| |
Discussion: Billboard Reply's To Changing Rules
Member Since: 10/7/2011
Posts: 20,627
|
Billboard Reply's To Changing Rules
Interesting article, with great points.
Quote:
Dear Gary,
When is Billboard going to change its rules so artists such as Katy Perry cannot release multiple versions (original and remixes) of the same song at the same time and have the song reach the No. 1 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 after all sales are added up?
It would be an insult to music fans to have Perry surpass the late, great Michael Jackson for most No. 1s from one album after she's cheated her way toward the top with her latest song, "The One That Got Away."
Thank you,
Marie Simon
West Palm Beach, Florida
Hi Marie,
Thanks for the e-mail. Some details we should probably go over here, and some that will also address the back-and-forth in the comments sections below some of the stories that we've recently posted about Perry.
First, Billboard has a policy in effect by which remixes of current songs are merged with original versions (and radio edits) as long as all versions are judged to be similar enough. Here is exact wording, in fact, from Billboard's charts manual:
"Billboard will treat re-recorded songs that bear no resemblance to the original recording as a separate and distinctive song for the purposes of chart tracking. The guidelines are lyric and melody: if neither element is similar to the original recording, the two versions will not be merged."
In the case of Perry's "One," which has been remixed featuring B.o.B, all versions will be merged, since the remix does not vastly change the original recording; it merely sports additional rapping.
And, the guiding intent of the Hot 100 is that it's a song, not tracks, chart. Therefore, merging titles helps present the clearest picture of a title's overall popularity. Billboard additionally boasts the weekly Hot Digital Tracks chart, on which individual mixes chart separately in order to show the most popular versions of all digital titles. That's where we'll be able to see the difference in sales rank between the album version of "One" and the B.o.B-assisted remix once the latter has been released digitally.
Marie, you also use the word "cheated" when describing Perry's quest for an unprecedented sixth Hot 100 No. 1 from her album "Teenage Dream," an opinion shared by other Billboard.com-menters.
I don't agree.
True, Capitol has discounted "One" to 69 cents in the iTunes Store and released the new remix in hopes of helping "One" reach No. 1. A 69-cent sale price, however, is well within Billboard's chart rules regarding discounted digital tracks. Again, an excerpt from Billboard's sale policy:
" Unit sales for Digital Tracks priced below $0.39 during their first three months of release will not be eligible for inclusion on Billboard's digital songs charts."
That rule is, thus, not applicable to "One."
Also the subject of debate among online readers: a label releasing a remix of a song as it approaches the Hot 100's summit. Such a marketing move is not exclusive to Capitol or Perry. As reported Thursday (Dec. 15), it's already occurred multiple times this year, with, for example, Rihanna's "S&M" and Britney Spears' "Till the World Ends" having been the recipients of guest star-assisted remixes as they scaled the chart's upper ranks.
In my view, Capitol is simply practicing ... capitalism. The label is aware that Perry could surpass Jackson's haul and make history and, of course, it hopes that she does. Ultimately, it's operating within chart rules to help "One" achieve maximum popularity. Still, it's understandable how purists might find some fault when the song is the only one among iTunes' top 75 so discounted, as it has been in the past week. Then again, such is the spotlight in the digital era.
Never before was there such a national store available for scrutiny at any hour in consumers' homes. Tower Records, for instance, may have discounted titles years ago; it's just that perhaps not all stores would've participated. And, certainly, any sale at any store, no matter how far-reaching nationally, was simply not as visible as an iTunes one (or, for that matter, open to message board debate). Any complete account of discounts of singles throughout the rock era would be practically impossible to compile.
Beyond its retail push, "One" is an unquestionable airplay hit, rising 7-6 on Radio Songs this week with 92 million all-format impressions, according to Nielsen BDS (to go along with more than 34 million YouTube views for its video).
OK, last semi-rant: your, and other readers', claim that Perry's passing of Jackson's record would be an "insult" to the King of Pop.
Again, I don't share that view. Chart records are routinely broken. Earlier this year, the "Glee" cast passed Elvis Presley's mark for most Hot 100 hits. Does that mean that the McKinley High singers are better than Presley? Of course not. The facts simply show that they've charted on the Hot 100 more times than Presley, nothing more. Presley's contributions to music, if not - no exaggeration - human, history are, on so many levels, unparalleled. He just doesn't hold every Billboard chart record.
