https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/how-billboards-new-streaming-rules-will-affect-the-charts-w511351

I don’t know if anyone has seen this yet, but Billboard is planning to adjust the way they calculate in 2018. I’m not exactly sure when this year these new rules will/have come into effect, but when they do it’s said that we will see far less rap songs at the top of the charts and more rock songs instead (as rock fans typically purchase music more often than rap fans).

Simply put, Billboard is going back to the old model of only counting paid music (that is either purchased copies or premium streaming subscriptions), rather than count youtube views or free streams.

It’s explained a bit more in this article: Music trends in 2018 also lead to Billboard charting free and paid music differently.

When you hear a track has gone to No. 1 (yaaay!) you’re really hearing that Billboard has charted the track at No. 1.

Last year’s hip hop artists dominated the Billboard charts, leading some music masterminds to suggest a new Renaissance for the category. Many hip hop artists provide their music as free-to-stream.

However, some label executives complained to Billboard of unfairness because free-to-stream music gets listened to far more than paid music.

Starting in 2018, therefore, Billboard will chart free music separately, with bought-and-paid-for music forming their official chart.

This is expected to knock hip hop out of the limelight, and could mean good things for rock musicians because rock fans typically buy more music.

Music trends in 2018 also lead to Billboard charting free and paid music differently.

When you hear a track has gone to No. 1 (yaaay!) you’re really hearing that Billboard has charted the track at No. 1.

Last year’s hip hop artists dominated the Billboard charts, leading some music masterminds to suggest a new Renaissance for the category. Many hip hop artists provide their music as free-to-stream.

However, some label executives complained to Billboard of unfairness because free-to-stream music gets listened to far more than paid music.

Starting in 2018, therefore, Billboard will chart free music separately, with bought-and-paid-for music forming their official chart.

This is expected to knock hip hop out of the limelight, and could mean good things for rock musicians because rock fans typically buy more music.


So what do you guys think? Could this mark the “shift” that we’ve all been talking about.

In my opinion, this is good news as rock seems very underrepresented at the moment while rap seems very overrepresented. Perhaps this is indeed the start of another shift in pop music?

This could be good!!! :)

This appeals to older people and music traditionalists.

However, this is disingenuous in a way.

King T'Shalla

Does that mean the radio itsekf won't be included?

It's good that they're separate charts, some singles stay on the charts for WAY too long once you include streaming. Hopefully it gets terrible songs like Shape Of You off the list.

My paid streams will still count though.  8)

Edit: thinking about it more, this is actually a bad idea. I'd rather the Billboard represent the songs that people are actually listening to. If no one is listening to rock then that's just how it is. If it sends certain kinds of music skyrocketing on the chart when only a few people are actually listening to it, then it's not an accurate representation of popularity.

Does that mean the radio itsekf won't be included?

It's good that they're separate charts, some singles stay on the charts for WAY too long once you include streaming. Hopefully it gets terrible songs like Shape Of You off the list.

My paid streams will still count though.  8)

Edit: thinking about it more, this is actually a bad idea. I'd rather the Billboard represent the songs that people are actually listening to. If no one is listening to rock then that's just how it is. If it sends certain kinds of music skyrocketing on the chart when only a few people are actually listening to it, then it's not an accurate representation of popularity.


Is youtube an accurate representation of popularity? Are songs such as “It’s Everyday Bro” truly popular, or are they just viral memes? Someone who streams a song (or watches a youtube viceo) doesn’t necessarily like it. On the contrary, they might actually dislike it and would not pay real money for it if sites like Youtube and Spotify didnt exist. On the other hand, if someone pays for music, you can guarantee that they like it.

Under the old system, clicks on a video could send a song skyrocketing up the charts regardless of its true popularity. Furthermore, it is easier to game the old system as it is based off free streams that can be easily repeated/looped. Also, it makes it harder for people who actually sell and make money off music to compete with those who simply release it for free.

