What EXACTLY changed in 1991 with the Hot 100?

[Sherane Lamar]

I know that they began to incorporate Soundscan data into the Hot 100. But WHY exactly does that mean that the turnover rates decreased and songs got to spend a longer amount of time on the chart?

Ignoring the 1991 change, and viewing the chart as a single consistent measurement, one could say...

While The Beatles' chart run is impressive, and the biggest of their time, it doesn't quite match the size of artists like Usher, Katy Perry and Rihanna. The Beatles have more Top 10 hits than any of these three artists, 34, but the average time each of them spent on the top of the charts is much much smaller than the average time that a typical Usher, Rihanna or Katy Perry hit spent at the top. So overall, the more modern three artists, are more popular on the charts.

And from a purely factual perspective, they'd appear to be correct. Of course, we know that the 1991 change favors the newer artists in overall chart presence because of the change in recurrent rates. But... lack of details beyond that could beg the question...

Why are the Beatles rewarded for controlling about 4% of the chart in the 8 year span from 1963-1970 more than Katy Perry is for controlling about 6% of the chart in the 7 year span from 2008-2014??

We could counter with "well, Katy only controls a bigger percentage because the turnover rates are smaller now. There's fewer artists for her to share with, and each of her hits look bigger because they spent more time at the top of the charts."

But then that leaves us with more questions than before. 

* We know that before 1991, no song spent more than 10 weeks at #1. 

* We know that generally, no song made it past 40 weeks on the chart.

* We know that in the last 25 years, 19 songs have made it to 11 weeks at #1.

* We know that songs routinely get kicked off the chart because they are a year old.

* We know that generally in the time before 1991, each week would have a higher number of new songs than the average week post 1991.

But something is wrong here. Let's compare Le Freak to Work. Le Freak enters the Top 10 at #6 on 11/25/79. Then moves to #4, and then #1. After its assent to #1, it spends 6 weeks at #1, 3 weeks at #2, Then it quickly falls. 3, 7, 7, 7, and gone. It spends 15 weeks altogether on the Top 10. 

Work on the other hand, spends at the very least 15 weeks on the Top 10 as well. 9 weeks at #1. 2 weeks at #4. 2 weeks at #6, a week at #7 and a week at #9.

They seem to be practically even. But Le Freak is said to be the 21st biggest song of all time. Work is big, but is still a run of the mill hit. Why is it that a week at #1 today is worth less than a week at #1 in the pre-1991 era??




Now let's pretend the last 15 weeks have all been in the pre-1991 era. The Hot 100 is still all facts right? During each of the 9 weeks that Rihanna was #1, Work was more listened to than both Stressed Out and 7 Years. If we were still operating under 1985 expectations, Work, a run of the mill hit, wouldn't have been #1 for so many weeks. There likely would have been a week where Stressed Out or 7 Years was ahead of it.



But here's the thing. The music industry didn't change in 1991. Only the way Billboard collects data changed. So what is actually true? That Work was the most popular song for 9 weeks in a row? What actually changed? Why is it that there are no songs with the longevity of One Sweet Day, Uptown Funk or I Gotta Feeling before 1991, but dozens near their level in the 90's and 2000's, when nothing actually changed in the music industry?   

[Future Captain]

I think it have something to do with the fact that Soundscan tracked Airplay more accurately, as before Soundscan, Airplay is based on stations submitted list, which can easily be manipulated.

[jebsib]

The music industry actually DID change in 1991. It was a pivotal year where Top 40 stations crashed and burned after a decade of dominance and record companies really started to withhold commercial singles. Even by 1990 standards, the pre Soundscan 1991 was wonky!

[Sherane Lamar]

May 10, 2016 6:09:08 GMT -5 jebsib said:

The music industry actually DID change in 1991. It was a pivotal year where Top 40 stations crashed and burned after a decade of dominance and record companies really started to withhold commercial singles. Even by 1990 standards, the pre Soundscan 1991 was wonky!

I never knew that. I always thought it was just an issue of different reporting. That clears a lot of my questions up. 

So that's why no song managed to be #1 for 11 weeks before the 90s?

[imbondz]

You can't just look at how long a song spent at #1 tho for its popularity.

