The Harlem Shake Up.

I almost didn't do this.

Since the 1940s, Billboard magazine has been the stalwart of documenting the biggest musical hits of our time, from the age of swing to the birth of rock and roll to the British Invasion to the rise of the singer/songwriter to the days of disco to....you get my drift. All during that time, they have adapted to the various ways that music was purchased, from Victrola records to vinyl 45s to cassettes to CDs to mp3s, as well as how it's broadcast, from polling jukebox operators to getting playlists from radio stations to electronically monitoring them to get an exact play count. Of course, there were a few missteps (like when they scuttled the R&B chart for a little over a year), and at times it took them a bit to become current (especially the lag time to include iTunes into the charts), but all and all they did the best they could with minimal subjectivity and cautious editorship. Where there shenanigans? Hell, yeah. The whole "payola" scandal of the 50s shocked the public, where record labels would pay stations and disc jockeys to play their records (remember, these are public airwaves, and there were laws for that). Billboard actually did a good job with investigating the problem, and after a few shakedowns (including Dick Clark ratting out everyone else to save his own skin, truely earning his name), the practice was taken care of, though it would rear its head again in the 2000s with the "independent promoter" scams. Likewise, with record stores providing sales tallies, naturally any kind of personal bias could pollute the data collected.

The best thing that ever happened in their history was when in 1991 they shifted from manually getting lists from radio and stores to Neilsen which kept tabs on really what was being played on the radio, while SoundScan used the music products' barcode to accurately nail down what was really being paid for. It was quite a shock when that happened, as songs that were high up on the Hot 100 suddenly plummeted to outside the top-40, and acts like Michael Bolton and Paula Abdul were replaced by the top-selling rock (like Nirvana) and R&B (like Boyz II Men) acts of the time. As time went on, and both and tracking of stores and radio went more or less completely digital, the accuracy of the charts was a marvel to behold, and both a true document of music at the time as well as a compass for where it was going. Still, even though Billboard didn't exactly excel as reporting as an investigative tool anymore (more of the articles that weren't throwing out cold numbers were merely promo pieces), editor Timothy White upheld the integrity of the Billboard name during all the transitions, including deep explanations on any changes they'd make in the charts, which were carefully laid out.

(Click below to see the rest of the post)





Enter the brand today. Now owned by conglomerate Prometheus Global Media (which all the imagery the name entails), which was first led by a CEO whom they had to settle a physical injury claim for, and under the editorship of Rolling Stone cast-out Bill Werde has transformed Billboard into a People magazine/New York hybrid of celebrity-suckups, hipster-posturing, and stan-chasing (for those who are unfamiliar, "stanning" is the term for rabid fans of a particular artist that feel like they are part of a "warring" army for them, such named for the homicidal fan in the Eminem song). First with trying to catch on to the social media atmosphere with cloudy pseudocharts like "the Social 50" and "unsigned" charts that claim to track "internet chatter" but really have no calibration to even speak of. In the meantime, as record sales plummet and radio listenership decreases (um, maybe pricing an album the same as a movie or a video game had something to do with that?), the magazine could have explored the aspects of the sales and broadcasting atmosphere out in the field instead of quoteshopping from the various music bureaucrats they knew, but they pretty much gutted what was left of their true reporting staff (they now if anything "farm out" articles). In fact, their big "Grammy Week" scoop was a fellating interview with future Leif Garrett Justin Bieber over his pain on not receiving a nomination. Honestly.

