| Author |
|
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: 11 September 2021 at 11:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
For next week’s Hot 100 Drake is projected to occupy the Top 5, 11 of
the top 12, and 17 of the top 25. Certainly the greatest chart
achievement in the history of the Billboard pop charts!!
Funny thing though, next week’s Drakemania just isn’t in the same
ballpark as Beatlemania during April 1964 - at least in my humble
opioid. But the Hot 100 tells a different story.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
| Posted: 11 September 2021 at 12:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
Funny thing though, next week’s Drakemania just
isn’t in the same
ballpark as Beatlemania during April 1964 - at least in
my humble
opioid. But the Hot 100 tells a different story. |
|
|
It really is like comparing apples to oranges. No digital
downloads or streaming in 1964 for The Beatles to benefit
from. Plus a song had to be physically released as a
single in order to chart.
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LunarLaugh
MusicFan
Joined: 13 February 2020
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: 11 September 2021 at 2:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
It'll be interesting to see how much longer any of them
remain in the chart for the weeks following.
__________________
Listen to The Lunar Laugh!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6430
|
| Posted: 11 September 2021 at 2:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
How does the "Hot 100 tell a different story"? The chart is merely a snapshot of a particular week. Chart enthusiasts like to compare historical chart data (mainly peak/chart positions), but that's really meaningless, and it always has been, regardless of chart methodology.
As an example, how do you know what was the bigger Beatles hit between "Can't Buy Me Love" (#1 for 5 weeks in 1964) and "Get Back" (#1 for 5 weeks in 1969)? You can't know this by looking only at the peak position and number of weeks on the chart. It's meaningless when doing a comparison between charts that are 5 years apart. "Can't Buy Me Love" has only been certified as selling 1,000,000 copies. "Get Back" has been certified as selling 2,000,000 copies. Based on this additional data, "Get Back" was likely the bigger hit, but the Hot 100 charts would not be able to tell you this.
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1471
|
| Posted: 12 September 2021 at 12:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
thecdguy wrote:
| It really is like comparing apples to oranges. |
|
|
The Beatles owned Apple. As far as I know Drake doesn't own Oranges (a little music humor...)
You can't compare The Beatles "owning" the Top 5 of the Hot 100 and Drake possibly putting 5 singles in the Top 5 of the Hot 100. The Beatles didn't have digital downloads, youtube etc to bolster their numbers.
Now if you want to talk about the Bee Gees "owning" writing credits in the top 5 one week fine.
Mariah Carey has more weeks at #1 then Elvis. The only reason she beat the record if I recall was the release of her 1994 Xmas song when the chart rules changed. Does that make Elvis and his accomplishments less? Hell just because Glee owns the # of songs charting over Elvis is that an accomplishment? I personally don't think so.
If Drake can secure the Top 5 its an accomplishment for that week and like Aaron said a snapshot of that week. If it does happen it would only be the second time ever. So yes different eras but the Beatles accomplishment will always stand out as being unique to the time.
Edited by PopArchivist on 12 September 2021 at 12:47am
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 12 September 2021 at 4:16am | IP Logged
|
|
|
For the past few years I've been saying (only half-jokingly) that Drake should release an album with 100 cuts, just to
see how many of them he could put on the Hot 100 the first week of release.
Yeah, comparing different eras is often tricky (more like comparing apples to bowling balls). For example, The Beatles
never had a song chart for more than 19 weeks on the Hot 100! Still, it's human nature to want to compare things like
this, and without such interest, I doubt Record Research would even exist. So overall, I'm glad enough people are
interested.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
| Posted: 12 September 2021 at 5:14am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
| It's meaningless when doing a comparison between charts that are 5 years apart. |
|
|
I don't know if the chart methodology changed between 1964 and 1969, but if it didn't, I'd say it's a fair comparison. In a case like that,
they'd be on an even playing field. When you compare charts that are more than half a century apart after several changes in how the chart is
compiled, I could see the argument about it being meaningless. It's true that a #1 song can be outsold by any lower peaking song, but sales
alone don't tell the full story of how popular a song is, just like airplay, streaming, etc doesn't. That's why personally I'm glad that they
had/have separate charts for sales and airplay. You get to see how a song performs in both aspects and then you can see its overall performance
on the main chart ("Hot 100").
