official chart Billboard Charts (March 26-April 1, 2017)

[brianc33710]

3 minutes ago, volition said:

do all time charts include data from recurrents? otherwise they can be inaccurate such as possibly in the case of UF

In the past BB has not adjusted/compensated for the changes in recurrency rules. I specifically pointed out how much time UF lost to 25/52, and neglecting to address this skewes the accuracy of the All Time Charts. I never got a reply back though.

[simmnfierzig]

48 minutes ago, ChartsFan said:

But the all time chart is a ranking of song runs on the chart,  it's never been about overall song performance.

 

That is at least one thing BB does right.

Huh?

Songs before UF had other recurrency rules so it is fair to point out that disadvantage. 

[simmnfierzig]

54 minutes ago, ChartsFan said:

That's two different issues.

 

the all time chart should reorder only a song performance on the chart.

 

why the chart changed, when the chart changed, does not and should not matter to a ranking of song performance on a chart.

 

Yes it should be pointed out when making the chart that methology of chart make up have changed. But in broad terms and not sing specific.  But that is no different than it should be pointed out that Chwnges affect all records,

 

as in, a simple note that in the past only official singles charted when making a list of all time singles by artist to chart. So thet someone looking at the list knows Chwnges were made.

 

its a slippery slope.  Here we have people complaining about UF but what about all the other past records that have fallen due to chart changes,  where do we draw the line in attempting to release a " fair" list.

 

you can't.  You just need to accept rules change and that affects everything.

 

everyine thinks I have it in for streaming and drake. I don't,  I do think the formula favours streaming too much. But that doesn't change the fact that under the current rules drake had 24 songs on the chart, a record.

 

i just don't like how those cheering the record, ignore the rules of the past and the accomplishment of the past under different rules.  Al we get is, well it's 2017 times change,  well yes they do. And that is a good thing,  but it doesn't erase the past.  It doesn't erase Aretha. It doesn't erase the Beatles, the Bee Gees. And all the past record holders that accomplished some amazing feats under much tougher conditions.

 

and I blame mostly the music media for that lapse. The public and fans only react to what they are given for information.

 

its like the asterisk on the home run record in the past,,, for those that get the reference.  It scknowledged the new record, while noting it was done with more games per season.

The assay 

 

Of course you can't take every change into account, but implementing a new recurrency rule like this in the middle of the decade heavily changes how that decade end chart looks like. If it's not considered. Of course we don't know yet if Billboard will somehow consider it. 

 

And everyone who doesn't know that artists in 2017 naturally have a lot more songs chart on the Hot 100 than in 1980 is just plain stupid. I agree that Billboard doesn't do a good job in saying that, but still. It should be very clear to everyone. 

 

[King Maxx]

Now he needs to take a break. Come back with his magnum opus and promote like a pop girl.

 

Woo no one will be safe. 2018 will be HIS year. 

[simmnfierzig]

14 minutes ago, ChartsFan said:

Other than people that follow the charts, why would anyone know?  As far as the average GP is concerned the hot 100 is a listing of the top 100 songs.  They don't know tracks are included or not, they don't know songs vanish by recurrency.

 

actuallyim willing to bet whatever you want, thet the average person ocer 30 on the street has no idea streaming is included on the hot 100.  They might not even know radio p,she a part.

 

Well they certainly do know that you can buy individual songs on iTunes and before that you could only buy singles. 

And I do think the rise of streaming is covered pretty well.

[brianc33710]

2 hours ago, simmnfierzig said:

The assay 

 

Of course you can't take every change into account, but implementing a new recurrency rule like this in the middle of the decade heavily changes how that decade end chart looks like. If it's not considered. Of course we don't know yet if Billboard will somehow consider it. 

 

And everyone who doesn't know that artists in 2017 naturally have a lot more songs chart on the Hot 100 than in 1980 is just plain stupid. I agree that Billboard doesn't do a good job in saying that, but still. It should be very clear to everyone. 

 

You can really notice the changes in chart runs on the hybrid genre changes on all time charts ranking due to stricter recurrency rules. At first, the rules on the format charts were 10/52 & 25/20.

 

However, at the beginning of the 2014 CY, the rules were changed to 5/52, 10/26, and 25/20. This caused songs like Die A Happy Man to finish in the 60s on the All Time Country Chart, while songs released 2-3 years earlier with similar #1 and Top 10 longevity ranked WAY ahead of DAHM.

