Talk:Alternative Airplay

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tone of article

I have attempted to make this article a little less "journalistic" to an actual encyclopedia article. 9/19/2005

Accuracy of billboard website

Does anyone here know if this site is accurate? [1] --T-rex 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate in terms of what? It isn't a Billboard chart, if that's what you mean. -- eo 18:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it a chart of then? --T-rex 18:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Read the website. I'm sure they have a source or a FAQ page or something to show where their info comes from. -- eo 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't anything. I mean it's October of 2007 and it still lists "When You Were Young" by the Killers as #1. This isn't notable it actually looks like a good way to get spyware on your system, though. Doc Strange 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about information on songs that hit #1 in it's first week?

Since LP just did it this week. 128.205.153.145 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned. - eo 13:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some things

this fact is writable or is useless?? "Red Hot Chili peppers are also the bands with most years with at least one number 1 on chart with 9 years : 1991,1993,1995,1999,2000,2002,2003,2006,2007."
link at this videos??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8bR345dJ4w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CBohAM-B-w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOVoeH43iAw zago

I removed it. It's really not notable and its bordering on fancruft. The info that is there seems to sums things up pretty well already. - eo 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern/Mainstream Charts look different.

Notice that right now, more metal/harder songs are showing up on mainstream rock tracks while modern rock tracks contain a lot of indie/emo/alternative rock songs. Not sure how to word it though, but thought I would bring it up. Maplejet 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I dont think its really necessary to add it or to try to analyze the genres that are popular. The article mentions that the Mainstream and Modern Rock charts are somewhat similar, but they are what they are. People always argue about what songs/bands fall into what genre anyway. Ya know? - eo 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Maplejet hit it right on the head. That was always the intent of the separate charts. Mainstream Rock Chart would (and does) feature more metal/hard rock and Modern Rock focuses on alternative/indie. Only a few bands (White Stripes, REM, Weezer and Foo Fighters to name a few) have charted on both charts. This isn't a recent trend either, both charts have always skewed to those genres since the implementation of the Modern Rock Tracks chart. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peek-a-Boo

Peek-a-Boo did basicly debut at #1 but the #1 debut section only notes linkin park REM and RHCP, who debuted at #1 for real.

i would like to add Peek-a-Boo to the #1 debut section but i woulnt know how to word it - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.208 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 August 2007

I don't think its necessary.... the article already states that is was the first #1 so of course that is also its debut position.... all songs debuted that week. - eo 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderwall

Okay, I am sick of seeing the listing of "Wonderwall" listed in the records section as a song that was at number one for ten consecutive weeks. This is NOT true. If you look at the chart records here on Wikipedia, it hit number one at the week of December 30, 1995. It contined to stay at number one until February 24, 1996, nine weeks. After that, the single "1979" by the Smashing Pumpkins hit number one for the week of March 2. Although "Wonderwall" did reach number 1 again the next week, March 8, it was NOT at the top for TEN CONSECUTIVE weeks.

And I believe that "1979" SHOULD be noticed for being there one week. That one week changed the Pumpkins' carrer, since it was their ONLY single on ANY chart to hit number one. I just am asking, please do not put "Wonderwall" as a song that was on there for ten weeks. This is not true, and Wikipedia should only list true facts.

A Smashed Pumpkin (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say the weeks were consecutive. The song spent 10 weeks at number one, that's it. Lots of songs drop and return, not just on this chart but all of them. - eo (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they have to be consecutive weeks? Also, if "1979" should be there, so should every other song. Just because it was the first and only one by The Smashing Pumpkins doesn't give it precedence over any other. bob rulz (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's also semi wrong. This wasn't the only time the Pumpkins had a #1 song. Well it was with the same song but still: "1979" also hit #1 on the Mainstream Rock tracks charts as well. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossovers

Should we mention instances where artists typically not associated with the Modern Rock Tracks have, in fact, charted on it. For example, songs like Shaggy's "Oh Carolina," Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down," Guns N' Roses's, "Chinese Democracy," AC/DC's "Rock n' Roll Train," Eminem's "My Name Is," Ofra Haza's "Im Nin Alu," and Johnny Cash's cover "Hurt" have all been on this chart. -65.73.6.45 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget ACE OF BASE, DR- ALBAN ...and seal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.245.202 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article renaming

You know, ever since the chart has been "renamed", I've gone to Billboard.com every week and it's still called Hot Modern Rock Tracks. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. Although there is that source in which they state in the article that the name was changed. The print edition, however, does have the new names each week, also including the new "Rock Tracks" chart and "Hot Dance Club Songs" and whatever else they absorbed from R&R. Someone needs to get it together over there. - eo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Divide?