Example: When Nothing Compares 2 U was #1, it was so huge and had so many points, but the #2 song - Don't Wanna Fall In Love and #3 song Been Around The World, had enough points to be #1 at any other point that year except the 4 weeks NC2U was #1, thus they both got blocked at the top.

So are they less popular than a #1 song at another point in the year? Or those 2 songs just had bad timing?

Not sure if that example makes complete sense in the discussion but it's what came to mind.

[HolidayGuy]

There were just a few notable radio hits that weren't released commercially in 1991. That trend really started taking off in 1994 (16 tracks, that were not commercial singles, peaked in the top 40 on Hot 100 Airplay)- and, of course, the numbers increased thereafter.

The charts were as accurate as they could be, with the data they had. The biggest hits were the biggest hits, for the most part, but the charts likely didn't reflect their longevity- stations and stores would stop reporting a track once it was a certain age, hence the quick turnover.

[ry4n]

Before 1991, retailers and radio stations had to submit their lists of top sellers / most played songs manually to Billboard. And when a single had reach its peak, they would often stop including those songs in their lists; even if they were still selling or being played. And they would also report songs as being bigger hits than they actually were (ie "Promise Of A New Day"). Soundscan exposed how inaccurate the old methodology was. If the chart change was made 6 months earlier, I'm pretty sure "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You" would've spent like 12 weeks at #1.

Radio used to move on to new songs much more quickly. It's not like today where they just play the same 5 songs over and over again all day long.

Radio completely fragmented and splintered off into different genres in the 90's. And before 1991, top 40 was the only format that contributed to the Hot 100. Many songs tend to peak on different formats at different times, which makes them stick around in the airplay charts for a longer time.

As the 90's wore on, physical singles were being held back or not released altogether. With numerous songs "missing" from the Hot 100, this meant there were fewer new songs to push down the older ones.

[jebsib]

The first thing that must be accepted is that as of Nov 30th 1991, the Hot 100 was no longer a chart governed by CHR.

(It took a few years and a few Achy Breaky Hearts to understand this).
Thus, suddenly if certain songs were huge sellers but were deemed too extreme or niche for Top 40, they could be ignored by pop radio, but now charted high on the Hot 100.

This rarely happened in the 80s.

The post Disco backlash was so strong that Black / Soul / Hip-Hop music (whatever it was called then) was all but banished from the top 40 (with the exception of highly crossover ready artists like MJ, Prince, Whitney, Kool & the Gang).

Also there were far fewer recurrents on the radio back then. Stations (and the buying public) focused on a song for 8 - 10 weeks and dropped it, moving to the next new batch. This created far fewer opportunities for songs to stay at #1 longer than a month.

[badrobot]

There's a rule in science that the very act of observing something affects its behavior. Even if there already weren't underlying changes going on in the industry at the time, changing how success is tracked and determined was bound to have an impact on how the industry released and promoted music.

There are a handful of metrics you can consider "raw data" such as sales totals, but when you see things like "biggest songs of all time" you are typically getting a highly-informed best guess at measuring something subjective, and anyone doing their due diligence would take into account different industry conditions at the time to try to normalize.

[Deleted]

May 10, 2016 8:23:07 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Also there were far fewer recurrents on the radio back then. Stations (and the buying public) focused on a song for 8 - 10 weeks and dropped it, moving to the next new batch. 

I feel like this was an illusion –  like what was on paper rather than what actually happened.  Songs seemed to last a longer time on the radio than what was reported and therefore charting.  Am I crazy?

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

It is an interesting question. If the way the hot 100 was tabulated after 1991 was used the whole time, would the results be much different?

I'm guessing songs had quicker turnover because the success of a single was based purely on availability in stores so when a single's run was over or done being promoted, it stopped being pressed and made available?

[HolidayGuy]

At first, it was Mainstream Top 40 and Rhythm-Crossover stations that comprised Hot 100 Airplay; around summer 1993, AC and modern rock were added to the mix.

Pre-BDS, there were big hits that you'd hear a lot on radio even after they started dropping down the charts (and even when they were off the charts), but, yeah, rotation at top 40 radio got crazier and heavier in the BDS era.

