want something more traditional just use another chart. They created them just for people like you.

https://www.billboard.com/charts/vinyl-albums/
https://www.billboard.com/charts/digital-song-sales/
https://www.billboard.com/charts/top-album-sales/
https://www.billboard.com/charts/radio-songs/

[gabeoz 7,915]

1 hour ago, Yaaaas Gaga said:

On that basis we need to find out how many times people listened to each song on a vinyl, cassette or cd back in the day and treat that as a stream that can then be converted into an album-equivalent sale of today.

unfortunately we’re not going to be able to do that so as others have quite rightly said on here, a separate chart should be created solely relating to streams and the regular chart will relate to physical and digital sales.

Traditional sales still count much more than streams do, and people almost never buy music anymore apart from a select few major artists like Taylor  you’re not going to get anything close to an accurate general chart if you’re just counting traditional sales, this is all just insane copium  

[clownery 6,625]

22 hours ago, RenegAde said:

This is possible because Taylor swift really treats and markets her music like a commercial product in a capitalist system. It's like selling fast fashion, make up or perfumes. Its almost the same formula tech giants like apple uses to secure their spot it in the market if you think about it. And obviously the flaws in the new charting system since streaming took over is a perfect breeding ground for this.

 

 

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Citrom said:

Some of you are really a trash 🤮

EVERYONE ELSE has the same possibility to do the same as her COME ON

We should be proud of what she has managed to do as a female in the industry

This took me a couple of years to realize. There's awesome people here and that's why I keep on checking this site a few times a day, but there's also some rotten apples. Still worth of though!