Itunes, Billboard, and the marginalization of black music and black audiences in America

I see a lot of people complaining about Queens of the Stone Age not appearing on various year end lists, but maybe it's just one guy posting under various accounts.

My impression is that QOTSA have a kind of pseudo-radiohead like fanbase

And on a slight tangent, I was kind of shocked to recently discover that prior to Beyonce, the only other artist to have had 5 consecutive albums debut at number one was DMX.

Somewhat embarrassing but I used to post on a video games message board in high school and the amount of people on that board talking about QOTSA rivaled the number talking about Radiohead, Rush, Tool, Opeth, and A Perfect Circle

obv the shift towards far less black artists charting on the hot 100 has come about due to the change of billboard methodology from practically 100% airplay to including digital sales since 2005, but i'm wondering in light of that slate piece how well black artists did on the singles charts (when physical single sales were relevant) back in the 80s/90s? is there any info on that? have white artists always dominated single sales or has there been a shift w/ the itunes era?

i think QOTSA is in this zone now:

that stage where you think they aren't popular anymore but are actually way more popular than they were when they had "buzz"

white artists have not always dominated singles sales and while previous billboard adjustments have take a form that definitely obv open to a charge of racism the case isn't nearly as strong w/ most recent adjustment - change in late 90s and mid 00s were tied to movements away from dominance by babyface acts and hip-hop acts, youtube factoring in (and there's no way youtube shouldn't be factored in even if billboard's actual algorithm might be off) is a movement toward something and adjusting a calculation to account for something it was missing. this can only really work w/ the hot 100 chart. also as much as ppl keep writing the same 'what's wrong w/ billboard?' and 'what's wrong w/ radio?' pieces they might want to examine what has changed w/ r&b and hip-hop - there's nobody w/ the adult contemporary chops of babyface dominant in r&b right now and there's nobody w/ the pop chops of timbaland or the neptunes or puff daddy dominant in hip-hop right now.

That attributes the previous success of R&B and hip-hop on the charts to a small handful of amazing producers, which is totally not the story at all. Those genres thrived before and outside of Babyface/Timbaland/Neptunes/Puff, just like current pop isn't solely defined by Dr. Luke facsimiles. And it's not like Timbaland or Pharrell have been irrelevant in making hits this year, their big pop culture-dominating hits just seem to have only been with mainly white artists.

producers and songwriters*

confused by him saying that there's no "systematic exclusion" when it does obviously seem systematic, even if it's not "willful" as he says

I like this To be sure, radio-pop in 2013 encompassed a bracing range of stuff that would have seemed improbable just three years ago—from a kickass, late-blooming bit of Icona Pop trash talk; to twee indie-ish pop ballads by Passenger and A Great Big World; to a goofy Imagine Dragons mashup of butt-rock and dubstep. Whatever the merits of these songs, this really is a deeper level of sonic catholicism than we’ve heard on hit radio in years. That’s what makes it all the more surreal, dismaying, and almost insidious that virtually all of our soul is of the blue-eyed variety.

i think it's abundantly clear that billboard's current method of gauging internet success is offkey - that people clicking on a "goofball dances to old song" video for a week puts that old song in the top 40 for a week suggests they don't know how to distinguish between people buying "Unchained Melody" and people going to see Ghost. and the changes to genre charts have rendered them absurd redundancies to the hot 100. but these are clumsy attempts to adapt to a new marketplace - one where "crossover" potential doesn't primarily come from kicking ass with genre-centric radio stations. i'd be curious to see more reportage on what's going on with the infrastructure of r&b, country, rock, etc than just reaffirmations that only the stuff going mega is MOR dance and troll-bait.

I don't think the overall trends would change dramatically if you add some depth to the data but I think the fixation on #1s is very "thinkpiece w a deadline", would like to see someone write about it who wasn't just prompted by a particular statistic...#1 songs in 2013 is such a small sample... What about top 5/top 10 this year, was it overall as monolithic? Same w 2004... was it a statistical aberration that black ppl dominated the pole position or did they blanket the top 10?

It's not just 'a particular statistic,' this is the first time this has happened since Billboard came into existence

I mean 5 years from now it'll either be a statistical aberration or it won't be but right now is also not the time to handwave away that fact

billboard so imperfectly measures whatever it is supposed to measure in reality that it's very hard to understand what this unique event means. did fewer ppl listen to black artists in 2013 than 2012? lots of think pieces are concluding that this says something about music listeners in america but it could be breakdown of listening hasn't changed at all and this is entirely attributable to billboard switching ways of measuring listens. no one knows which is why the discussion regarding it is so awkward imho

theoretically could someone backwards engineer new billboard formula for 2012 (maybe it's not transparent enough for this) and compare results? add YouTube views and mix?

also are we sure billboard shouldn't be counting novelty songs on YouTube? why not? since when did billboard only measure non-novelty songs?

