|
|
Post by artsmusic on Feb 17, 2012 22:04:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by atfanmpls on Feb 17, 2012 22:15:57 GMT -5
I've been watching to see how big she blows up on the Digital charts - heck, I even bought "So Emotional" the other day..
Since Apple made it "easier" for everyone with their music empire years ago, I think recurrents are absolutely part of charts. Ex: If ABC's "The Look of Love" was placed in a commercial and had great digital success, great. It's a result of this instant gratification/apple/facebook generation coming up. Every new single released has bizzare waves of purchases and can really linger on the digital chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Feb 17, 2012 22:28:02 GMT -5
I posted the following comment regarding this topic under General Music Discussion, and I'm looking to see if somebody can confirm if there have been any additional songs to hit the Top 10 twice: If this is true, then "I Will Always Love You" becomes the 5th song to hit the Top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100 twice following "The Twist", "Monster Mash", "Stand By Me", and "Bohemian Rhapsody". Note: I'm not quite up to date with the Billboard Hot 100 for the past 10 years, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by kahunaburger61 on Feb 17, 2012 22:44:09 GMT -5
I posted the following comment regarding this topic under General Music Discussion, and I'm looking to see if somebody can confirm if there have been any additional songs to hit the Top 10 twice: If this is true, then "I Will Always Love You" becomes the 5th song to hit the Top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100 twice following "The Twist", "Monster Mash", "Stand By Me", and "Bohemian Rhapsody". Note: I'm not quite up to date with the Billboard Hot 100 for the past 10 years, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. "Billie Jean" "Beat It" & "Thriller" all would've had chance 2 1/2 years back if chart restrictions weren't so lame back then (2009). |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 21, 2012 16:50:06 GMT -5
Could somebody please explain to me what "audience impressions" are, and how this can be anything credible? And isn't this just some bs used to manipulate the charts these days??
|
|
|
|
Post by atruefan on Feb 21, 2012 17:52:05 GMT -5
Could somebody please explain to me what "audience impressions" are, and how this can be anything credible? And isn't this just some bs used to manipulate the charts these days?? When I subscribed to Radio and Records magazine they would rank the country songs by audience impressions. My understanding was they would take the Arbitron ratings for the station, see when a particular song was played on that station and then determine how many people were listening to the particular play of that song. Over the course of a week they would add all the individual counts together and come up with the "audience impression" for the week for that station. When you combine that total with the totals from all the other stations playing that song, you get a grand total of impressions. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 21, 2012 20:05:09 GMT -5
Could somebody please explain to me what "audience impressions" are, and how this can be anything credible? And isn't this just some bs used to manipulate the charts these days?? When I subscribed to Radio and Records magazine they would rank the country songs by audience impressions. My understanding was they would take the Arbitron ratings for the station, see when a particular song was played on that station and then determine how many people were listening to the particular play of that song. Over the course of a week they would add all the individual counts together and come up with the "audience impression" for the week for that station. When you combine that total with the totals from all the other stations playing that song, you get a grand total of impressions. Makes sense--so it's akin to TV ratings. Not sure I am a fan of using it over number of "plays", but I get why they would use it. |
|
|
|
Post by marv101 on Feb 22, 2012 3:27:52 GMT -5
R&R/Mediabase did eventually switch from a total spins system to a points system for their country chart in the summer of 1999.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 13:25:21 GMT -5
When I subscribed to Radio and Records magazine they would rank the country songs by audience impressions. My understanding was they would take the Arbitron ratings for the station, see when a particular song was played on that station and then determine how many people were listening to the particular play of that song. Over the course of a week they would add all the individual counts together and come up with the "audience impression" for the week for that station. When you combine that total with the totals from all the other stations playing that song, you get a grand total of impressions. Makes sense--so it's akin to TV ratings. Not sure I am a fan of using it over number of "plays", but I get why they would use it. So now I know R&Rs country chart was a joke. Good. You cannot apply a TV formula like this to radio. Radio randomly airs 3-5 minute songs throughout the day. It isnt like you know "ok, at 9:22am KHIK is going to play "Tight Fittin' Jeans" by Conway Twitty so I definitely need to tune in." You don't know when it's going to play. I'm sure there are also songs people don't like they sit and listen to because they are only 3-5 minutes long and another one comes on after. TV is way different, I know Tuesday nights at 8pm NCIS is on CBS and me and millions of others watch it or DVR it. I can't imagine people turning to CBS at 8 and either praying with all their might they air NCIS then or others being upset the Good Wife isn't coming on. It's a set schedule. Easy to look up and follow. Songs on the radio, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Lakefield on Feb 22, 2012 13:28:16 GMT -5
Am I reading this correctly...they changed the rule for Whitney, but not for Michael Jackson? If that's the case, that's absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Feb 22, 2012 14:13:22 GMT -5
Am I reading this correctly...they changed the rule for Whitney, but not for Michael Jackson? If that's the case, that's absurd. Yes, that is the case! |
|
|
|
Post by OldSchoolAT40Fan on Feb 22, 2012 14:32:18 GMT -5
Am I reading this correctly...they changed the rule for Whitney, but not for Michael Jackson? If that's the case, that's absurd. Especially when MJ was popular since the 1960s, whereas Whitney was popular since 1985. Yes, it does seem eerie for Billboard to alter the Hot 100 policy for a singer who was popular since 1985, yet not for someone who was popular since the late 1960s. |
|
|
|
Post by adam31 on Feb 22, 2012 22:19:16 GMT -5
Maybe it's because they learned their lesson with Michael Jackson, and never thought it would happen again. If they could do it over, they probably would include Michael in this rule also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Feb 23, 2012 8:09:27 GMT -5
Maybe it's because they learned their lesson with Michael Jackson, and never thought it would happen again. If they could do it over, they probably would include Michael in this rule also. Yes, I think this is it. BB is reluctant to change their rules, even when they see a huge shift in buying trends, which occurred with MJ. It took another unfortunate passing to get them to see the trend. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Lakefield on Feb 23, 2012 17:17:17 GMT -5
Maybe it's because they learned their lesson with Michael Jackson, and never thought it would happen again. If they could do it over, they probably would include Michael in this rule also. Yes, I think this is it. BB is reluctant to change their rules, even when they see a huge shift in buying trends, which occurred with MJ. It took another unfortunate passing to get them to see the trend. Fair point, Shadoe fan. |
|
