What's more important: Peak or Weeks Charted?

[trustypepper]

Obviously the ultimate goal on any music chart is to hit No. 1, but I think we can all agree that staying on a chart for a lengthy period of time can be just impressive.


Personally, I think a song that peaks at No. 4 but charts for 40+ weeks is more impressive than a song that hit No. 1 for a week but only charts for 20-25 weeks. I think longevity beats peak when determining overall success of a song.


What does everyone think? What do you use to judge how big a hit was?

[Libra]

I also have to give the nod to weeks charted, if only due to songs that can impact absurdly high only to then drop right off the face of the earth, never to be heard from again.

Peaks are ridiculously easy to manipulate - with longevity, it's much more difficult to do outside of radio.

[Joe1240]

Weeks charted. There are songs that go top ten and drop off the chart the very next week. Weeks charted shows how long the song was popular.

[surfy]

What it did during its chart run. Longevity, sales, records (if any)... so weeks charted.

[Au$tin]

Weeks charted definitely tells more of a story than peak, but I believe they go hand in hand. There's also other factors such as the climate at the song's release, such as knowing what else was popular when said song was.

[Dielawn]

For radio though in defense of peak, peak really indicates how much a song was in peoples consciousness at one point in time. You can look at it and say a few weeks there in whatever month/year this song was heard this much.

[H.]

Weeks charted because there are some songs with high peaks that drop of immediately and then people may forget about that song.

[1wxrld]

Now some songs and albums have such impact and longevity they can chart for 100 weeks , 150 weeks, 200 weeks and more.  Recent classics that have stayed for very lengthened periods include Adele's album "21", Adele's song "Rolling in the Deep", Ed Sheeran's album "X", Passenger's song "Let Her Go" etc. 

Certain seasonal songs will come back persistently and consistently over and over and over accumulating many charting weeks that never end, like The Pogues' "Fairytale of New York" featuring Kirsty MacColl and George Michael's "Last Christmas".  


Just as a matter of interest, see for example the "UK Indie Singles Chart" here:  www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/indiesingles

The chart contains songs
*The 1975's "Chocolate" for 104 weeks
*Passenger "Let Her Go" for 119 weeks
*Macklemore & Ryan Lewis "Can't Hold Us" featuring Ray Dalton for 112 weeks
*AWOLNATION's "Sail" for 186 weeks
*Adele's "Someone Like You" for 209 weeks
*Adele's "Rolling In The Deep" for 210 weeks

*The Temper Trap's "Sweet Disposition" for a massive 287 weeks!

I know Indie Singles is a specialized chart, but for The Temper Trap, an Australian indie band appearing 287 weeks in UK chart, that's 5 years plus on that chart is truly impressive.  

[when the pawn...]

Of course it's all relative. A song that peaks at #7 and stays on the chart for 50 weeks is probably "bigger" than a song that peaks at #2 and is on for 20 weeks. But consider "Single Ladies" - it went to #1 but if I remember correctly, it dropped off very quickly. But it's obviously a HUGE song. Total chart points aside, anyone who thinks "Radioactive" or "I'm Yours" was a bigger hit than "Single Ladies" is fooling themselves. Ultimately, I think being a #1 song indicates strong interest (even if it has a high burn rate) and is probably more important than a nice song that floats around outside the top 10 forever. But of course, so many specific examples prove both sides.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I don't think enough weight does get given to weeks on the chart for the most part. Billboard, for example, tends to rely almost exclusively on peaks when talking about how big a song is, unless they're referring to a hit that holds a longevity record.

But yeah, the two are pretty much directly correlated so I don't think it could be said for "what's more important" because there'll always be exceptions. Peak position will always edge out weeks though so that's the simple answer.

[Flip]

Both, but Weeks Charted a little bit more important, imo.

[#LisaRinna]

I think for albums it is weeks charted, while for songs it is peak. From a label/artist perspective.

The public only cares about peaks.

[Rocky]

It's a combination of both.

[Daryl the Beryl]

Weeks charted

[cause_for_celebration]

To me? I have no clue how many weeks my favorite songs charted on the Hot 100 - not interesting to me. I'm more interested in peak position, but yes in general, it should be a combination of them both

[HolidayGuy]

You have to look at the whole picture. if comparing one track against another, you have to look at the individual peaks and then weeks charted. Some high-charting hits can be fleeting, but, is a track spending a lot more weeks on the chart, but missing the top 40 (or 30, even), any more impressive or more of a "hit"?