Yeah though I'm not sure how much data is publicly available or even available to somebody with a Billboards industry insider subscription (vaguely waving my hands here)

no they blanketed the top 10. and yeah it's systematic but w/ the hot 100 i think billboard is more reflecting a reality than shaping it unless someone want to argue that in fact black artists did sell a ton of singles and dominate pop radio this year. suspect homogenization at pop radio is overwhelmingly the key factor. obv pop radio was pretty homogenized ten years ago when you had an all hip-hop top ten etc but playlists weren't remotely as tight and when you go back twenty, thirty years there's far more diversity in the pop chart at least partially as a result. even around 80-81 when pop radio and pre-'billie jean' mtv were damn near openly racist you still have more diverse top tens than we've seen the past few years. and yeah this is systemic but you're insane if you think pop music doesn't have the equivalent of keystone species.

Wrecking Ball went back to #1 off the back of a viral video that used the song and parodied the nude wrecking ball moment. That seems like not at all what was intended behind the inclusion of youtube, since it's abundantly clear those views didn't come from increased interest in the song, but the humorous content based around a single moment in the video of the song.

I think there's also two separate lines of thought here - there's consternation at the change in the face of the Hot 100, and there's also consternation at what's happening in the subcharts like R&B and Rap, the latter of which was dominated b... Psy for a long while

also are we sure billboard shouldn't be counting novelty songs on YouTube? why not? since when did billboard only measure non-novelty songs?

it's not even about novelty songs - it's about 30 second novelty videos where the song is just an aspect. In the late '80s the original "Unchained Melody" was in the Top 20 because radio was playing it a lot, and a shitty re-recording was in the chart as well because people were buying the cassingle. But it didn't make the chart just because people were paying money to see a movie it was in.

But honestly these charts don't exist to provide info to music nerds, they're a dick-measuring contest for the labels. Back in the day it was about who can push units and force airplay (with one hopefully helping the other). With radio and sales dwindling, they want to pat each other on the back for what's getting looked at on the net (and tbf, songs like "wrecking ball and "blurred lines" did become radio hits thanks to that initial "on the net" enthusiasm. billboard's going about giving them that in the sloppiest way.

also are we sure billboard shouldn't be counting novelty songs on YouTube? why not? since when did billboard only measure non-novelty songs?

― Mordy

alot of rock critics think this cuz they don't like novelty songs and they really resent the existence of the internet and any reminders that it's not going away. obv novelty songs are and have been incredibly popular and whether or not ppl are actually sincerely correctly enjoying the song or just using the song as a mean of enjoying some larger cultural phenomenon be it an internet meme or the 85 chicago bears is irrelevant (the ratings for the super bowl still count regardless of whether emily nussbaum or whoever think it's a 'real' tv show). that said everything i've seen of how billboard actually accounts for youtube views suggest they heavily heavily overweigh that sample.

wait, is mike will someone without pop chops or did "we can't stop" (even though I hate it) just not exist

honestly they should just get rid of the non-airplay genre-charts if they're just going to be "songs on the hot 100 we've arbitrarily decided are in this genre, basically in the order they can be found on the hot 100"

you think mike will is why 'we can't stop' topped the charts?

re: "What about top 5/top 10 this year, was it overall as monolithic?"

yes and yes; Rihanna's "Stay" is the first track by a black lead artist on the year-end hot 100, and it's at like #13. this might in part be an artifact of the year-end hot 100 - "Holy Grail" in particular probably took a big hit for coming out comparatively late -- but it is also a fact

Wrecking Ball went back to #1 off the back of a viral video that used the song and parodied the nude wrecking ball moment. That seems like not at all what was intended behind the inclusion of youtube, since it's abundantly clear those views didn't come from increased interest in the song, but the humorous content based around a single moment in the video of the song.

― Greer, Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:08 PM (11 minutes ago)

this isn't true is it?

re billboard weighing youtube videos - what would be the correct determination of how best to weigh it? is there some Pew survey for how Americans listen to music that give the correct proportions and youtube turned out to only be 20% of american music listening and billboard assigned it to 40%?

