I understood which "HOME" song you were referring to, hence citing the year end charts for 2012 and 2013. I also understood it to be a general statement using that song as an example of how the chart might look different if year end charts were used rather than peak positions (which upon further review peak positions weren't the sole factor in ranking these songs) and I still stand by my statement that those songs would still be ranked higher than any others because of their positions on year end charts, #4 and #10 respectively for their peak year.
Home was a fluke. I believe any song could have found that kind of success with the amount of promotion it received.
Actually I wouldn't agree that the list is useless and certainly not for the reason you're claiming. If you look at the list there are several songs that peaked at #1 which are outranked by other songs that didn't even hit the top of the BBHOT100 chart. Perfect Example: #1 SUBG never hit #1 on the HOT100 chart whereas #2 Stronger was #1 for three weeks. It would appear to me that more went into this list than just peak position on the HOT100 which is how Breakway, the single ranks #5 because it spent 22 weeks at #1 on the AC chart.
This list is based on overall performance of the song IMO, which is why some #1 songs aren't ranked even in the top 10. Regarding the #1 in 2004 v. #1 in 2013 argument I think you can extrapalate what a song that peaked at #1 in 2004 would sell in today's market based on the overall popularity and performance of the song and conclude that it all equals out in the end.
In 2004 when SUBG was it it's peak digital singles weren't selling like they are now. Heck I remember it was a big deal to get a song that sold 1 million downloads then. Youtube views for SUBG are 21M v. 28M for Philip's Home - whereas STronger has 108M views. Again more factored into this chart than just peak positions (regardless of what Fred says LOL) on the HOT100 chart IMO because if that were it Stronger would be #1 not SUBG.
I am not knocking Kelly Clarkson or diminishing her in any way. My comment is about the ranking method on that list.
>> You are right he considered duration on the Hot 100 -- but not duration in any other way. I was trying to say that he did not consider a song's longevity. "Home" was released 2 years ago and it is still on the iTunes Top 200 -- at #160 and it has been on the iTunes Top 200 for 2 years. That is not captured in the Hot 100.
>> I posted a quick note and was not, as I wrote above careful in my wording.
***
He wrote
"here are the top 100 songs by Idols based on chart performance on the Hot 100..." So while I agree that "Breakaway" had an impressive run on AC, he did not use that, he used the time it was on the Hot 100, nothing more.
***
I do not think "Breakaway" was as popular as "Home" is -- As of October 2012, "Breakaway" has sold 1,850,000 paid digital downloads. "Home" is now over 5 million.....and still selling.
It is selling this much not because of promotion but because people like it.
***
The Hot 100 is not a perfect measure of song popularity. It is designed to give a ranking at one point in time relative to other songs at that same point in time. Putting together a lot of non-comparable rank-ordering numbers and trying to use that as a longitudinal measure does not work.
There are other problems with using the Hot 100 as a measure of relative popularity for 2002 to 2014.
1. iTunes launched in 2000. Digital music has grown rapidly from 2002 to 2014 fueling a dramatic increase in track sales -- a major component of the Hot 100. (There was a huge decrease in album sales during the same period.)
>> The track sales vs. album sales (with the same track) varies a lot by genre -- rock low, pop and hip hop very high vs. number of albums.
2. Radio airplay is the largest component of the Hot 100. The stations on the Hot 100 panel have changed many, many times since 2002. They are not public so they cannot be analyzed easily but it is clear from the genre radio airplay charts that Urban, Rhythmic and Country radio stations are more important now than in 2002. And CHR/HAC-Pop/Adult Pop, and Rock/AAA are less important.
3. The components of the Hot 100 have changed. In 2007, they added streaming media to the components of the Hot 100 and reduced the importance of sales.
gigaom.com/2007/08/03/419-billboard-expands-hot-100-chart-to-include-streaming-media-data.
There are many other issues. But the above should illustrate this issues.
Finally, there is the issue of using rank orders across time. #6 does not always equal #6.
For example, using fantasy numbers ti illustrate.
Week 1 2004
#1 Sales 650,000 Radio Audience 48 million impressions
#2 Sales 500,000 Radio Aud 52 million impressions
#3 Sales 470,000 Radio Aud 28 million impressions
#4 Sales 200,000 Radio Aud 21 million impressions
#5 Sales 230,00 Radio Aud 15 million impressions
Week 1 2014
#1 Sales 1,000,000 Radio Audience 36 million impressions Streaming media points (unknown method of counting)
#2 Sales 300,000 Radio Aud 62 million impressions Streaming media points megahit (unknown method of counting)
#3 Sales 470,000 Radio Aud 58 million impressions Streaming media points megahit (unknown method of counting)
#4 Sales 500,000 Radio Aud 47 million impressions Streaming media points (unknown method of counting)
#5 Sales 690,000 Radio Aud 27 million impressions Streaming media points (unknown method of counting)
So compare the two number 5's and they are not equal. But they both rank #5. And if I add more and more weeks, it does not make it any better, it just magnified the problem.
I'd say it's more like folk-rock than bluegrass. The Alison Krauss thing was nice too tho.