[jebsib]

Broc - there definitely WERE recurrents played back in the day (I worked at a major CHR station);
The difference is that they played far more current based hits (as you can see from the # of Hot 100 or Top 40 hits each year - there were sometimes 300 more per year than in recent times.) And the same recurrents weren't played on frequent rotation for as long.

But bad robot is correct: Observation affects behavior: Once PDs and MDs started seeing real time monitoring info and relying heavily on research (suggesting that song repetition/ recognition is the key to high ratings) and countless disparate radio stations (each with individual identities) started to get gobbled up by one or two corporations with the same input… things got SLOW.

[inverse]

Before 1991 Tainted Love had 43 weeks and another song had 43 weeks but that 2nd one had 2 separate chart runs

[Gary]

43 weeks also for What About Me by Moving Pictures.

That 52 week recurrent rule that has a couple people here riled up (riled up enough to have a thread just for that) would never even come into play.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 10, 2016 7:22:45 GMT -5 imbondz said:

You can't just look at how long a song spent at #1 tho for its popularity.

Example: When Nothing Compares 2 U was #1, it was so huge and had so many points, but the #2 song - Don't Wanna Fall In Love and #3 song Been Around The World, had enough points to be #1 at any other point that year except the 4 weeks NC2U was #1, thus they both got blocked at the top.

So are they less popular than a #1 song at another point in the year? Or those 2 songs just had bad timing?

Not sure if that example makes complete sense in the discussion but it's what came to mind.

Of course I know this. I was just using it as an example. I think in general, looking at the positions across a songs entire charting history will give you a fair idea of how big it is. And I think that as far as the charts are concerned Work is just as big as Le Freak. But a song as big as Le Freak was so uncommon back then that they adjusted things.

[jebsib]

There ARE several ways to measure a songs popularity but we as chart fans (just like sports fans, etc) like statistics and like competition (#1 beats #3!)
Because of that there is no other shorthand to quickly declare a song's popularity than to assign it a peak position. And since the Hot 100 is the U.S. Chart of Record, it is convenient and easy to bypass the bad timing situations and call 'em

The big confusion is on the rare occasion when certain songs like Soko's We Might Be Dead by Tomorrow hits with huge point totals one week, and is forgotten the next. A more popular song than PYT by Michael Jackson, or Dangerous Woman? That distorts these peak numbers and makes it confusing to the general public. but what is the alternative? Recite radio audience statistics for certain songs? Cite a certain song was the #1 song of the year? What if it was a soft forgettable year compared to a hyper competitive one? It gets muddy fast.

[Hot AC Archiver]

May 10, 2016 7:58:09 GMT -5 ry4n said:

Soundscan exposed how inaccurate the old methodology was. If the chart change was made 6 months earlier, I'm pretty sure "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You" would've spent like 12 weeks at #1.

"Everything" spent 8 weeks at #1 on the Top 40 Radio Monitor and 17 weeks at #1 on the sales chart. I'd agree that the song would've spent many weeks at #1, possibly more than 12 if the sales were high enough. Yet the Hot 100 "only" had it #1 for 7 weeks.

I think the bad reporting of airplay by stations also fueled the big drops from #1 in the 1970s (some songs fell from #1 to #15). IIRC, some stations would quit reporting playing a song after it fell from #1 on their playlist.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 11, 2016 7:25:55 GMT -5 jebsib said:

There ARE several ways to measure a songs popularity but we as chart fans (just like sports fans, etc) like statistics and like competition (#1 beats #3!)
Because of that there is no other shorthand to quickly declare a song's popularity than to assign it a peak position. And since the Hot 100 is the U.S. Chart of Record, it is convenient and easy to bypass the bad timing situations and call 'em

The big confusion is on the rare occasion when certain songs like Soko's We Might Be Dead by Tomorrow hits with huge point totals one week, and is forgotten the next. A more popular song than PYT by Michael Jackson, or Dangerous Woman? That distorts these peak numbers and makes it confusing to the general public. So what's the alternative? Recite radio audience statistics for certain songs? Cite a certain song was the #1 song of the year? What if it was a soft forgettable year compared to a hyper competitive one? It gets muddy fast.

