If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Billboard has revised its Hot 100 formula to include YouTube plays, which is good news for garbage like the "Harlem Shake" and bad news for music fans   (nytimes.com) divider line 18
    More: Sad, It's HOT!, YouTube, billboards, YouTube plays, Grammy Nominees, Carly Rae Jepsen, Nielsen SoundScan, Billboard Hot  
•       •       •

838 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 21 Feb 2013 at 10:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-21 10:32:13 PM
2 votes:
How does this work for YouTube?  Is YouTube going to tell them which hits sourced from US ISPs?  Or are they going to pretend any hit on .com counts as a US hit?

If I watch a Doctor Who fanvideo that uses a One Direction song, will that count as a hit for the song even though I don't like the song and didn't want to listen to it?

/I'm looking at you, Sherlock fanvideos that use Taylor Swift songs
//Seriously, WTF
2013-02-21 12:00:48 PM
2 votes:

WTF Indeed: It's the Hot 100. There hasn't been proper music on that list in 10 years.


Yeah. Go back a few more years and you see really good music on the Hot 100. Like in 1997 when MMMBop was on there or, even better, 1996 when Macarena was on top of the list.
2013-02-21 11:02:28 AM
2 votes:
Really Cracked the other day was right. Us Grown adults need to stop biatching about music. Esp pop music and boy bands. It's sad an pathetic.
2013-02-21 10:56:49 AM
2 votes:
Why is it bad news?

Who the hell relies on Billboard to discern their musical tastes for them?

Record charts are irrelevant.
2013-02-21 09:54:51 AM
2 votes:
If I filled my iPod with music based on how popular it is on the radio or YouTube, it would be wall to wall crap.  For the most part, the same could be said for Billboard.  Yes, there are some very talented groups/artists out there right now making some really interesting and fun music, but it can't compete with the likes of Justin Bieber and faux hip-pop/R&B.  So, it doesn't get the chart positions it deserves, and it doesn't wrack up billions of YouTube hits.  Which stinks.  That said, there's always been shiatty music, even during the days of Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and the Rolling Stones.  It's not like that's a new phenomena.
2013-02-21 09:25:57 AM
2 votes:
So if a video of a cat singing gets a shiateload of views, is Billboard going to count the cat?  Where do they draw the line between legit artists and nonartists?
2013-02-22 01:08:55 AM
1 votes:

nameofperson: Given that I'm dumb and can't parse if the hatred is directed at me or the "trap" label,


It's directed at genre names that weren't in use until 1974 in general. Possibly inspired on joke by some comedian, like that "you can't do genre X, because your melanin count is <Y" meme
2013-02-21 07:11:52 PM
1 votes:

hubcity: So here's an awful truth: The Hot 100 is influenced significantly by sales, though airplay and now YouTube play affect the outcome.

If a song you like happens to be liked overwhelmingly by people who can't be bothered to buy it...guess where it shows up on the chart? It doesn't.

Believe me, I'm not a cheerleader for the RIAA suing everybody in sight, but I also realize they're running a business, and if a portion of that business doesn't make them money, I can't fault them for considering it less important than the ones that do. Same goes for radio - if a format you like isn't on the radio, it may not be because there aren't enough people who like it, it may because there may not be enough people willing to pay for it.

Guess what I'm saying is you should be able to sample to your heart's content...but if you like it, buy it. (Even better if the artists runs their own label.)


What if they added concert ticket sales to the list? That wouldn't stop Bieber, but actually weighing that in may boost upcoming bands that are getting hot.
2013-02-21 03:36:42 PM
1 votes:
Well, the audience has to actually go and intentionally seek out stuff on YouTube, whereas the radio just plays what the conglomerates pay them to play with no real audience input.

If anything, this is a more valid method of finding out what's well-liked.

nameofperson: Yes, it's that new "trap" genre that the young whipper-snappers listen to


This annoys me.

You don't get to randomly declare your shiat a completely new genre every time someone throws in a measure with a different time signature or blows a whistle over a beat.  Your crap is just synthesized club music, not perceptibly different from the heavy-beat stuff from the 80s, Skrillex's shiat, or the muzak-variant stuff that plays in any WB show with ambiguous 30-somethings pretending to be teenagers in a venue with alcohol.

