charts discussion "Stay" jumps to #7 on the Billboard All-time List

[bankroll]

Congrats Justin and TKL 

[shelven]

1 hour ago, Jude said:

Girl, that's not how it works. Once a song stops charting on H100 it will not gain points any further. So it does not really matter if it's from 1980s or 2020s or whatever decade it is.

I know that. My point wasn't that older songs should make up the entirety of the chart because they've been out longer. My point was that this chart incorporates over 60 years of music history, and the idea that 20% of the Top 15 biggest songs during that period just so happen to come from less than 5% of that period is absurd. People aren't being pressed stans by validly pointing out that music is consumed in a fundamentally different way now than it was decades ago and that Billboard's lack of proper calibration of its All-Time chart to account for that is making recent years massively overrepresented on this chart.

[Jude]

22 minutes ago, shelven said:

I know that. My point wasn't that older songs should make up the entirety of the chart because they've been out longer. My point was that this chart incorporates over 60 years of music history, and the idea that 20% of the Top 15 biggest songs during that period just so happen to come from less than 5% of that period is absurd. People aren't being pressed stans by validly pointing out that music is consumed in a fundamentally different way now than it was decades ago and that Billboard's lack of proper calibration of its All-Time chart to account for that is making recent years massively overrepresented on this chart.

Again it does not matter from what decade a song charted. Those 60+ years songs stopped gaining points around 60 years ago as well so it does not matter if they're old. 2-3 years old songs can definitely beat them and that's not surprising and repugnant in any sense. 

 

[Protocol]

Anyone who thinks this is actually the 7th biggest hit of all time is a fool

[Istan4R]

I literally laughed at loud when I saw the title. No wonder why everyone hates Gen Z. 

[Harry]

serving fad

[shelven]

7 hours ago, Jude said:

Again it does not matter from what decade a song charted. Those 60+ years songs stopped gaining points around 60 years ago as well so it does not matter if they're old. 2-3 years old songs can definitely beat them and that's not surprising and repugnant in any sense. 

 

You’re clearly not understanding my point and I don’t feel like trying to explain it over and over again, so agree to disagree I guess

[305]

On 4/23/2022 at 12:41 PM, PiperHalliwell said:

i came here for this smash

 

 

this is what I came for, was so confused

[SelenaGomez<3]

EeWw

[Jude]

13 hours ago, shelven said:

You’re clearly not understanding my point and I don’t feel like trying to explain it over and over again, so agree to disagree I guess

Because your point does not make sense. You are putting weight on the age of a song when it's irrelevant to this list. 

[shelven]

2 minutes ago, Jude said:

Because your point does not make sense. You are putting weight on the age of a song when it's irrelevant to this list. 

That's not what I'm doing and I very explicitly clarified in my last post that that wasn't what I was doing  I'm fully aware of how this chart is calculated and how songs have an equal chance of getting on this list regardless of how old they are. But the point is the newer songs are the ones that are artificially overweighted because of how music is consumed in the streaming era. If the last 3 years of music were truly weighted equally to any other 3-year period in the chart's history, then we should expect ~5% of the Top 15 to be songs from the last 3 years (since 3 years is 5% of 60 years). But instead, 20% of the Top 15 is songs from the last 3 years, which is way more than what any 3-year share should have. And there's a clear reason why that overrepresentation is happening - songs in the modern era chart longer than songs in older eras used to because of how consumption habits have changed, but this all-time chart has not been properly calibrated to correct for that, and instead it's just assuming that the modern songs are bigger than the older songs were because they've charted for longer.

 

I really don't know how else to explain myself  If you still don't get my point and think I'm suggesting that older songs should be overrepresented because they're old, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you otherwise

[Orsay]

they need to adjust their system for the streaming era. anyone who understand the bare minimum abt charts knows its easier for hits to have more longevity now

[Jude]

7 minutes ago, shelven said:

That's not what I'm doing and I very explicitly clarified in my last post that that wasn't what I was doing  I'm fully aware of how this chart is calculated and how songs have an equal chance of getting on this list regardless of how old they are. But the point is the newer songs are the ones that are artificially overweighted because of how music is consumed in the streaming era. If the last 3 years of music were truly weighted equally to any other 3-year period in the chart's history, then we should expect ~5% of the Top 15 to be songs from the last 3 years (since 3 years is 5% of 60 years). But instead, 20% of the Top 15 is songs from the last 3 years, which is way more than what any 3-year share should have. And there's a clear reason why that overrepresentation is happening - songs in the modern era chart longer than songs in older eras used to because of how consumption habits have changed, but this all-time chart has not been properly calibrated to correct for that, and instead it's just assuming that the modern songs are bigger than the older songs were because they've charted for longer.

 

I really don't know how else to explain myself  If you still don't get my point and think I'm suggesting that older songs should be overrepresented because they're old, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you otherwise

That's literally what you have been pointing out and try to read your initial post since that's what your clear point. 

[Ricanaire]

Not me thinking it was either Rihanna's Stay or Zedd/Alessia Cara's Stay.

[shelven]

2 minutes ago, Jude said:

That's literally what you have been pointing out and try to read your initial post since that's what your clear point. 

Ok sis, whatever you say Like I said, I can't explain myself in more detail than how I just did and I'm struggling to understand how you keep missing the point, so we're just going to have to chalk this up to an online communication gap

[CristianGarcia]

Not these quick lil streaming hits pushing We Found God out the Top 30 

[Just a Gay on ATRL]

Sorry this just doesn’t feel right lol. BB needs to adjust their formula. 