 

You can also see how these changes impacted songs on the R&B/Hip Hop Genre Chart, as songs with longer #1 runs with the abbreviated recurrency rules place puts Thrift Shop ahead of songs that spent longer at #1 and in the Top Ten. 

 

You can't change the rules in the middle of a game and expect accurate results. BB can't and/or won't seem to get this reality through their heads, and that terribly impacts how the songs perform under the stricter recurrency rules.

[Mr. Adele]

3 minutes ago, DangerousSwiftie said:

I wonder how the charts would look if every song had no streaming points... Say streaming wasn't factored in at all, I just wonder what songs would be charting that aren't & what songs wouldn't be charting that are. 

 

That would be interesting to see.

poor drake kii

[NeonTiger]

Regarding HDS: it's definitely not a bad song, it's just not a good single choice. I would have expected them to at least send it to pop radio (I assume they didn't), to at least give it a chance.

[Rawr]

I dont think billboard should compare songs and records nowadays compared to before

literally only singles used to be able to chart now it's literally any song that makes a huge diff 

nothing against drake i love his album

Edited March 31, 2017 by Rawr

[Echelon]

Streaming :yawn: 

[brianc33710]

3 hours ago, DangerousSwiftie said:

I wonder how the charts would look if every song had no streaming points... Say streaming wasn't factored in at all, I just wonder what songs would be charting that aren't & what songs wouldn't be charting that are. 

 

That would be interesting to see.

Country, Active Rock, Alternative, AAA

[Tremor Christ]

18 hours ago, ChartsFan said:

That's two different issues.

 

the all time chart should reorder only a song performance on the chart.

 

why the chart changed, when the chart changed, does not and should not matter to a ranking of song performance on a chart.

 

Yes it should be pointed out when making the chart that methology of chart make up have changed. But in broad terms and not sing specific.  But that is no different than it should be pointed out that Chwnges affect all records,

 

as in, a simple note that in the past only official singles charted when making a list of all time singles by artist to chart. So thet someone looking at the list knows Chwnges were made.

 

its a slippery slope.  Here we have people complaining about UF but what about all the other past records that have fallen due to chart changes,  where do we draw the line in attempting to release a " fair" list.

 

you can't.  You just need to accept rules change and that affects everything.

 

everyine thinks I have it in for streaming and drake. I don't,  I do think the formula favours streaming too much. But that doesn't change the fact that under the current rules drake had 24 songs on the chart, a record.

 

i just don't like how those cheering the record, ignore the rules of the past and the accomplishment of the past under different rules.  Al we get is, well it's 2017 times change,  well yes they do. And that is a good thing,  but it doesn't erase the past.  It doesn't erase Aretha. It doesn't erase the Beatles, the Bee Gees. And all the past record holders that accomplished some amazing feats under much tougher conditions.

 

and I blame mostly the music media for that lapse. The public and fans only react to what they are given for information.

 

its like the asterisk on the home run record in the past,,, for those that get the reference.  It scknowledged the new record, while noting it was done with more games per season.

The thing is... BB made that super-recurrent rule in the middle of Uptown Funk's chartrun. It's obvious that they didn't want any other 70-80+ weeks charting songs so they CUT Uptown Funk's chartrun, they know that.

 

+ for example 20 weeks on BBH100 was a great achievement until 1991. It's of course Billboard responsibility to consider everything.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Tremor Christ

[brianc33710]

12 hours ago, ChartsFan said:

The same can be said about any change they have made since 1958.  It's not jus the recurrent rule thet has affected the co pair own of songs and had a huge impact on all time rankings.

 

but the solution certainly is not to ever make changes.  Unfortunately over sixty years they need to be made, and there's no good or right time. It will always affect something.

 

doing  a change at the start of a year or a decade, doesn't stop the impact.

Yeah. This was another case of the website highlighting something without any way to avoid it. Honestly, all time charts should also take "power points" into consideration. Remember what BB said about I Will Always Love You and Candle In The Wind 1997 having huge leads over the #2.

 

Also, Uptown Funk, which was super strong and kept other strong songs (Thinking Out Loud and Sugar, which both finished in 2015s YE Top 5, and forced Blank Space out of #1 prematurely). Also, songs with weak peak point totals, but benefited from weak competition, shouldn't get the same amount of points as those that are super strong, but due to a powerful #1 song could not get past #2. 