Well, whatevs, I've been tolerating it due to my religious reverence towards the one big thing the brand stands for, its charts. I mean, anybody can make shit up, and hell, I even have my own top-100 each week. But this was the true test of how the music industry goes. Well, it seems as the focus of the editors now are more into as a website cashcow, as flashy, RAM-sucking adbots started appearing on the site (including the Billboard.biz site, which I pay a pretty-ass penny for access to). Nothing is a better internet experience than a website crashing your browser for the amount of flash clips on it. Then, in October (which they still deny had nothing to do with the rollout of a particular star's album), Billboard hijacked their genre charts, taking a great idea (including sales and streaming data into account) and basically fucking it up with decisions like including all airplay over all formats as well as making decisions on what songs would be on a particular chart not by airplay but by their own personal choice. What this did was send crossover margarines that didn't get much airplay at R&B or country stations like Rihanna or Taylor Swift to suddenly top the chart in those respective genres. I've already said my peace over my views on this, but I'm more disappointed by the staff's own response than the shift itself. Since they use Twitter (and its inherent trolling problems) to gauge reaction, Werde and the staff dismissed all the complaints as mere fandom wars between Carrie Underwood and Taylor Swift fans. Which of course did get multiple mentions (hey, kids are the mouthiest on the internets), but there were real "chart geek" protests to this, especially mine, most importantly portending the homogenization of music and the denigration of the "genre charts" to mere distillations of the pop chart (their excuse that "we still have the airplay chart" since has proven a red herring, since all the regular entertainment and their own media solely quote achievements on the "songs" chart). Secondly, the random exclusion of acts and songs smacked of actual musical ignorance at times, since only African Americans acts who sang could be on the R&B chart, and country acts like Blake Shelton would cause rock/pop act like Cassadee Pope to appear on the country chart only because of his association, while folk-rock hybrids like Mumford & Sons and the Lumineers who actually are being played on country radio are completely absent. They honestly could have easily remedied this by simply taking actually country airplay as a fraction of total airplay and used that fraction to estimate a sales figure from the total to come up with a "combined sales/airplay" chart. But no, that suggestion didn't even warrant a look. And even they themselves (in their biz-only "country update") flaunted the indifference to any reaction to their changes, at least making me somewhat suspicious of their motives. You see, now we're in a time where now the payola is back, but in both a blatant and uninhibited way - where the "middle man" was taken out, meaning the promoters and the DJs, and money funneled directed from labels to megacorporations like Clear Channel that have a stranglehold on the airwaves today in a return to monopolistic America. So why wouldn't it be a stretch for them to "grease the palms" of a trade mag in a world where the print media has already been declared dead on arrival (though I never heard anything about Billboard being cash-wanting - hell 300$ subscriptions probably can buy you immunity).
The editors and staff kept up the mantra "just give it some time", which clearly meant "just wait until the fuck-up of "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" falls off the chart. They didn't even wait for that to happen.

Then came "The Harlem Shake".

First off, I loved the meme involved. I think it's a hysterical comic stunt that while being accused (hilariously) of some sort of racial mockery (it's just a crazy dance to a weird beat), it was the "perfect meme". Only 30 seconds. You didn't have to sit through anything to get to the humor. And as for the song itself, a song still available in spots online for free by an underground DJ on an indie label sampling an unauthorized Philly rapper's flow? I though enough to buy the single, knowing it was becoming a phenomenon based on the avalanche of "Harlem Shake" videos. But then, as Billboard pressed out its latest chart on Wednesday, lo and behold that the song it the #1 song on the Hot 100. Now the only reason the song shot in at #1 was Billboard's decision to include YouTube views as a "streaming" source to contribute towards the Hot 100 and other "songs" charts, just conveniently in time for this. You know, if I were really paranoid, I'd suspect them of getting a cut on the sales of the song. As it is, I am assured that this is just a stunt put in place by Werde after kicking it around for a bit (and after the scandal of botched up viewcounts faded a little), to try to simply drive casual traffic to their website instead of even thinking about the real financial source for the brand - the music industry, broadcasting, and frankly, a league of "chart" enthusiast like myself shelling out close to 300 smackeroos for a subscription (who else in the magazine world could command that?).

And you know what? It's another example of a great idea being destroyed by poor editorial decisions. I am all in favor of using YouTube as a source of data for gauging listenership of songs. I myself spend a chunk of time (as you can see from the blog) at YouTube. I know there is a small stipend of monetary payback given to videos from ad revenue (which has become pretty bad lately, as freeflowing ads are followed by bufferhappy actual clips). I even had suggested it myself when the whole "streaming" thing was included. But first, the idea (and even, their boast) that they include not just the artist video of "Harlem Shake"'s views/listens, but also every 30 second comic meme put up (and supposedly "authorized" for YouTube, but really just a money grab from someone who apparently never even approached the artist of the sample he's cribbing), therefore so stacking the decks that Billboard even bragged about it having "three times the points of Thrift Shop", the next record down. How does attributing a view of a 30 second non-artist clip warrant a gauge in the music industry? At the rate YouTube actually pays out, even speaking on money terms, the profit ratio from this compared to actually selling a record or a royalty payment is astronomically small. And also, in even an artistic tack, how can you justify not even the broadcast of the entire song a "streaming play". It's not as if a radio played the song and someone switched the station - the 30 second is the only way to watch the vast majority of what they counted. When confronted with this on Twitter, Werde was pretty glib, dismissing it as just "a play is a play". Well does that mean if I saw a preview of a movie that should count toward film "popularity" if he were running Variety (lord forbid)? And since Vevo pads their own vids with "ads" for other vids with the same running time, what about them? There's no answer. Why? Because to make the "stunt" work, Baauer had to be #1. His record was just a pawn. In fact, the staff keeps excusing themselves that they have been "in talks" for a while on this. I wouldn't be surprised if Scooter Braun offered some moolah for this to happen to get his act PSY to #1 (which at least would be an entire song), but they got cold feet after the October changes and more important the brouhaha over the viewcount problem on YouTube.