[feelslikeadream]

On 4/23/2022 at 1:41 PM, PiperHalliwell said:

i came here for this smash

 

 

This. I've never even heard the song OP is referencing

[wehavetostan]

On 4/27/2022 at 7:50 PM, shelven said:

I can’t believe people are looking at a list that’s supposed to represent 60+ years of hits but has 3 songs in the Top 15 that are less than 3 years old, and all they can do in response is accuse the people who are pointing out its absurdity of being pressed stans  This forum has really fried the brains of a lot of people

Absolutely 

[slas]

The method behind how the chart works is fundamentally broken because, as already mentioned, streaming consumption outlives sales consumption which failed to count consumption after the initial purchase. The result is much slower charts. Modern radio stagnancy doesn't help either.

 

*If* they want it to accurately represent history and not be inflated with modern songs, they need to revamp the chart to include recurrent performance (sales/streaming/airplay combined) and not base it solely on how songs have charted on the Hot 100 because modern songs invariably have longer chart runs. I don't think this can be easily fixed by simply changing multipliers or inverse points systems.

 

If they're okay with having way more new songs displacing old songs despite then this is just how it is  However, if AIWFCIY keeps topping the charts around Christmas then it will eventually become #1 of all-time which is also just stupid. Leaning into the "fundamentally broken" thing.

 

There isn't even that great of value behind a chart which measures just Hot 100 chart run performance compared to total performance including recurrent stats imo. The chart needs to be changed/replaced with a new one with better fundamentals.

[PopFan1996]

On 4/29/2022 at 5:24 AM, shelven said:

That's not what I'm doing and I very explicitly clarified in my last post that that wasn't what I was doing  I'm fully aware of how this chart is calculated and how songs have an equal chance of getting on this list regardless of how old they are. But the point is the newer songs are the ones that are artificially overweighted because of how music is consumed in the streaming era. If the last 3 years of music were truly weighted equally to any other 3-year period in the chart's history, then we should expect ~5% of the Top 15 to be songs from the last 3 years (since 3 years is 5% of 60 years). But instead, 20% of the Top 15 is songs from the last 3 years, which is way more than what any 3-year share should have. And there's a clear reason why that overrepresentation is happening - songs in the modern era chart longer than songs in older eras used to because of how consumption habits have changed, but this all-time chart has not been properly calibrated to correct for that, and instead it's just assuming that the modern songs are bigger than the older songs were because they've charted for longer.

 

I really don't know how else to explain myself  If you still don't get my point and think I'm suggesting that older songs should be overrepresented because they're old, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you otherwise

This

I absolutely agree. It's logical and common sense so idk why are people mad at this

There are factually HITS that are way bigger from the early 2010s and the 2000s.

And even some of Justin's own songs that are lower on the ALL-TIME chart are literally bigger than this song  

And this says a lot about how they should recalibrate this chart to represent the ranking better.

[PopFan1996]

41 minutes ago, smash said:

The method behind how the chart works is fundamentally broken because, as already mentioned, streaming consumption outlives sales consumption which failed to count consumption after the initial purchase. The result is much slower charts. Modern radio stagnancy doesn't help either.

 

*If* they want it to accurately represent history and not be inflated with modern songs, they need to revamp the chart to include recurrent performance (sales/streaming/airplay combined) and not base it solely on how songs have charted on the Hot 100 because modern songs invariably have longer chart runs. I don't think this can be easily fixed by simply changing multipliers or inverse points systems.

 

If they're okay with having way more new songs displacing old songs despite then this is just how it is  However, if AIWFCIY keeps topping the charts around Christmas then it will eventually become #1 of all-time which is also just stupid. Leaning into the "fundamentally broken" thing.

 

There isn't even that great of value behind a chart which measures just Hot 100 chart run performance compared to total performance including recurrent stats imo. The chart needs to be changed/replaced with a new one with better fundamentals.

[Sinister]

Stay is still being heavily consumed through streaming. Radio fans and streaming fans obviously love it

 

i can understand why you think it doesn’t feel as big as WFL, RITD, PRA because those songs during their reign was like a cultural phenomenon that ppl were talking about in real life and you couldn’t escape (cultural reset as y’all would like to say). Same as JB’s other hits from Purpose or Despacito.

 

Stay never had that. It’s an inoffensive song that people of all ages just like and haven’t gotten tired of. It’s peak wasn’t very high, but it’s been consistently heavily consumed which has led to its point

 

i still hear Stay all the time. People are still choosing it over many songs that have come after it. So it all works out. Now here we are

[doonerr]

The fraudelence

 

When the day comes that Billboard readjusts their formula and all the Spotify free streamed songs fall down by 100 spots

[halcyonday]

3 hours ago, smash said:

The method behind how the chart works is fundamentally broken because, as already mentioned, streaming consumption outlives sales consumption which failed to count consumption after the initial purchase. The result is much slower charts. Modern radio stagnancy doesn't help either.

 

*If* they want it to accurately represent history and not be inflated with modern songs, they need to revamp the chart to include recurrent performance (sales/streaming/airplay combined) and not base it solely on how songs have charted on the Hot 100 because modern songs invariably have longer chart runs. I don't think this can be easily fixed by simply changing multipliers or inverse points systems.

 

If they're okay with having way more new songs displacing old songs despite then this is just how it is  However, if AIWFCIY keeps topping the charts around Christmas then it will eventually become #1 of all-time which is also just stupid. Leaning into the "fundamentally broken" thing.

 

There isn't even that great of value behind a chart which measures just Hot 100 chart run performance compared to total performance including recurrent stats imo. The chart needs to be changed/replaced with a new one with better fundamentals.