[iHype.]

Originally posted by 4AM.

But pop dominating a commercial chart makes perfect sense anyways - pop itself is literally derived from the old definition of "pop" which was simply "popular music". Pop is commercialized and aimed squarely at the charts, while not all Urban music holds the same intent. HDS for example is very strongly pop oriented, because that's simply what people buy.

So the young white crowd that just buys Pop music, will always have a hold on what charts the best?

Making it sales only would literally demolish every Urban, Rock, Latin, Country, etc song from having a chance to chart.

You can sit here and lie to yourself "oh that's fine! Pop is popular anyways!!" but you know that would be damnwell inaccurate as hell to basically throw every other genre off the chart as if America isn't listening to that either.

[Retro]

Not really. Other genres do better on the Billboard 200 than on the Hot 100 because their consumers buy albums in greater proportions than singles, and as streaming develops their presence in consumer-driven media (and on the ideal Hot 100 I'd like to have) will increase. Pop is oriented to produce a volume of "quick lil' singles" as Beyonce might say; that's why it's perfectly normal for it to dominate on singles charts.

[iHype.]

If you're here for a chart that would demolish every non-Pop genre from even charting most of the time due to their consumers not buying then that's just ignorant.

Like there's no if, and's, or but's if you think that's even remotely reasonable.

[Retro]

It's not ignorant at all. I'm not extending proposals to prop up other genres when their consumers plainly do not purchase enough to give them the same sales volume. It's purely based on fact.

[iHype.]

And it's a fact a chart would be highly inaccurate if some of the biggest non-Pop songs would never get to even chart in the Top 100.

I don't get why you think some of the biggest songs in America not even charting is "reasonable, realistic, and accurate".

[Maki]

she was busy selling albums

[jomarr]

The radio ban was real.

Llus she didnt really release them physically before sans BOMT since it was her first single

[Retro]

Originally posted by iHypeMusic

And it's a fact a chart would be highly inaccurate if some of the biggest non-Pop songs would never get to even chart in the Top 100.

I don't get why you think some of the biggest songs in America not even charting is "reasonable, realistic, and accurate".

They're not some of the biggest songs if they're not getting any sales. They might have great impact, but that's entirely separate from sales and charts.

[coddiecollins]

Cuz when ur a legend u dont need more one singles

[Fruity]

Shes lucky to have 5 really.

S&M, well lets be honest that was a scam, doesnt really count.

And 3 and HIAM are not 'true' #1s. Sure they deserve it because she drew in the 1st week sales. But they aren't smash hits.

[iHype.]

Originally posted by 4AM.

They're not some of the biggest songs if they're not getting any sales.

And that's where I'm not gonna agree.

If you don't buy it, that doesn't mean it's not big. If people didn't buy Blurred Lines would it be 'not be big' despite being the biggest airplay hit of all-time? This is literally like no type of sense.

[highwind44029]

Originally posted by Miss Piggy

bad songs, radio didn't want to play that

I screamed.

[IBeMe]

5 number 1's is legit amazing!

Plus I feel like Toxic and Oops should have gone number 1

[Retro]

Originally posted by iHypeMusic

And that's where I'm not gonna agree.

If you don't buy it, that doesn't mean it's not big. If people didn't buy Blurred Lines would it be 'not be big' despite being the biggest airplay hit of all-time? This is literally like no type of sense.

Yes. If nobody bought BL, it would not have been big with consumers. Perfectly sensible.

[iHype.]

Originally posted by 4AM.

Yes. If nobody bought BL, it would not have been big with consumers. Perfectly sensible.

The Billboard Hot 100 is the American music industry standard popularity chart for singles issued weekly by Billboard magazine.

The Hot 100 is not for consumers, so idk why you keep saying this still.

For the music industry. The music industry already knows sales (hence a thing called HDD) the Hot 100 is used for measuring their music's popularity in all aspects.

[Retro]

Originally posted by iHypeMusic

The Hot 100 is not for consumers, so idk why you keep saying this still.

For the music industry. The music industry already knows sales (hence a thing called HDD) the Hot 100 is used for measuring their music's popularity in all aspects.

And I still disagree that airplay has any place in popularity (which is based on consumers).

[iHype.]

Originally posted by 4AM.

And I still disagree that airplay has any place in popularity (which is based on consumers).

The music industry agrees.

At the end of the day the music industry controls the Hot 100, and knows what's right over the consumer.

[Maki]

Circus, Toxic, Gimme More & Oops deserved the #1

[Retro]

Originally posted by iHypeMusic

The music industry agrees.

At the end of the day the music industry controls the Hot 100, and knows what's right over the consumer.

The RIAA apparently doesn't agree. Also, the industry holds no power at all over consumers; consumers control the industry and the industry's profits.

[iHype.]

Originally posted by 4AM.

The RIAA apparently doesn't agree. Also, the industry holds no power at all over consumers; consumers control the industry and the industry's profits.

I was referring to charts. The industry controls the charts; the consumers don't.

And the Industry does hold the power, considering they put the songs on iTunes, YouTube, and Radio.

Why do you keep using RIAA as some receipt too? All they do is certify, they don't control anything else or any kind of significant charts. You misewell throw VEVO Certified in the mix.