official chart H100: God's Plan 6x #1, Psycho #2, The Middle #11

[TOASTY]

1 minute ago, dussymob said:

Anything top 40 is considered a hit, it doesn’t matter what you think.

I’ve already covered that I feel it was a mild hit?  A hit, nevertheless.  So, yeah...

[Weed]

Can “Perfect” just die already? Winter is over

[Jacob.23]

1 hour ago, TaylenaStan said:

oh wow, and he did that effortlessly

And without music videos 

[simmnfierzig]

On 3/5/2018 at 10:36 PM, Armani? said:

Young Boy NBA's - "Outside Today" Hot 100 point breakdown?

@simmnfierzig

 

Have it at 2% sales, 0% airplay and 98% streams

 

With less than 10% of those streams from Spotify

[fridayteenage]

1 hour ago, TOASTY said:

I don't know, I mean I guess I'd consider it a mild hit.  Call me old fashioned but top 20 and above I would think as a hit.  It DID manage to hit #20 on the pop format but so has Tell Me You Love Me and I wouldn't consider that a hit, either.  

i agrih

[Willy.]

57 minutes ago, TOASTY said:

Eh, agree to disagree.

 

with that logic, the term “one-hit wonder” wouldn’t really apply to many artists in the US as they’ve had other charting songs, just none that remotely tap the level of success of their major hit.

 

I mean, “dance like we’re making love” by Ciara peaked at #100 and “I don’t” by Mariah peaked at #89...maybe I’m crazy but those weren’t hits if you ask me?

 

Also, nothing against Swalla but it was one of the most streamed songs globally of 2017, had two major US artists featured, was discounted on ITunes and had rhythmic radio support.  To me (once again, agree to disagree), peaking at #29 is not a huge hit to me.

Swalla isn’t a huge hit (in the US), but it was just certified 2x Platinum (in the US) and was a monster smash globally, so it evens out. 

[TOASTY]

7 minutes ago, Willy. said:

Swalla isn’t a huge hit (in the US), but it was just certified 2x Platinum (in the US) and was a monster smash globally, so it evens out. 

I agree, I’m not trying to discredit the song at all I’m just talking US as this is a H100 thread.  Here, in the US, it was a MILD hit.

[ARTPØP]

Better Super Early Predictions~

 

1. God's Plan (=) **7th week**

2. Perfect (+1) 

3. Finesse (+1)  

4. Psycho (-2) 

5. Look Alive (+1)  

6. Meant To Be (+1)

7. Havana (-2) 

8. The Middle (+3) 

9. Pray For Me (=)  

10. All The Stars (=) 

 

11. Let You Down (+2) 

12. rockstar (-4) 

13. Stir Fry (-1) 

14. Him & I (+1) 

15. New Rules (-1) 

16. Mine (+4) 

17. Thunder (=) 

18. I Fall Apart (=) 

19. Never Be The Same (+5) 

20. Top Off (NEW)

Edited March 6, 2018 by ARTPØP

[Mastamaind]

7 hours ago, iHype. said:

That is a fallacy tbqh. The price of the album was not included. 

 

Getting the album is completely optional. If the consumer paid for the album then legally, every single person who bought a ticket would be required to receive the album. Receiving something is not “optional” if you actually paid for it. 

 

If I go to a store and spend $25 on jeans, it is not optional they give me the jeans. 

 

Which is is why they shouldn’t count. A bonus item that wasn’t actually paid for itself. 

 

They aren’t a current act, if you view that as a bad thing that is on you. Their peak was over 30 years ago, they haven’t charted on Hot 100 this decade, haven’t received any certifications for their music this decade, and their current music is not relevant when it isn’t being given away. 

 

Quote

For the tour’s ticket/album sale redemption offer, the price of the standard CD edition of This House Is Not for Sale was bundled into the purchase price of each ticket sold online to the tour. Customers received, via email, a redemption offer for the album, where they could choose to redeem the CD and have it mailed to them. The only sales that count towards the charts are those albums that are redeemed by customers. 

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/8230391/bon-jovis-back-at-no-1-on-billboard-200-albums-chart

 

You are really nitpicking to the high heavens and trying to find any weak excuse you can to not give them credit for the sales. Also, there's a whole wide world of artists/bands/acts/groups that don't get to reach the Hot 100 Top 40. Yes, they are young too. There's also acclaimed, popular and underground acts with a loyal following (that buy their tickets) in that area. Some don't even get to chart in AC or Hot Rock Songs like Bon Jovi did. Are they not current? Are they non-existing?