 

I was actually factoring in certified and estimated attained certification levels into a 2010s Chart I was putting together, and I was limiting the chart to time spent in the Top 40 (Top 50 for songs falling victim to 25/52). However, when trying to get this chart together, school work got in the way.

 

Ideally, the All Time Charts should be based not only on chart runs, but also how strong the songs the songs were at their peak. Hello was also huge, but it had less overall longevity due to Prince's passing and the onslaught of Drake's and Beyonce's album cuts.

 

Yes, songs like Rude, Can't Feel My Face, and Work had impressive chart runs, but they were also weak #1 songs that had the advantage of even weaker competition. In contrast TOL & Sugar were both strong songs, stuck with a #2 peak, that would've reached #1 over Face, Rude, Work, and even See You Again in its final four weeks at #1.

 

So, All Time Charts should balance chart runs on the respective charts AND the strength of the song at its peak. Neglecting to consider strength of the songs at their peaks also skew the All Time Charts. Look at One Sweet Day vs. Macarena in 1996 as another example of how a relatively weak OSD stayed at #1 longer due to weakness in the Hot 100 because the songs it kept out of #1 at the end of its run were even weaker singles. Macarena finished ahead of OSD in 1996 because the former was actually bigger overall than the latter.

[brianc33710]

1 hour ago, Tremor Christ said:

The thing is... BB made that super-recurrent rule in the middle of Uptown Funk's chartrun. It's obvious that they didn't want any other 70-80+ weeks charting songs so they CUT Uptown Funk's chartrun, they know that.

 

+ for example 20 weeks on BBH100 was a great achievement until 1991. It's of course Billboard responsibility to consider everything.

This is why BB should rank pre-SS/BDS songs separately from the charts from the start of the 1992 Chart Year. It's impossible to accurately and fairly compare the non electronic era songs with SS/BDS singles. I actually asked Silvio about just a SS/BDS all time chart on the 255th anniversary of implementing the vastly improved chart technology, but Silvio said BB had no plans to put together such a chart. That disappointed me to no end.

[simmnfierzig]

Full updated predictions

 

Heavily underestimated how quickly radio would jump on Passionfruit and it's stability on Spotify because of that in the first predictions

 

And it's still the sales estimates from last Sunday. 

 

1 Shape Of You     601  (=)

2 That's What I Like     441 (=)  

3 Something Just Like This     262  (+4)

4 I Feel It Coming     246  (+1)

5 iSpy     236  (+7)

6 I Don't Wanna Live Forever     233  (-3)

7 Tunnel Vision     229  (-1)

8 Bad And Boujee     229  (-4)

9 Passionfruit     222  (-1)

10 Paris     220  (=)

11 Rockabye     219 (+2)  

12 Body Like A Back Road     213  (+4)

13 Chained To The Rhythm     210  (+6)

14 Mask Off     207  (+10)

15 Love On The Brain     206 (-4)  

16 It Ain't Me     203  (+4)

17 Bounce Back     200  (-3)

18 Stay     199  (+3)

19 Say You Won't Let Go     190  (+3)

20 Closer     187  (-3)

 

21 Portland     187  (-12)

22 Issues     170  (+4)

23 Mercy     168  (=)

24 Location     166  (+8)

25 Congratulations     165   (+5)

26 Fake Love     165  (-11)

27 T-Shirt     165  (-2)

28 24k Magic     164  (-1)

29 Cold     155  (+2)

30 Can't Stop The Feeling     154  (+3)

31 Down     154  (-3)

32 Scars To Your Beautiful     151  (+2)

33 Swang     141  (+8)

34 Rolex     134  (+8)

35 The Heart Part 4     133 (debut)  

36 Starboy     132  (+1)

37 Gyalchester     123  (-8)

38 Free Smoke     122  (-20)

39 Dirt On My Boots     122  (+4)

40 Million Reasons     121  (+6)

 

41 Bad Things     121  (-2)

42 Blem     116  (-4)

43 Slide     113  (+12)

44 Don't Wanna Know     113  (=)

45 Despacito     109  (+7)

46 Water Under The Bridge     106  (+7)

47 Teenage Fever     104  (-12)

48 Let Me Love You     102  (-1)

49 Both     102  (+9)

50 Believer     102  (+7)

51 Look At Me!     102  (+15)

52 Goosebumps     101  (+7)

53 In Case You Didn't Know     100  (+14)

54 Speak To A Girl       96  (debut)

55 Party       96  (+1)

56 Hurricane       94 (+12) 

57 Sacrifices       93  (-21)

58 How Far I'll Go Auli'l       92  (+5)

59 Fast       89  (+10)

60 Redbone       88  (+11)

 