Well I wouldn't even say that it's a rare occasion. Soko is just the most extreme example. Songs by Voice winners and Glee Cast songs debut in the top 25 all the time and leave the next week. 
Just this year we have Kelly Clarkson's song, with a high peak and a low performance.
We have a lot of the older Taylor Swift Top 10's. Most of the One Direction Top 10's. 

Then on the opposite side we have songs like How Do I Live, Trap Queen, Hotline Bling, Payphone, etc. That never hit #1 but are bigger than most songs that do. Or songs like Worth It, Don't, SAIL, Post To Be, etc that are sleeper hits. Never make the Top 10 and are more popular than most songs that do.

"So what's the alternative?"

Simple formula: (101 - ((P1 + P2 + P3 + P4....)/W))W

P1 = Position on the first week
P2 = Position on the second week
P3 = Position on the third week

and so on.

W = the number of weeks the song has been on the Hot 100

[Mike is BAD]

And Radioactive got 87 weeks on.

[suth]

May 10, 2016 4:37:40 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

They seem to be practically even. But Le Freak is said to be the 21st biggest song of all time. Work is big, but is still a run of the mill hit. Why is it that a week at #1 today is worth less than a week at #1 in the pre-1991 era??

I think there's obviously an element of "relative to other songs from that era." "Le Freak" sold 4 million copies as a 45 at a time when singles just didn't sell that much. It was #1 for a short time compared to today, but it was an "F5" #1 when it hit. "Hey Jude" was on and off the chart in 19 weeks, but for 1968 its performance was extraordinary.

I was aware of pop music enough in the '80s to know that radio programmers really did move on to the next single after about three or four months, and you couldn't buy the single anymore (at least where I lived) after about seven or eight. I have memories of scrambling to record "oldies" from just a year before when they unexpectedly came up on the radio. I also remember that it was very rare at the time for a #1 to feel "wrong" like it sometimes does today; if a song was #1, it almost always really was the most widely played song at that moment. (Whether or not the sales reports were accurate was a different story.) These days, a combination of permanent, at-your-fingertips availability and incomparably greater conservatism on the part of radio have made for completely different conditions. You have to move the goalposts.

[Sherane Lamar]

"I also remember that it was very rare at the time for a #1 to feel "wrong" like it sometimes does today; if a song was #1, it almost always really was the most widely played song at that moment."

When is it not these days?

Are you talking about songs that went #1 because of sales, such as the first 4-6 American Idol winners?

Anyway, I figure that because of what Jebsib said about radio splintering into subgenres, that generally people may be cultural sheltered from certain #1s. I can't imagine my white suburban mom and my two little brothers knowing Panda, unfortunately.

I remember my step father telling me about how back in the 80s and stuff, Top 40 stations literally played the Top 40, and that there would be a count down every week. These days, that could never happen, because the Top 40 is too diverse. You'll never find a radio station, or a big enough local radio audience, who would listen to "Humble and Kind" right after they listen to "Panda".

[Libra]

May 10, 2016 13:00:02 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

At first, it was Mainstream Top 40 and Rhythm-Crossover stations that comprised Hot 100 Airplay; around summer 1993, AC and modern rock were added to the mix.

I've been incrementally going through issues around this time (as in, I'll go through a few over a week or so and then I'll back off for a bit and then I'll go through a few more ), and can add this:

July 17 was the week the AC chart was converted to BDS monitoring. Modern Rock was incremental - in 1993, that chart went from still fully playlist-reported, to a hybrid of playlist and monitored airplay, to fully converting to BDS in early 1994. There were just a handful of monitored stations for a few months, then the week of December 18, 13 more stations were added to the monitored panel. Full conversion happened the week of January 22, 1994.

[suth]

May 12, 2016 18:39:48 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

When is it not these days? Are you talking about songs that went #1 because of sales, such as the first 4-6 American Idol winners?

Pretty much. Take something like "Pillowtalk." I mean, I get it. It had the sales numbers it needed. But the part of my brain that was alive back in the Top 40 monoculture era is still there enough that I shake my head when I see a song at #1 on the charts and 98% of the country hasn't heard it yet.