 

The streams Bon Jovi gets with their new material are concordant with the streams current indie acts usually get and don't try to act that you weren't saying they aren't current negatively when you're looking for any reason to discredit their new material. Also, the recurrent streams they get for their older material uploaded less than a decade ago are quite impressive: 1 video with more than 558 million plays, 2 with more than 400 million plays, 3 with more than 100 million and other 2 close to 100 million (all different singles). Do you seriously believe that out of all of those plays there aren't younger generations included?

 

Stop pushing this narrative that older acts can't be current, they aren't a recent act but they're a current act with an active fanbase in the present.

 

It's not that I consider that they debuted in the past a bad thing, is that you are trying to erase them from the present and keep them in the past when they're active with an engaged audience right now. It's ageist. If you only consider current the acts that hit the Hot 100 Top 40, you really need to reconsider how you listen to music.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Mastamaind

[TOASTY]

20 minutes ago, ChartsFan said:

Kinda splitting hairs... huge.. mild.. small.. big...

 

 

Except that’s the whole basis of the chart... 100, 99, 98...

 

If there was no splitting of hairs, the 100 most popular/successful songs of the week would all be equally successful/interchangeable in ranking.

Edited March 6, 2018 by TOASTY

[iHype.]

25 minutes ago, Mastamaind said:

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/8230391/bon-jovis-back-at-no-1-on-billboard-200-albums-chart

 

You are really nitpicking to the high heavens and trying to find any weak excuse you can to not give them credit for the sales. Also, there's a whole wide world of artists/bands/acts/groups that don't get to reach the Hot 100 Top 40. Yes, they are young too. There's also acclaimed, popular and underground acts with a loyal following (that buy their tickets) in that area. Some don't even get to chart in AC or Hot Rock Songs like Bon Jovi did. Are they not current? Are they non-existing?

 

The streams Bon Jovi gets with their new material are concordant with the streams current indie acts usually get and don't try to act that you weren't saying they aren't current negatively when you're looking for any reason to discredit their new material. Also, the recurrent streams they get for their older material uploaded less than a decade ago are quite impressive: 1 video with more than 558 million plays, 2 with more than 400 million plays, 3 with more than 100 million and other 2 close to 100 million (all different singles). Do you seriously believe that out of all of those plays there aren't younger generations included?

 

Stop pushing this narrative that older acts can't be current, they aren't a recent act but they're a current act with an active fanbase in the present.

 

It's not that I consider that they debuted in the past a bad thing, is that you are trying to erase them from the present and keep them in the past when they're active with an engaged audience right now. It's ageist. If you only consider current the acts that hit the Hot 100 Top 40, you really need to reconsider how you listen to music.

Obviously they're going to say the price was included in the ticket, otherwise it wouldn't count. There's no way to verify if they actually put the tickets on sale with the album price factored in, or they just claimed they did even though the prices would've been the same for tickets with the bundle or not. 

 

However if they optionally receive an album, that does not resemble of something purchased itself which is what should be included for the charts. 

 

And I was referring to current acts as artists that have new music that is popular. An underground act is not mainstream popular, so they wouldn't fit currently popular. They'd fit indie. Bon Jovi's current music isn't popular so they would not be currently popular. 

 

Older acts can be current -- Susan Boyle selling 5 million albums at 50, was an example of an older act being currently popular. Eminem's success into his 40s was an example of an older act being currently popular.

 

However Bon Jovi's current music is not selling huge amounts or getting real hits. Again, you're finding ways to get personally mad by putting words into my mouth and claiming I said all older acts could not possibly be current.

[TOASTY]

11 minutes ago, ChartsFan said:

The splitting of hairs is the adding of descriptive terms to hit to discre songs,

 

in in the end, they still are hits. And still contain that word.

 

yes absolutely the rznks hits as it should.  Some hits are therefore bigger than others. By they are still all hits.

Splitting hairs is being overbearingly distinctive to separate one thing from another.  In essence that’s what H100 does.  The 99 vs 98 chart ranking in points sometimes are so minuscule that it is basically splitting hairs.

 

Yes, a hit is a hit.  I’m not taking that away from Swalla.  Was it a mild hit in the US?  Yes, but a hit nonetheless.  

 

Either way, all I’m trying to say is that I don’t think JD’s new single will pose a threat to Drake at #1.  Maybe I’m wrong, we will see.