Similarly, Jackson and Perry have notched five Hot 100 No. 1s each from their albums "Bad" and "Teenage Dream," respectively, the most leaders from an album in the chart's archives. Despite differences in eras, consumer tastes, radio preferences and single configurations, each of the 10 No. 1s from the sets faced the same competition: to pass 99 other weekly chart contenders to become the most popular song in the country.
Has Jackson had more overall impact than Perry? Hard to argue against that. Jackson's career spanned more than 40 years. Perry has been scoring hits for three. Jackson broke color barriers on MTV. He was instrumental in making music videos an art form. And, his images of the Moonwalk, his glittering glove and his songcraft have lifted him to, like Presley, elite status among all-time American performers.
Just because one of his records could be broken simply implies that another artist's music has inspired fans of another era.
Who knows, had the internet existed in prior decades before the public became attached to a 24/7 flow of information, Billboard readers in 1964 might've argued that the Beatles wouldn't have placed a record 14 titles simultaneously on the Hot 100 if they hadn't appeared on the "Ed Sullivan Show." Cheap ploy or savvy marketing? Same argument. (And, again, one involving Capitol artists).
Times change. Music changes. Music fans' passion to rank artists and their legacies, however, does not.
Thankfully.
It's spirited discussions like these that reinforce our love for music, and charts.
"We take very seriously reader feedback," Billboard editorial director Bill Werde recently stated. "It's important for us to have a genuine exchange and dialogue with you, whether it's via e-mail or comments section(s).
"While further changes in our charting policy are not currently planned, we will always remain responsive to the marketplace so that we maintain our credibility and relevancy."
|
Billboard knows the tea. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 12,334
|
Did you not notice that Billboard basically discredited Katy's success? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 50,276
|
He is essentially saying that her tactics are not cheating only because they are in the Billboard guidelines. It's not like he's agreeing that their records are comparable.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/17/2011
Posts: 16,910
|
He's saying, technically, she's not cheating. Nothing we didn't already know.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Posts: 8,199
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/30/2011
Posts: 38,486
|
AP.  Posted in the Music section.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/7/2011
Posts: 20,627
|
Regardless, he is making a point that even though it is discounted and there is a remix, the song is already a radio smash and he is also pointing out the tactic has been used before. The opinion of Marie is shared by many on ATRL, I though it would be interesting to share this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Katy is not cheating. people are buying the songs whether haters like it or not.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/31/2010
Posts: 26,257
|
It seems like he's saying her label's within the rules but not within the ethics and that the record won't change much. Their response seems to have a dim amount of shade to me, almost.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/7/2011
Posts: 20,627
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 12,334
|
He's basically saying that she'll never be as good as Michael Jackson, and that no matter how many #1s she has, it won't make her any more of an artist than she already is.
It's a shady response, and the OP didn't even realize it
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/15/2010
Posts: 8,120
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/7/2011
Posts: 20,627
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape
He's basically saying that she'll never be as good as Michael Jackson, and that no matter how many #1s she has, it won't make her any more of an artist than she already is.
It's a shady response, and the OP didn't even realize it |
He also pointed out that he was in the game for forty years, she been in it for 3. You tried though.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 12,334
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kats
He also pointed out that he was in the game for forty years, she been in it for 3. You tried though.
|
What does that have to do with artistic integrity, and what it means in relation to #1s?
He simply said that she racked up a lot of #1s in her short career. What you just posted has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/7/2011
Posts: 20,627
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape
What does that have to do with artistic integrity, and what it means in relation to #1s?
He simply said that she racked up a lot of #1s in her short career. What you just posted has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make.
|
'
There is no point to make. He has had over ten times the amount of time to make an impact. She hasn't had nearly the amount of time. The response is in no way shady, considering he disagree's with both opinions and points of Marie. But we can discuss in the original thread.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 12,334
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kats
'
There is no point to make. He has had over ten times the amount of time to make an impact. She hasn't had nearly the amount of time. The response is in no way shady, considering he disagree's with both opinions and points of Marie. But we can discuss in the original thread.
|
It's not just about impact, Kats.
What I'm saying is that Katy is no more of an artist than Michael Jackson or anyone else in music because she has more #1s from a single album. That's my only point. You're extrapolating that I'm saying that Katy is stupid because she hasn't made enough of an impact in three years.
The article is clearly shading Katy (and her stans) by thinking that breaking this record actually means anything for Katy as an artist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