Should New Divide be put in the "10 weeks or more" section? Number one modern rock hits of 2009 says it was at number one for 11 consecutive weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.27 (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bands with the most number 1 hits and bands with the most top 5 hits

i took R.E.M off the list of the most number1 hits because the list is supposed to limit to five artist unless a tie and their is no longer a tie, i also took the red hot chili peppers off the list with the most top 5 hits and replaced them with the smashing pumpkins because the smashing pumpkins have actually had 12 top five hit while the red hot chili peppers have only had 11, again trying to limit the list to the top 5 artist

i don't know how to verify that the smashing pumpkins have had 12 top five hits but if you check their discography both on Wikipedia and billboard.com you will see that this is correct and if you can can someone please put it up because i don't know how Feedmyeyes (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 Seconds to Mars - The Kill

So I noticed that The Kill has recently been renamed the song with the largest number of chart weeks, coming in at a whopping 94. This is an increase of about 40 weeks from the total reported in the pre-"Savior" era, and so I checked the reference. It does say 94 weeks on the chart, but it mentions what appear to be (and I could very well be wrong here) two separate chart runs, one with a peak of only 35 and the other with a peak of 3. The peaks are separated by about 5 months. I honestly don't know how to read the song's history page that is linked, but am I right in interpreting it as Billboard counting 94 weeks total between the song's FIRST debut and the song's LAST dropoff, including the weeks it wasn't on the chart at all? I wonder this just because the song's total as reported here has changed, while is still listed at 52 weeks on the song's own Wiki page. Even if the song spent 94 non-consecutive weeks on the chart, we should revise the page to say this, but I just don't know what to make of the history page. - Drlight11 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The weeks in between should not be counted; that's ludicrous. This particular item has been edited back and forth relentlessly for years. The most recent one, giving the record to "Savior" by Rise Against, at 65 weeks. The sources provided for that leads to the Billboard.com chart history for the song - which is fine, but it in no way verifies that 65 weeks in the longest chart run ever. At some point, when the record was broken, I'd think it would most certainly be mentioned in a Chart Beat news article. That's the kind of source we need here. Showing that "Savior" spent 65 weeks on the chart is one thing, but it needs verification that no other song has spent more than 65 weeks on the chart. In the meantime, I have removed this bulletpoint completely until we have a reliable source. - eo (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if we can't get a reliable source like you said, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia regardless. Good point. - DrLight11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.218.65 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an Ask Billboard entry dated July 2, 2010, that might settle the case. Here it is (look for "Still 'Feeling' Strong"): [2] 189.46.133.174 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe you can just ask them, and it will be in the next Ask Billboard, then we will have a source. But to clarify, the song is named The Kill (Bury Me), but it is also known by The Kill, Billboards website is a bit screwy, so ask them. EDIT: Just asked them, hopefully i'll here back, or it will on the page Friday! GD1223 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the item yet again. The billboard.com link shows an (obvious) incorrect 94 weeks. There is a miscalculation there which looks as if they are indeed counting all of the weeks that the song was off-the-chart between its two runs. The billboard.biz archives show a final week total of 52 weeks (.biz is subscription based and cannot be used here anyway). The above link to a Chart Beat column attributing 60+ weeks to a different song negates "The Kill"'s total anyway. - eo (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park - The Catalyst

The Catalyst also debuted at no 1 on the chart. It should be included in the list. The confirmation is on the Wiki page for The Catalyst if you want to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.119.102 (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC) No, it debuted at 3 on the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.179.140 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead singers with number ones in two different bands?

just wanted to see if this is relevant in the record section that only David Lowery, Scott Weiland, Perry Farrell, Chad Kroeger Jack White have had number ones with two separate bands or soloFeedmyeyes (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most are right expect Chad Krouger (had 1 w/ Nickelback, one solo, otherwise, it would be. The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Alternative Songs

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alternative Songs's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Trust":

From Come with Me Now: Trust, Gary (April 9, 2014). "Pharrell Williams Leads Hot 100; John Legend Gains At No. 2". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
From Somebody That I Used to Know: Trust, Gary (14 May 2012). "How Gotye's 'Somebody That I Used to Know' Became an Unlikely number 1 Dance Hit". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved 28 May 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25th Anniversary All-time Top 100; create a new page with list?

Just a thought. I don't want to break any copyright. Otherwise I'll just add chart rankings to related song pages.

Here's the list, by the way: http://www.billboard.com/articles/list/5687158/alternative-chart-25th-anniversary-top-100-songs Azul120 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

52-weekers

There is an IP address who has been constantly removing the 52-weekers from the achievements section. What do you suggest about this? Daerl (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what he's going on about. Chart runs are sourced. Also, 52 is notable since it's a rare milestone (as is 10 for weeks at #1), especially for songs that exceed it by remaining in the top 10. BTW, I'm considering splitting the 52-weekers and the songs that broke that barrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azul120 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alternative Songs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614081227/http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/268412/chart-beat-pink-black-eyed-peas-shinedown to http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/268412/chart-beat-pink-black-eyed-peas-shinedown

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light Grenades

Was I correct in adding Light Grenades by Incubus to the Albums with three no. 1 songs.

—————Fghy (11/2/18) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkFghy (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope only two "Anna Molly" and "Love Hurts" the later did top the chart twice. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]