For example, many albums go to the top of the charts based off a single song’s streams. However, does this truly count as an album sale when the rest of the album is ignored? For instance, many rock bands sold quite a lot of albums last year, but you wouldn’t know it because streams are counted as part of the album charts. Albums that are truly popular and sold well get pushed down in favour of albums boosted by youtube views and spotify streams of a single song.

I don’t see how factoring youtube (and free spotify) into the equation gives a better representation of popularity than what people actually decide to buy. Why should people who spend money on music count less than youtube hits?

This has the potential to seriously shift the sound in a good way. Because people pay for what they like, not because it's popular. I do realize they did this before so it's nothing new, but ever since they allowed free streams it seems like music just got worse so hopefully it will improve but it's still unlikely.  :P

Edit: thinking about it more, this is actually a bad idea. I'd rather the Billboard represent the songs that people are actually listening to. If no one is listening to rock then that's just how it is. If it sends certain kinds of music skyrocketing on the chart when only a few people are actually listening to it, then it's not an accurate representation of popularity.

It's not a bad idea and it IS representing the songs people listen to. Just not the song people listen to for free, but songs people would actually pay for. So it is a lot more fair.

can y'all accept that no one listens to rock music anymore? lol it won't chart whether they count free streams or not. i do see songs like gucci gang popping up less in the charts though since no one actually pays for that kind of music.

can y'all accept that no one listens to rock music anymore? lol it won't chart whether they count free streams or not. i do see songs like gucci gang popping up less in the charts though since no one actually pays for that kind of music.

Honestly, I feel like that song will flop very soon. I'd even go as far to say it actually already is, just gradually.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/how-billboards-new-streaming-rules-will-affect-the-charts-w511351


So what do you guys think? Could this mark the “shift” that we’ve all been talking about.


I don't see that this marks a "shift" in anything. Nobody's behavior has changed. It's just a different way of reporting what everybody is already doing. Everybody is still listening to exactly what it is they are listening to.

I think Billboard should just hang it up. It no longer serves any purpose.  There is no way to accurately represent what people are listening to in a mathematical, chart-like format anymore. It's a free-for-all out there. Nobody takes Billboard seriously anymore.

Is youtube an accurate representation of popularity? Are songs such as “It’s Everyday Bro” truly popular, or are they just viral memes? Someone who streams a song (or watches a youtube viceo) doesn’t necessarily like it. On the contrary, they might actually dislike it and would not pay real money for it if sites like Youtube and Spotify didnt exist. On the other hand, if someone pays for music, you can guarantee that they like it.

Under the old system, clicks on a video could send a song skyrocketing up the charts regardless of its true popularity. Furthermore, it is easier to game the old system as it is based off free streams that can be easily repeated/looped. Also, it makes it harder for people who actually sell and make money off music to compete with those who simply release it for free.

For example, many albums go to the top of the charts based off a single song’s streams. However, does this truly count as an album sale when the rest of the album is ignored? For instance, many rock bands sold quite a lot of albums last year, but you wouldn’t know it because streams are counted as part of the album charts. Albums that are truly popular and sold well get pushed down in favour of albums boosted by youtube views and spotify streams of a single song.

I don’t see how factoring youtube (and free spotify) into the equation gives a better representation of popularity than what people actually decide to buy. Why should people who spend money on music count less than youtube hits?


I just checked and "It's Everyday Bro" didn't chart which sounds accurate because I don't know anyone IRL who knows or cares about Logan Paul. Funnily enough that song peaked at #2 in the iTunes charts, so it's not as if people weren't buying it.

I think you're exaggerating how many streams disliked songs get. If they were disliked, then people would only stream it once and call it a day. Even if 10% of the US population listened to it, if hey only listed to it once, 30 million views is not enough to show up on the charts.

It appears what prompted the change to include streaming in the first place back in 2013 was that Gangnam Style peaked at only the #2 spot. That's utterly ridiculous to me. It would be a shame if we go back to that, it's not an accurate representation of popularity.

It's not a bad idea and it IS representing the songs people listen to. Just not the song people listen to for free, but songs people would actually pay for. So it is a lot more fair.