Stop it with the pretensions of grandeur already.  We get enough of that from the poppy Bjork/Yoko Ono bullshiat end of the music industry, we don't have to take it from every jackass that discovered that you can make sound effects with a mixer program on a computer, too.
2013-02-21 03:08:35 PM
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: If I filled my iPod with music based on how popular it is on the radio or YouTube, it would be wall to wall crap.  For the most part, the same could be said for Billboard.  Yes, there are some very talented groups/artists out there right now making some really interesting and fun music, but it can't compete with the likes of Justin Bieber and faux hip-pop/R&B.  So, it doesn't get the chart positions it deserves, and it doesn't wrack up billions of YouTube hits.  Which stinks.  That said, there's always been shiatty music, even during the days of Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and the Rolling Stones.  It's not like that's a new phenomena.


Generally the charts are weak guideline to good music in any period.  As an example, here's 1975:
http://www.bobborst.com/popculture/top-100-songs-of-the-year/?year=1 97 5
and here's 2011
http://www.bobborst.com/popculture/top-100-songs-of-the-year/?year=2 01 1

Depending on your tastes and accounting for some "nostalgia appeal" in the first list, they're pretty comparable (also noteworthy, Rock has its own list now which somehow makes it illegal to crossover into hot 100 territory while Country has held its immunity to this clause) Any given year sees an overwhelming amount of crap become hits and good music overlooked due to lack of exposure.
2013-02-21 02:49:12 PM
1 votes:
Not that anyone cares, but Baauer (the Harlem Shake producer) makes fantastic music. Yes, it's that new "trap" genre that the young whipper-snappers listen to, but his productions are very methodical and minimalist (unlike Harlem Shake) with heavy heavy bass.

It's a shame he's known for this track, but hopefully with the money coming in he'll be able to deliver a worthy first album.

Some samples if you like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3a6QrXYAoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpJwaqQb92Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4dIXt2D8zw (clip)

/so what about Billboard?
//Outdated model is outdated
2013-02-21 12:30:44 PM
1 votes:
Subby, this is a good thing.

Gangnam Style and Rebecca Black's Friday are some of the most heard songs on earth. By definition they should be on top of the charts. Love it or hate it, that's reality.
2013-02-21 12:21:07 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: Why is it bad news?

Who the hell relies on Billboard to discern their musical tastes for them?

Record charts are irrelevant.


I disagree. When a song gets to the top of the charts, it gets a ton of press. This causes people to go "hmm, what's that?", then either purchase the song or (gasp!) maybe the album it is on. To the record industry, charts are incredibly relevant, as they are an "independent" (cough cough) verification of the quality of their product.

Yes, I know the charts are mostly fixed and gamed. I'm just saying there's a reason the general public bought 50 million downloads of Ke$ha and not "Clockwork Angels". Because of the percieved relevance of the charts.
2013-02-21 11:05:31 AM
1 votes:
So here's an awful truth: The Hot 100 is influenced significantly by sales, though airplay and now YouTube play affect the outcome.

If a song you like happens to be liked overwhelmingly by people who can't be bothered to buy it...guess where it shows up on the chart? It doesn't.

Believe me, I'm not a cheerleader for the RIAA suing everybody in sight, but I also realize they're running a business, and if a portion of that business doesn't make them money, I can't fault them for considering it less important than the ones that do. Same goes for radio - if a format you like isn't on the radio, it may not be because there aren't enough people who like it, it may because there may not be enough people willing to pay for it.

Guess what I'm saying is you should be able to sample to your heart's content...but if you like it, buy it. (Even better if the artists runs their own label.)
2013-02-21 11:00:21 AM
1 votes:
How cute. Another organization that thinks anyone cares what they do.

I don't think I have bought I have an album in ten years that made the Top 100. Maybe one of the Foo Fighters albums.
2013-02-21 10:48:10 AM
1 votes:
I actually see this as cool. Independent artists/labels have a (slightly) better chance of getting there stuff out there and getting some recognition.
2013-02-21 09:46:11 AM
1 votes:
It's the Hot 100. There hasn't been proper music on that list in 10 years.
2013-02-21 09:37:40 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: So if a video of a cat singing gets a shiateload of views, is Billboard going to count the cat?  Where do they draw the line between legit artists and nonartists?


At least the cat's singing is unprocessed and it's actually using its natural ability.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report