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6430
|
| Posted: 12 September 2021 at 6:01am | IP Logged
|
|
|
thecdguy wrote:
| [QUOTE]I don't know if the chart methodology changed between 1964 and 1969, but if it didn't, I'd say it's a fair comparison. In a case like that, they'd be on an even playing field. |
|
|
It may be a "fair" comparison, but there's still no way to know if the songs are on an even playing field. If two songs never played on the same field at the same time against each other, how can you accurately assess which is the bigger hit without knowing additional data, like actual number of sales, actual number of radio plays, actual number of jukebox plays, etc.?
As you rightly pointed out, there have been lower peaking songs that outperform #1 songs, and we know this based on other data like sales numbers and radio spins.
Paul Haney wrote:
| Still, it's human nature to want to compare things like this, and without such interest, I doubt Record Research would even exist. |
|
|
I agree about it being human nature, but for me it's never been about comparing songs from different time periods. I've always looked at the research as "how did that song perform at that given time relative to the other songs that were out at that exact time."
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: 13 September 2021 at 11:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Drake did it…
9 out of the top 10 songs on the Hot 100!
Congrats, but this just feels so… wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: 13 September 2021 at 3:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chartman wrote:
Funny thing though, next week’s Drakemania just isn’t
in the same ballpark as Beatlemania during April 1964
- at least in my humble opioid. But the Hot 100 tells
a different story. |
|
|
Billboard already comparing Drake's achievement with
that of the Beatles.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9629040/drake-
hot-100-history-way-2-sexy-number-one/
Plus they go on and list many more chart records.
Funny thing is that almost everyone knew about the
Beatles back in 1964 - they were all over TV news.
Drake in 2021 - not so much.
Billboard very straight forward factual statements without any reference
to chart caveats and that comparing different eras is an apple to
oranges comparison.
Edited by Chartman on 13 September 2021 at 6:42pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: 13 September 2021 at 8:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
No disrespect to Drake’s massive accomplishments but am I the only
one who feels culturally divorced from this phenomenon?
Not sure if it’s my age, but even as recently as the last decade, Taylor
Swift felt huge, Adele was everywhere, Rihanna - I could go on. But
Drake just doesn’t feel that commercial. It’s like he has a massive
streaming fan base and rhythmic radio support but has never been a
mainstream consensus act.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1471
|
| Posted: 13 September 2021 at 9:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jebsib wrote:
No disrespect to Drake’s massive accomplishments but am I the only
one who feels culturally divorced from this phenomenon?
Not sure if it’s my age, but even as recently as the last decade, Taylor
Swift felt huge, Adele was everywhere, Rihanna - I could go on. But
Drake just doesn’t feel that commercial. It’s like he has a massive
streaming fan base and rhythmic radio support but has never been a
mainstream consensus act. |
|
|
Adele can sell millions of CD's. Rihanna has always had a huge radio presence. Taylor Swift can write her own hits. Drake has a huge youtube/streaming fanbase who buys his albums and tracks. The only time I saw Drake not chart every album track as releases was 2009 and 2013, his first two albums. I remember Hotline Bling as being huge and that was the start of his ascent into amassing a following. Taylor's albums chart too but she never can get enough fans to monopolize the Top 5 spots on the Hot 100...
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: 14 September 2021 at 3:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
That’s all very true. I guess I’m also a little culturally bummed as a lot
of the Drake content is kinda questionable and rife with the N word, etc.
A little sad that this is what reflects the Top of the Top in the 21st
century…
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1471
|
| Posted: 14 September 2021 at 2:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jebsib wrote:
That’s all very true. I guess I’m also a little culturally bummed as a lot
of the Drake content is kinda questionable and rife with the N word, etc.
A little sad that this is what reflects the Top of the Top in the 21st
century… |
|
|
There's always clean versions :)
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Drake’s upcoming Hot 100 Feat