How is it representing the songs people listen to if it's literally ignoring songs people listen to? Just because I'm listening to it on YouTube in the background doesn't mean I'm not listening to it.

If it kills trap, I welcome it.

I'm glad but they should have shifted it earlier. Now Gen Z will get all the credit for killing off awful Millennial music just because it took this long for people to realize the clueless way pop charts are made.

I'm glad but they should have shifted it earlier. Now Gen Z will get all the credit for killing off awful Millennial music just because it took this long for people to realize the clueless way pop charts are made.

Well to be fair, it was only in 2013 where they introduced free streaming YouTube views to the Billboard charts. This is the article from 2013 when they started doing it. And millennial music was bad even before that.  :P

https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1549766/billboard-charts-add-youtube-views

Still I do think it's a good idea to stop doing it.

I'm glad but they should have shifted it earlier. Now Gen Z will get all the credit for killing off awful Millennial music just because it took this long for people to realize the clueless way pop charts are made.


Nope, Nope, Nope. We millennials aren't going to shoulder every awful fking thing in the world. Gen Z gets to own stupid trap music. They love that crap anyway. Let them own it.

Well to be fair, it was only in 2013 where they introduced free streaming YouTube views to the Billboard charts. This is the article from 2013 when they started doing it. And millennial music was bad even before that.  :P

https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1549766/billboard-charts-add-youtube-views

Still I do think it's a good idea to stop doing it.


Yeah but 2013 was when it really jumped the shark severely.

Clear Channel and the Telecommunications act was why it was bad before. None of the culture was organic. It was just forced on us.

Nope, Nope, Nope. We millennials aren't going to shoulder every awful fking thing in the world. Gen Z gets to own stupid trap music. They love that crap anyway. Let them own it.

Yes, tell them!

Nope, Nope, Nope. We millennials aren't going to shoulder every awful fking thing in the world. Gen Z gets to own stupid trap music. They love that crap anyway. Let them own it.


This. In further response, I suspect this is going to have a massively negative impact on free Spotify and will make it that much harder for indie artists on Spotify/Bandcamp/YouTube to earn popularity and revenue. Gen Z ought to be very worried about that.

Huh, I don't get it. They want to tone down Rap's dominance (which is even beating Pop these last two years) by giving more weighting to paid streaming ??? ?

This makes no sense to me because even with that in mind Rap is still the most consumed genre on the different streaming sites:
http://kworb.net/spotify/country/us_daily.html

http://kworb.net/charts/apple_s/us.html

Anyway this seems like needlessly going backwards to me. Youtube and free subscription streaming has simply become a big part of music consumption. You can't just deny some of the most used methods for people of music listening. This is exactly why Gangnam Style never got the #1 spot despite everyone being obsessed over it back then.

Thinking of it, this actually might result in the opposite effect ;D. With Youtube views not counting, Pop songs will lose the influence of video clips (which is by far the most viewed genre on the site). And with the steady decline of radio and sales' influence and the rise of streaming, Rap music is gonna have even more free space in the charts  :D

Get ready for even more Trap dominance  ;)
https://steamusercontent-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/919163703690809427/087565B5984444C3A4358CB88A84BBE04FEA7F2A/

Billboard is still planning on counting free streams and YouTube, it's just that they'll count for less than paid streams. I don't think this will affect the charts that much, honestly.

Billboard is still planning on counting free streams and YouTube, it's just that they'll count for less than paid streams. I don't think this will affect the charts that much, honestly.
Oh in that case, yeah. Not much gonna change then.

I just checked and "It's Everyday Bro" didn't chart which sounds accurate because I don't know anyone IRL who knows or cares about Logan Paul. Funnily enough that song peaked at #2 in the iTunes charts, so it's not as if people weren't buying it.

I think you're exaggerating how many streams disliked songs get. If they were disliked, then people would only stream it once and call it a day. Even if 10% of the US population listened to it, if hey only listed to it once, 30 million views is not enough to show up on the charts.

It appears what prompted the change to include streaming in the first place back in 2013 was that Gangnam Style peaked at only the #2 spot. That's utterly ridiculous to me. It would be a shame if we go back to that, it's not an accurate representation of popularity.


