[GagalooBabii]

Originally posted by rickjay1990

We need to get over that

"Bad Romance" was a US SMASH, a huge Worldwide SMASH.

NO...and I still can't get over IGF taking PF's spot as no.1. Without that, PF was guaranteed at least 9 weeks at no.1!!!

[MusicTalker]

Originally posted by rickjay1990

Sales = Airplay



and BBB underperformed (being her 2nd single after so much hype) it was not definitely a SMASH I mean, really? it was just a hit...

Well, compared to TT it didn't do nearly as well. But not every Ke$ha single should be compared to TT, that song was a phenomenon. BBB did very well when you look it by itself.

And like I said, it's all the more impressive it is so close to being double platinum even though it flopped on radio.

But what you consider a smash may be different than what I consider a smash. It's all opinion-based

[MusicTalker]

Originally posted by GagalooBabii;

NO...and I still can't get over IGF taking PF's spot as no.1. Without that, PF was guaranteed at least 9 weeks at no.1!!!

It was BBP

PF was a huge smash & it got to #1, there is nothing to complain about. BBP & IGF are great songs as well that deserved their weeks at #1.

[GagalooBabii]

Originally posted by MusicTalker

It was BBP

Thanks

[StarryEyed]

Find Your Love #28 on UK, please got top 20!

[R!ck]

Originally posted by MusicTalker

Well, compared to TT it didn't do nearly as well. But not every Ke$ha single should be compared to TT, that song was a phenomenon. BBB did very well when you look it by itself.

And like I said, it's all the more impressive it is so close to being double platinum even though it flopped on radio.

But what you consider a smash may be different than what I consider a smash. It's all opinion-based

No just no! plenty of artists have surpassed, equalled or had just as big 2nd singles as their debuts, some examples:

Fergie: London Bridge - Fergalicious - Glamorous - Big Girls Don't Cry (4 SMASHES in a row)
Lady Gaga: Just Dance - Poker Face -----------> PF was even bigger

I don't think BBB is a smash and I'm sure many people think so but yeah if you want to...

[R!ck]

Originally posted by GagalooBabii

NO...and I still can't get over IGF taking PF's spot as no.1. Without that, PF was guaranteed at least 9 weeks at no.1!!!

Well, nobody could do something about that

Thank God, "Boom Boom Pow" exploded the week after or Poker Face would never had touch the top spot

And I clearly remember how the popbars were! PF was nothing compared to BBP

BEP deserved those 26 weeks @ #1

[GagalooBabii]

Originally posted by rickjay1990

Well, nobody could do something about that

Thank God, "Boom Boom Pow" exploded the week after or Poker Face would never had touch the top spot

And I clearly remember how the popbars were! PF was nothing compared to BBP

BEP deserved those 26 weeks @ #1

That only proves that the USA has a very steady chart, unlike the UK

[R!ck]

^
The UK chart is so boring IMO I don't like charts were only sales matter...

[Яeo.]

I think Rude Boy going #1 as of compensation for Pon De Replay not going #1. PDR spent 5 weeks at #1 Digitally but it was blocked by the huge radio hit We Belong Together at the time. Now, RB become Rihanna's biggest radio hit and was #1 for 5 weeks...

Hmm....

[StarryEyed]

Originally posted by rickjay1990

^
The UK chart is so boring IMO I don't like charts were only sales matter...

I'm the opposite I think the American charts are boring because airplay is counted so they tend to move really slowly. It takes ages for a song to peak then ages for a song to move off the top spot. IMO they should be based on sales because at the end of the day radio is only there to get a song out there which is to get sales which is what matters

[Яeo.]

UK charts are irrelevant. I'd rather look at UK iTunes.

[Celestial]

Originally posted by rickjay1990

^
The UK chart is so boring IMO I don't like charts were only sales matter...

How can you find the UK chart boring, and find the US chart interesting when two songs by one group spent six months at number one in the US last year? That's boring.

[Celestial]

Originally posted by RudeBoy

UK charts are irrelevant. I'd rather look at UK iTunes.

How are the UK charts irrelevant?

[StarryEyed]

Originally posted by RudeBoy

UK charts are irrelevant. I'd rather look at UK iTunes.

UK charts and UK itunes are virtually the same most of the time. I'd rather look at US itunes than their official chart as they're just the raw sales as opposed to sales plus airplay

[Яeo.]

Originally posted by Celestial

How can you find the UK chart boring, and find the US chart interesting when two songs by one group spent six months at number one in the US last year? That's boring.

I don't think that was his point. UK charts are predictable, and they have no surprise factor in them, which makes people not caring about them and that makes the official UK chart irrelevant.

I agree, the US charts formula may be outdated, but I think that they shouldn't remove Airplay from the formula because it's one of the main factors for a song success and longevity. They can cut the power of Airplay by 50% (Ex - CG has 140M AI now, but it'll only get 70 points extra on the BH100.) Or they can make it 70% sales 30% Airplay.

So let's say CG sold 300,000 copies and 140 AI.
70% of 300K = 210.
30% of 140 = 42.

That way the charts won't be totally predictable and people will actually look out for the charts every week excited to see who is the #1 this week. It will also make getting to #1 harder, which will make it much bigger accomplishment.

[R!ck]

Originally posted by StarryEyed

I'm the opposite I think the American charts are boring because airplay is counted so they tend to move really slowly. It takes ages for a song to peak then ages for a song to move off the top spot. IMO they should be based on sales because at the end of the day radio is only there to get a song out there which is to get sales which is what matters

I respect your opinion but not all people buy songs therefore that ONLY would not reflect the true popularity of the songs because charts were defined by a minority.

However a LOT of people still listens to radio, and radio is a great part of music industry, artists still promote there and is part of culture.

I think the formula should be modified but by only a small margin 45% radio, 55% sales.

[GaGaFan]

Well...the US and UK charts are different in their own ways...and that makes them each interesting to watch. In the US, we see songs that have multiple weeks at number one and that provides an aspect that the song is a huge monster single. In the UK, that's not as common, but that means that more people can get number one singles and its really more fast paced overall.

I like being able to keep up with them both. =)

[R!ck]

Originally posted by RudeBoy

UK charts are irrelevant.

I agree Billboard charts are the official ones.

They're the most respected music magazine and their work is to measure the popularity of the songs, they do not MADE the charts the way they want.

iTunes (digital songs) is not the official chart, it's the Hot 100 (anyway digital songs is part of the Hot 100 formula).

[StarryEyed]

Originally posted by rickjay1990

I respect your opinion but not all people buy songs therefore that ONLY would not reflect the true popularity of the songs because charts were defined by a minority.

However a LOT of people still listens to radio, and radio is a great part of music industry, artists still promote there and is part of culture.

I think the formula should be modified but by only a small margin 45% radio, 55% sales.

I think maybe radio has more influence in the US because songs that get to #1 on airplay charts here sometimes barely make top 10 on the official charts so the systems probably work for the separate countries

Originally posted by rickjay1990

I agree Billboard charts are the official ones.

They're only the official ones in America so I don't know where you're going with this