Edited March 7, 2018 by TOASTY

[Enoch]

If let Let You Down gets Issues/Say You Wont Let go/Slow Hands'd

[`Denver]

2 hours ago, ARTPØP said:

Better Super Early Predictions~

 

1. God's Plan (=) **7th week**

2. Perfect (+1) 

3. Finesse (+1)  

4. Psycho (-2) 

5. Look Alive (+1)  

 

Wow @ Perfect

[Mastamaind]

On 6/3/2018 at 6:54 PM, iHype. said:

Obviously they're going to say the price was included in the ticket, otherwise it wouldn't count. There's no way to verify if they actually put the tickets on sale with the album price factored in, or they just claimed they did even though the prices would've been the same for tickets with the bundle or not. 

 

However if they optionally receive an album, that does not resemble of something purchased itself which is what should be included for the charts. 

 

And I was referring to current acts as artists that have new music that is popular. An underground act is not mainstream popular, so they wouldn't fit currently popular. They'd fit indie. Bon Jovi's current music isn't popular so they would not be currently popular. 

 

Older acts can be current -- Susan Boyle selling 5 million albums at 50, was an example of an older act being currently popular. Eminem's success into his 40s was an example of an older act being currently popular.

 

However Bon Jovi's current music is not selling huge amounts or getting real hits. Again, you're finding ways to get personally mad by putting words into my mouth and claiming I said all older acts could not possibly be current.

You're playing with semantics at this point, overly specifying what being a "current act" means. A current act is an act that's active in the present and has a sizeable fanbase/audience, Bon Jovi has that, plain and simple. Gave you indicators as to why this is true throughout my replies and you still can't accept it. There are other ways to describe an act that is having a lot of success right now (besides being current) like saying they're big, huge, smashing, hot, etc.

 

All of this started because you posted this: 

 

On 4/3/2018 at 5:31 PM, iHype. said:

Having a good selling tour does not indicate your current music is popular. Especially when you're a nostalgia act.

Some people like to throw that term in order to discredit older acts. It's with disdain. Picture yourself meeting your fave in 20 years (if you think you can stlll stan) and telling them: "You're a nostalgia act". Tell me how that wouldn't be insulting. Now you're backtracking and calling it a neutral definition, it's not. You wouldn't catch a serious publication calling someone a "nostalgia act" unless it was to deliberatedly insult them. That's why they'd rather use "legacy act" as a user pointed out in this thread.

 

I'm saying it's ageist. It's the same as racial segregation. The difference is that instead of telling the person that they can't use the same bathroom, you're telling them to stay in the past and that they can't be in the present. Take the word nostalgia, "sentimentality for the past", as if they're unable to deliver in the present. It doesn't help that in psychology nostalgia is described to yearn for mostly the happy moments ignoring the bad ones, so there's an undertone about the past not being that good to being with. It's like saying "people only love you for what you did a long time ago that wasn't even that good to being with". It's pejorative, and I repeat, ageist. In an industry that openly discriminates against acts as they get older, it's a term that is definitely associated with that. I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're using language that it's ageist.

 

Now this disdain exacerbates when you're questioning the validity of their claims. They're professional entities, you're just making assumptions as an aficionado. That's also ageist, your reluctance to believe that people care for them, 'cause they're older. Putting them through these extremely high standards, Susan Boyle was from the biggest sellers, beating the hottest acts of the moment or Eminem, one of the biggest rappers of all time. So if you're not obliterating most of the rest you can't be current.

 

Fact is about 120k people paid for the album plus a ticket price (that can go in the hundreds). Those are physical copies that will be shipped to their homes. Do you think they didn't factor roughly 120 000 CDs including shipment in their budget? Do you think they're just going to give them away? From ignoring their component chart peaks, the fact that filling a form denotes interest, current streams and ticket sales, there's definitely a connotation of ageism, if you don't mean it, good, but I'm pointing out how what you say still sounds ageist.

 

Ultimately, Bon Jovi may not be topping the singles charts, but people are still interested in their music and about 120k people paid (and went through a process) to get their latest album in the tracking week so they deservedly got their #1.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Mastamaind

[iHype.]

18 minutes ago, Mastamaind said:

I'm saying it's ageist. It's the same as racial segregation. The difference is that instead of telling the person that they can't use the same bathroom, you're telling them to stay in the past and that they can't be in the present.

 

You compared me calling Bon Jovi a nostalgia act to segregation during the 1950s? Yeah... I'm not even gonna entertain this mess.

 

Ticket bundles are false popularity, and a good-selling tour does not indicate how popular someone's current music release is. Same stance towards Bon Jovi, Katy Perry, and any other artist who uses it regardless of age.

[dussymob]

How many weeks would Perfect have been number one if GP didn’t exist?