It charted at 91 in the US and 56 in Canada.

https://www.billboard.com/music/jake-paul/chart-history/hot-100

I just checked and "It's Everyday Bro" didn't chart which sounds accurate because I don't know anyone IRL who knows or cares about Logan Paul. Funnily enough that song peaked at #2 in the iTunes charts, so it's not as if people weren't buying it.

I think you're exaggerating how many streams disliked songs get. If they were disliked, then people would only stream it once and call it a day. Even if 10% of the US population listened to it, if hey only listed to it once, 30 million views is not enough to show up on the charts.

It appears what prompted the change to include streaming in the first place back in 2013 was that Gangnam Style peaked at only the #2 spot. That's utterly ridiculous to me. It would be a shame if we go back to that, it's not an accurate representation of popularity.


Yeah it's important that stuff like "It's Everyday Bro" doesn't chart despite its popularity.  We don't want to see the pop charts filled with viral memes that aren't serious songs.  On the other side of that, streaming is probably the most popular way to consume/discover music these days so it shouldn't be discounted.  As of the middle of last year, I stopped listening to radio entirely (its always six months out of date in my area anyways) and rely on YouTube to discover new music and I've been enjoying music a lot more.

I remember a song by Jacob Sartious charted the Billboard Hot 100 in 2016 and that wouldn't happen if they didn't count YouTube views.

Yeah it's important that stuff like "It's Everyday Bro" doesn't chart despite its popularity.  We don't want to see the pop charts filled with viral memes that aren't serious songs.  On the other side of that, streaming is probably the most popular way to consume/discover music these days so it shouldn't be discounted.  As of the middle of last year, I stopped listening to radio entirely (its always six months out of date in my area anyways) and rely on YouTube to discover new music and I've been enjoying music a lot more.


On the other hand, it’s a strong gauge for what people are actually listening to. If it’s unfunny memes, so be it.

On the other hand, it’s a strong gauge for what people are actually listening to. If it’s unfunny memes, so be it.


I think likes vs dislikes could be taken into account to weed out stuff like "It's Everyday Bro."  It's had 183 million views, but has had more than a million more dislikes than likes.

I think likes vs dislikes could be taken into account to weed out stuff like "It's Everyday Bro."  It's had 183 million views, but has had more than a million more dislikes than likes.


Well said. The problem with this move is that it oversimplifies the dynamics that go into whether a song is popular or not, when it's actually much more complex than even the system they're moving away from.

Get ready for even more Trap dominance  ;)
https://steamusercontent-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/919163703690809427/087565B5984444C3A4358CB88A84BBE04FEA7F2A/


The higher it gets, the higher it'll fall....and it's destined to fall. Can't wait.  8)

The higher it gets, the higher it'll fall....and it's destined to fall. Can't wait.  8)

Trap itself isn't bad. It's the current round of popular artist who make it terrible. It doesn't matter what genre dominates the charts, if it's done by people like the one in that gif, it's gonna sound like sh*t because they will ruin every genre they touch.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/how-billboards-new-streaming-rules-will-affect-the-charts-w511351


Simply put, Billboard is going back to the old model of only counting paid music (that is either purchased copies or premium streaming subscriptions), rather than count youtube views or free streams.
That is how it should be!

Trap itself isn't bad. It's the current round of popular artist who make it terrible. It doesn't matter what genre dominates the charts, if it's done by people like the one in that gif, it's gonna sound like sh*t because they will ruin every genre they touch.
I 100% agree that Trap can be great if done right. That gif was just a troll of mine at people having too high of an expectation ;D
Let's pick gifs from the Real Trap hits that matter, shall we
https://media.giphy.com/media/Kv0wwpuI8AcJa/giphy.gif
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7btP17Unyoa9wHgA/giphy.gif
Kendrick <3<3
https://78.media.tumblr.com/d77eef0d7ad887ee6ff45f4257f1edfa/tumblr_ovsp17ooNt1viblyvo6_500.gif