 But now conviently for their "fancy party" in town (which smacks of a A-list act rolling out an album that will bomb), they frontload all these flashy expenses to try to create some sort of viral sensation of their own. But really, nobody in the casual public gives a shit. They certainly won't in a few months when the rollout budget dries up and their shitty Beta-test website still has issues that haven't been fixed (like the archives I originally justified my subscription for, which are pretty much wiped now). The only people left? First, radio, which your touted "fans" made sure to decry how "useless and dying" their medium is. Why would a sane person at a radio station want to spend any money with Billboard when even they are marginalized by their own outlet? The music sellers? Why would they give two shits when a .0001 return on a YouTube clip would eclipse any sales/airplay achievement they could muster? Indies are really fooling themselves if they think this won't stack things against them - nobody without a "meme" going on would pull those numbers as an indie, and rabid stan-doms are already chomping at the bit to set their computers on autopilot to continuously play their god/goddess' video (and does Billboard really take seriously these mass reviews you know they cannot track because they are not spambots)?  And the worse question of all, with all these nefarious "data" streams, how easy will it be for they themselves to manipulate numbers to appease clients/advertisers/execufriends? They can make any number up and just say "well, it adds up!". This is why there is a cry (amongst the din of a certain artist or anothers' fans) that the credibility of what this brand had is being not just spent out, but totally compromised. How can you explain to an artist that "hey, sorry, but we have to acknowledge that snippet that no one paid for" kept you from keeping your record deal because of "chart performance"? And how can you honestly keep bragging about a record that people don't hear long enough to realize the lyric sample mentions "with the Terrorists" in Spanish?

I know I won't get an answer for this. Any attempt to debate with anybody on their staff is met with a shirk. But I know what they are trying for, and if that happens, they'll fail just like every other rag you see on the supermarket line. Meanwhile, besides a few blinks of sanity in the din, All the "music chart boards" involve teens plotting with each other how to "rig" the charts with no money output just by YouTubing on autopilot. Is this what the music industry want to prove their viability? Or are they just riding the bubble until like the dotcom and housing bubbles it inevitably bursts?

I admit, I get passionate because music is more a part of my life than it should. But through my life it's been the one true steadfast thing.When I was a child, besides playing with my friends it was the big dorky thing I did waling up Sunday morning to listen to Casey Kasem with kidlike anticipation.  It's a shame that Billboard is becoming more of a "celebrity" stump than a business/artistic marriage that it was.

I think for a big chunk of people, the idea of including YouTube videos in itself wasn't a problem (in fact I promoted the idea when streaming was introduced), and not about the song itself, but the fact that they [i]chose[/i] deliberately to include all the 30-second clips in the figure to inflate the total. If this is about music, a 30 second clip is not a ground for what music is. Like someone else said, its in effect like listening to someone else's stereo. And the equivalent of counting watching movie previews to box office tallies in Variety.

I was expecting HS to debut high due to its sales, but without this move it would never have been close. Including the offiical youtube clip wouldn't have. And justifiying it saying it's another way to listen is misleading. More people are 'exposed' to music played behind TV shows, in malls, wherever. Billboard is supposed to be a reflection of the industry, not a weekly race for prom queen. And equating the miniscule fraction of a "ad return" rate to an actual sale, they're basically nailing the coffin of the industry, and eventually their own selves.

Meanwhile, while they can roll it out conveniently in time for their "fancy" rollout party yesterday, which smacks of the same blind hype that fading superstars' albums are promoted with.

But Werde got what he wanted, not for legitimacy, but for people to talk about it. Nothing matters unless you're being talked about. Welcome to the reality show world.

(Gets off soapbox).

I may or may not have a "pop sweep" up tomorrow. I need a drink. Scotch.