61 Green Light       86  (+4)

62 Heavy       86  (+17)

63 Castle On The Hill       83 (+9)  

64 Any Ol Barstool       83  (+10)

65 Get It Together       81  (-20)

66 XO Tour Lif3       80  (debut)

67 No Long Talk       78  (-27)

68 Play That Song       76  (+9)

69 Selfish        75  (+16)

70 KMT       73  (-22)

71 4422       72  (-21)

72 The Fighter       72 (+6)  

73 Shining       72  (+13)

74 Road Less Traveled       71  (+13)

75 Madiba Riddim       71  (-24)

76 Hometown Girl       70  (+16)

77 Moves       70  (+6)

78 Deja Vu       70  (+2)

79 Jorja Interlude       68 (-30)  

80 Losin Control       68  (+11)

 

81 The Weekend       67  (+12)

82 Think A Little Less       67  (-1)

83 Still Got Time       66  (debut)

84 Swalla       65  (+14)

85 Call On Me       65  (+5)

86 Yeah Boy       64  (re-entry)

87 No Frauds       64  (-3)

88 Ice Melts       63  (-26)

89 Do Not Disturb       62 (-29) 

90 Black       62  (re-entry)

91 Everyday       61  (-16)

92 Draco       60  (+3)

93 Galway Girl       60 (-4)  

94 How Far I'll Go Alessia       59  (+6)

95 Mo Bounce       59  (debut)

96 You're Welcome       58  (re-entry)

97 Glow       58  (-43)

98 Nothings Into Somethings       57  (-37)

99 Good Drank       56  (re-entry)

100 Prblms       56  (re-entry)

 

Others

 

The One 52

Scared To Be Lonely 50

Thumbs 49

 

 

[Starkboy]

30 Can't Stop The Feeling     154  (+3)

 

fff

[Agenor]

46 Water Under The Bridge     106  (+7)

 

 Not going recurrent!

[bjnono001]

12 minutes ago, simmnfierzig said:

Full updated predictions

 

Heavily underestimated how quickly radio would jump on Passionfruit and it's stability on Spotify because of that in the first predictions

 

And it's still the sales estimates from last Sunday. 

 

1 Shape Of You     601  (=)

2 That's What I Like     441 (=)  

3 Something Just Like This     262  (+4)

4 I Feel It Coming     246  (+1)

5 iSpy     236  (+7)

6 I Don't Wanna Live Forever     233  (-3)

7 Tunnel Vision     229  (-1)

8 Bad And Boujee     229  (-4)

9 Passionfruit     222  (-1)

10 Paris     220  (=)

11 Rockabye     219 (+2)  

12 Body Like A Back Road     213  (+4)

13 Chained To The Rhythm     210  (+6)

14 Mask Off     207  (+10)

15 Love On The Brain     206 (-4)  

16 It Ain't Me     203  (+4)

17 Bounce Back     200  (-3)

18 Stay     199  (+3)

19 Say You Won't Let Go     190  (+3)

20 Closer     187  (-3)

 

It took Closer 32 weeks to fall out of the top 10 but it's down to #20 in just 3 weeks after leaving the top 10 

[alexanderao]

Yes to SJLT possibly going top 3 and iSpy possibly going top 5  

[dussymob]

What's the chances for HUMBLE. To go top ten considering The Heart Part 4 is predicted to go top 40 and the former has a video which is doing great with views, also streams should be great for it.

[Green]

3 Something Just Like This     262  (+4)

 

 

Coldplay's biggest hit since Viva La Vida 

[fridayteenage]

it's very rare in the modern era for a duo to have so many hits. i wonder how long the chainsmokers will burn

[mike3009]

30 Can't Stop The Feeling     154  (+3)

 

[mike3009]

And poor Shakira, Despacito will outpeak Chantaje. Hope it doesn't come for La Tortura ha #23 peak. 

[Blue Rose]

21 minutes ago, Green said:

3 Something Just Like This     262  (+4)

 

 

Coldplay's biggest hit since Viva La Vida 

And with The Chainsmokers touring this Spring and Coldplay this summer in North America, SJLT has a chance to beat Viva La Vida 16 weeks in the top10 chart run