I guess people really like Post Malone

Great discussion!

I think "album bomb" is a great term. I think I've seen that in an article
as well.

The way you describe the use of streaming is more or less the way I've
understood it. I also have 3 kids but they're younger and haven't hit the
echo chamber yet. They still listen only to what I feed them... plus
Despacito--- they love that track for some reason.

My problems with relating this type of obsessive listening to the charts
is that it doesn't really reflect anything. (1) At most, it reflects the
popularity of the album without saying anything about the individual
tracks; and (2) it inflates the popularity of these albums by counting
multiple listens by the same individual.   I don't have a problem with
charting album cuts but I think the chart breaks down when people are
not intentionally selecting a particular cut (and only listening to it as part
of an album) and when the chart fails to distinguish between 1 million
people listening to a song vs. 1 person listening to a song 1 million
times. The former reflects societal saturation, the latter (although it
might generate more raw listens) reflects only a cult following.

Although it's true that there are a group of people (mostly kids and
maybe college students) who are listening to post Malone and these
other acts on endless loops, there is a great percentage of the music
consuming public (not just out of touch old folks) who doesn't know who
post malone even is.

For me, it comes back to the question of what the hot 100 is supposed
to be measuring. Billboard used to be a trade magazine and the chart
was meant as a guide for record store owners, djs, and jukebox
operators to know what to stock and play for commercial reasons.
Even after the 1998 change, it still served those purposes, albeit more
for djs. I'm not sure what it is now, other than a technical list of the
songs that were streamed the most--- I'm not sure what purpose that
serves, beyond trivia, because it no longer seems to measure
"popularity" or serve any commercial purpose for people who make a
living selling or playing music.

I don't know what the answer is (or if one is even needed) but as the
British tend to do, I think the U.K. charts went too far. The "three songs
per album" rule is pretty arbitrary and has the potential to cut out songs
that are truly popular among the masses. They should have just better
defined what songs are eligible to chart or simply adjusted the way they
count streams.

When the charts started, it was long before the current age of instant
everything. Nowadays, the popularity of songs rises and wanes on a
daily basis. I wonder whether 7 days is just too short of a lookback for
a weekly chart to have any meaning in this day and age? Because it
can be so drastic from week to week, the charts are too affected by
short term fluctuations and are failing to give a good idea of what is
actually popular anymore. What would happen if BB still did a weekly
chart but used a 14 day lookback period? It would normalize these 1-
day wonders by diluting their impact over a two week period--- if one of
these album cuts can maintain its popularity over two weeks instead of
a couple days, then it probably deserves its spot.

In any event, I wonder if Billboard changing the weight of unpaid
streams is going to have much of an effect. It's a good move because
those free streams can be gamed so easily.

Paul, hate to bring this up, but BECAUSE of STREAMING it looks like we are
back to the stage where some Hot 100 Airplay songs (Radio Songs) are no
longer getting onto the Hot 100.

Not sure if you guys are still monitoring the Hot 100 Airplay chart weekly, but
this week there are at least 2 songs on there that are either JUST bubbling
under (Keith Urban), or not present at all (Ricky Martin) on either big chart.

In the past your Top Pop Singles books denoted these airplay-only 'hits';
Except at this point, it's not due to ineligibility (1987 - 1998), it's that they are
not 'popular' enough...