[umich]

1 minute ago, dussymob said:

How many weeks would Perfect have been number one if GP didn’t exist?

I think 11.

[Mastamaind]

1 hour ago, iHype. said:

Yeah... I'm not even gonna entertain this mess.

 

Ticket bundles are false popularity, and a good-selling tour does not indicate how popular someone's current music release is. Same stance towards Bon Jovi, Katy Perry, and any other artist who uses it regardless of age.

In other words, I'll ignore all your arguments and keep using ageist language and if I get called out on it I'll just deny it's ageist.

 

Even after I told you how people got the albums and replied to every single excuse you used to discredit them. People listen to albums you know, and how many times they spin their CDs isn't gonna reflect on the charts. Not everything is black and white, and if someone isn't smashing the Top 10 in the singles chart doesn't mean that no one is checking for them. Does someone who release more tracks from an album therefore getting more streams means it's more popular than another artist that released less (even if it's better and may have more longevity) but listened by the same amount of people? You're definitely nitpicking.

 

Anyway, don't be an ageist, it's ****ing bad. Night.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Mastamaind

[iHype.]

41 minutes ago, Mastamaind said:

In other words, I'll ignore all your arguments and keep using ageist language and if I get called out on it I'll just deny it's ageist.

 

Even after I told you how people got the albums and replied to every single excuse you used to discredit them. People listen to albums you know, and how many times they spin their CDs isn't gonna reflect on the charts. Not everything is black and white, and if someone isn't smashing the Top 10 in the singles chart doesn't mean that no one is checking for them. Does someone who release more tracks from an album therefore getting more streams means it's more popular than another artist that released less but listened by the same amount of people? You're definitely nitpicking.

 

Anyway, don't be an ageist, it's ****ing bad. Night.

I'm aware on how they received the albums. Redeeming an optional offer after buying a ticket. 

 

And nobody is being ageist. I was against it when Chainsmokers used bundling. 

 

If you're still salty about me calling them nostalgia acts, then I'm not taking it back no matter how much you write.  

Going #1 with ticket bundles (and flying down the charts next week like they did second week) does not change my thoughts on their current musical project not being relevant.

[Mastamaind]

1 minute ago, iHype. said:

I'm aware on how they received the albums. Redeeming an optional offer after buying a ticket. 

 

And nobody is being ageist. I was against it when Chainsmokers used bundling. 

 

If you're still salty about me calling them nostalgia acts, then I'm not taking it back no matter how much you write.  

Going #1 with ticket bundles (and flying down the charts next week like they did second week) does not change my thoughts on their current music not being relevant.

If you wanna act like a Bart Simpson type of troll, it's gonna be real funny (in a dark way) when you look like Homer in the mirror when you get older.

 

A ticket bundle is a promotional tactic, just like any artist does leading to the album release. It just happens to last as the bundle offer lasts, those people, will have a degree of engagement to the new material. You can't expect a bundle last as much as the promotion of a whole era.

 

If you want to ignore 120 000 people, fine, doesn't mean you're right, tho.

 

Also, not ageist?

 

14 minutes ago, iHype. said:

Going #1 with ticket bundles (and flying down the charts next week like they did second week) does not change my thoughts on their current music not being relevant.

Well, after everything I told you that sounded ageist as ****. Yes, they are relevenat, yes you're wrong, my arguments are in my previous posts, I won't repeat them. That's basically the equivalent of replying with a "No, you" but I'm not your psychologist so I'm not there to fix your immaturity, youthful delusions and disrespect for older people. Goodbye.

 

 

[iHype.]

17 minutes ago, Mastamaind said:

 

A ticket bundle is a promotional tactic, just like any artist does leading to the album release. It just happens to last as the bundle offer lasts, those people, will have a degree of engagement to the new material. You can't expect a bundle last as much as the promotion of a whole era.

 

2

So we can assume that the album falling completely down the charts when a promotional tactic ends means the album is not that popular. It has no legs of its own. 

[Rawr]

arguing on this forum is literally the biggest waste of time i don't know why anyone even bothers.

 

nobody is going to ever respond to your 5 essay "clock" with "omg you know what, I was wrong all this time you are actually right!!!!" like...

[thedastardly]

[Adonis]

7 hours ago, dussymob said:

How many weeks would Perfect have been number one if GP didn’t exist?

That doesn't matter because you are thinking that some other records wouldn't benefit and get those 80 million+/week listens. Id argue that songs like Look Alive or All The Stars would be bigger and getting far more attention which means they'd likely get the #1 spot over Perfect.