[Deleted]

It depends, because a case could be made for either argument.

A few decades ago, there were tons of songs that only made to the top ten (or lower), but are revered as iconic classics nowadays.
Then you've got songs with impressive chart peaks that might dominate the charts for an abnormal amount of time, which can be impressive, especially if it happens repeatedly throughout an artists career.

However, most people who aren't diehard music stans don't follow charts and number of weeks charted, and instead use album/digital sales and radio play to measure success, so I don't think either is much a factor in the long run.

[NeRD]

Well objectively most people cite the peak when discussing a song's chart performance (media and stans) so that is probably the most important. However, with chart fanatics like us, weeks charted is obviously more important.

[Queen of Insomnia.]

Simple. Would you like to have under your belt Trespassing #1 album that became one of the least selling #1 albums ever or Doo-Wops & Hooligans album that peaked @ #3 never sold +100k in a week but has spent +200 wks on the charts and menaged to go MULTIxPlat in the long run???
The answer is kinda obvious, isn't it?

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

In thinking about it more, longevity is more noteworthy for chart watchers and non-watchers alike. Referring to those classics from a few posts up, many of those spent ages on the chart and continued to rack up recurrent airplay and later on gold play. At the end of it all for a radio hit, if you can still get played long after release, there's something to be said for how much of an impact the song has had.

[1wxrld]

Probably more than either peak or weeks, the best criterion would be number of copies sold per week and cumulative number of copies sold since date of release.

But this is easier said than done. As their are physical copy sales to consider, downloads, streaming...   

[Deleted]

Weeks charted for sure. Any song can chart high for at least 1 week and be popular for at least that one week, but the number of weeks charted will show just how popular that song was and will affect its ranking on year end charts or other charts. (E.g. there are several songs that never reached #1 on my chart, but ranked high because of its longevity in the Top 44.)

[Deleted]

Feb 3, 2015 14:29:50 GMT -5 @billboardfan1 said:

weeks charted, especially if the song does perform well enough to make the year end list. If a song charts for 15 or less weeks with a weak chart performance and/or peak position, I don't consider it a hit. I also don't consider songs that were #1 or went to the top 10, but either dropped out quickly or charted less than at least 15 weeks overall a hit, so yeah, weeks on chart is more important in my opinion.

[halo19]

Depends on how one song does relative to another. Longevity depends on the era as well, because at times it is an event while in others it's just the norm.

If it's between a #3 and #6 song, week differences can make a difference. If we're talking #10 vs #29, well that is a considerable difference.

How remembered and known a song is can be more important than statistics. But I think charts are good snapshots of how big a song is at the given moment.

[bat1990]

My favorite example to use in support of weeks charted is "Little Talks" by Of Monsters and Men. It only peaked at #20 on the Hot 100 but was on the tally forever. It took 30 weeks just to reach the Top 40!

However, the song seemed like it was EVERYWHERE and you could sing the chorus to almost anyone of any age and they would recognize it.

[icefire9]

I'm going to go with longevity.

Hold it Against Me and Part of Me both peaked at #1, but ended up being smaller hits than songs like If I Die Young or Sail (though I love all 4 songs). Its always more impressive to me when a song manages to chart for 52 weeks than a song hitting #1.

[Deleted]

Weeks charted > #1 peak. 'Hold It Against Me' would back me up on this

[Daryl the Beryl]

Feb 1, 2015 9:41:54 GMT -5 Daryl the Beryl said:

Weeks charted

Weeks charted for radio success, Hot 100, etc., but peak if you're referring to my personal chart as I like to drop songs quickly :)

[godjanny]

I prefer peaks, personally.

[Deleted]

Public perception will tell you that a song's peak is more important, if only because it's easier to remember and "means something" (even if it really doesn't all said and done). For example, Britney Spears was seen as a one hit wonder for a while because '...Baby One More Time' was her only #1 until 2008. The rest of her chart success could suck it as far as anyone really cared.

For labels though, longevity is easily more important. They're going to want the song to have a high peak from a PR standpoint, sure, but their first priority is making sure it sells and that it sells a lot. It's also not hard to guess that a song that spent a long time on the charts is going to have a bigger impact than a song that hit number one, but only spent three or four weeks on it.

So yeah, it's a little of both. You don't really run into the problem of songs having abnormally high peaks for their chart run too often these days, though. Adding in other chart components like streaming really helped to level that out.