"you think mike will is why 'we can't stop' topped the charts?"

that's not really the question, the question is whether he's a producer with pop chops who is dominant in hip-hop, both of which would seem to be true

it's not even about novelty songs - it's about 30 second novelty videos where the song is just an aspect. In the late '80s the original "Unchained Melody" was in the Top 20 because radio was playing it a lot, and a shitty re-recording was in the chart as well because people were buying the cassingle. But it didn't make the chart just because people were paying money to see a movie it was in.

this sounds like you could make the same objection to loads of music videos and i think music video plays on MTV in the 90s should've been included in billboard charts if they weren't at the time

honestly they should just get rid of the non-airplay genre-charts if they're just going to be "songs on the hot 100 we've arbitrarily decided are in this genre, basically in the order they can be found on the hot 100"

― da croupier

yeah i get that it's alot more difficult so i can vaguely sympathize w/ billboard's dilemma - they can't just sample targeted record stores for different markets like they used to, there's probably just not enough data there to be meaningful anymore, and breaking down itunes data would be difficult (but not impossible i think) and definitely problematic even if apple did give you access to user demographics and buying patterns. their solution though is just laughably bad. it's also had the bizarre effect of making it nearly impossible to measure actual crossover on the r&b chart.

yeah katharine if you really think mike will is a keystone species w/ the pop chops of babyface feel free to mention the five tracks he produced this year you're mystified didn't crossover to ac, would sincerely like to hear them.

mtv probably should have been incorporated in the same manner as a powerful radio station - and honestly, if the goal is transparent information about the popularity of songs, there probably shouldn't be a chart that arbitrarily blends sales, airplay and now "did someone let the song run on their computer for 30 seconds even if it was just to see a dude fall down" data. but there is, and it's bumming music fans out at the moment, and unless you're on some "YES BUT HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT'S RACIST" kick it's easy to see why and what they can change if they care.

Ir was timba and neptunes you noted for their pop chops, not babyface. Did Timba really reign on AC?

a big reason mtv wasn't included was probably the idea that those assholes had enough power and influence over the charts as it was. today, the music industry is apparently happy to admit it's a subindustry of "the internet" in a way they weren't with television.

Let's imagine a world in which "Home Sweet Home" was #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 for three months.

this isn't true is it?

― Mordy , Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:21 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It is. This vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6DmHGYy_xk

caused the song to return to #1 two weeks ago based on streaming.

that is a lol fact for sure tho this was a complaint long before wrecking ball reentered the charts bc of a parody vid. and wrecking ball was not the first song in history to chart bc of a sexy video i'm sure.

Let's imagine a world in which "Home Sweet Home" was #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 for three months.

I was debating making the same joke re: "November Rain"

"In the biggest leap on the Hot 100, Estranged has raced from #89 to #1 thanks to some goddamn dolphins."

suspect also that homogenization of pop radio has in addition to reducing diversity also made it more resistant to disturbance? would make sense if the homogenization in radio markets seen after the telecommunications act of 96 is now apparent at a micro level. i know the drain from radio to ipods/spotify/pandora has been a huge factor in the increasing conservatism of playlists. if in fact mike will is the 21st century babyface or if say you have a poll showing that young ppl say their favorite kind of music is hip-hop it would explain why despite the market this trend is able to happen - monopolies don't respond quickly or well to market forces. then if say the industry barometer had some faulty data you could have the trend get even more distorted, the cycle would feed on itself.

It's not just 'a particular statistic,' this is the first time this has happened since Billboard came into existence

I mean 5 years from now it'll either be a statistical aberration or it won't be but right now is also not the time to handwave away that fact

― 乒乓, Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:54 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"the first time this has happened since Billboard came into existence" is what is called a "statistic". Doesn't mean it's meaningless but it's not the whole picture. Like mordy said above the billboard process is so opaque that any analysis of it would have to be more thorough and profound than reading the EOY list.

yeah mtv wasn't let in cuz radio stations didn't want to know and record labels didn't want mtv to know just how much mtv mattered

yeah homogenization is def a big element.

wrecking ball was not the first song in history to chart bc of a sexy video i'm sure

i know i'm a fool for acknowledging this, but back in the day one couldn't chart simply FROM people seeing a parody of your sexy video. people would have to either purchase the song or radio would have to actually play it.

yes timba and the neptunes crossed over to ac are you fucking kidding me???

and just as "november rain" went to #3 i think "wrecking ball"s success wasn't wholly reliant on its video - it was at #3 and had been around there for weeks before the chatroulette deal. but its silly to pretend this stuff isn't affecting the chart pretty grandly now.

ok well radio youtube actually played it. what's really the difference? it doesn't take more work to listen to a song on the radio than to watch it on youtube

The youtube rule had been so anticlimactic...I was hoping for something like harper valley pta or funkytown making the top 10 again

there was this

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5793372/bon-jovi-livin-on-a-prayer-hot-100-jeremy-fry-celtics

that seems like a good way to weigh it tbh: 1 youtube listen = radio plays / volume of listeners by time block xxp