[jebsib]

This is nothing new though. Believe it or not, most of the country had never heard "Baby Got Back" when it got to #1 (Only peaked at #16 airplay or something). Even by 1998 it felt weird when Savage Garden got to #1 with Truly Madly Deeply in mid January and it didn't get to #1 airplay till mid April. Back then that kind of disconnect was crazy - now it's a frequent (Zayn) occurrence. Because it took a long time for us to adjust to the fact that (Pop) radio wasn't the end-all.

[WolfSpear]

It is partly how the charts are compiled and partly how the music itself is presented or consumed these days.

If I turn on a radio today, I tend to hear a similar batch of songs spinning hourly. There was a load of diversity coming from different parts of the country back in the day... back when we didn't have the internet. Think about the 1950's and 1960's and how it was possible for someone in New York to have heard a song that someone in Florida may never hear.

Those Regional Breakout charts that Billboard published were actually useful in showcasing this; nowadays, what's regional? what's out there that we haven't heard?

Then we talk about the consumption of music also changing. These days we have slower radio turnover and the uprise of self-controlled listened through streaming. The streaming has slowed the charts down to the point where it's almost boring to watch. I'm not saying that to be rude, but it is a different market than before. Additionally, we don't have a physical singles market, so the advent of digital has caused the charts to change as well. You can score a top 10 debut much easier today than in days gone by.

[kingofpain]

Not to mention there were also corruption scandals. Didn't label payola come into play with some scumbag who was tabulating the billboard charts? Songs like "Love You Inside Out" by the Bee Gees would get a week at number one and then plummet out of the Hot 100 for an example. I don't remember who said this, but it was discussed here in the past.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2016 9:13:58 GMT -5 jebsib said:

This is nothing new though. Believe it or not, most of the country had never heard "Baby Got Back" when it got to #1 (Only peaked at #16 airplay or something). Even by 1998 it felt weird when Savage Garden got to #1 with Truly Madly Deeply in mid January and it didn't get to #1 airplay till mid April. Back then that kind of disconnect was crazy - now it's a frequent (Zayn) occurrence. Because it took a long time for us to adjust to the fact that (Pop) radio wasn't the end-all.

To be fair, Baby Got Back was a massive hit on MTV with all the controversy and a short stint of being banned, which was a big source of national exposure back then.  This is actually true for several other 80s/90s songs (a lot in the rock genre, specifically) that didn't necessarily achieve high peaks on the Pop airplay chart and/or Hot 100 (fairing better on specific formats) but their videos were huge.  It created this illusion - at least in my mind - that they were big pop hits.  ZZ Top's "Gimme All Your Lovin'" and "Sharp Dressed Man" are two other examples of this... big rock hits, but didn't fair as well on the Hot 100.  I never would have thought they were anything but H100 top 10 hits.

[renfield75]

May 13, 2016 13:25:36 GMT -5 kingofpain said:

Not to mention there were also corruption scandals. Didn't label payola come into play with some scumbag who was tabulating the billboard charts? Songs like "Love You Inside Out" by the Bee Gees would get a week at number one and then plummet out of the Hot 100 for an example. I don't remember who said this, but it was discussed here in the past.

Billboard chart director Bill Wardlow is who you're talking about. The Hot 100 from late 1977 to the very early 80s was susceptible to manipulation as Wardlow was essentially in the pocket of RSO Records (home to the Bee Gees, the Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack, the Grease Soundtrack, and several others). There are many examples of fishy chart results as Wardlow received lavish gifts from RSO chief Robert Stigwood. Research Wardlow and that era; for chart fans it's fascinating.

[suth]

See, I remember "Baby Got Back" getting pretty heavy (if not saturation) airplay on our local Top 40 station before it hit #1. I remember thinking it was a novelty that would go away after a month or so, and it just kept getting bigger and bigger. It stood out all the more because that and "Jump" were basically the only rap songs they would play at the time.

It was definitely around that time that the disconnect really started to emerge, where the biggest selling songs were often a lot raunchier than the Top 40 stations were willing to play. These days, with front-loaded sales and long airplay tail, the gap is so big that the idea of a single Hot 100 chart combining sales, airplay, and streaming kind of feels like an anachronism.