ericNY2002
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 1,370
|
Post by ericNY2002 on Nov 5, 2011 16:37:45 GMT -5
40 --- (01) Simple Plan/Natasha Bedingfield-Jet Lag
39 40 (03) Parachute-Kiss Me Slowly
38 38 (29) Katy Perry-E.T.
37 37 (05) O.A.R.-Heaven
36 --- (01) Gym Class Heroes/Adam Levine-Stereo Hearts
35 34 (15) Pitbull-Give Me Everything
34 27 (17) Coldplay-Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall
33 33 (24) Bruno Mars-The Lazy Song
32 31 (63) OneRepublic-Secrets
31 30 (22) Black Eyed Peas-Just Can't Get Enough
AT40 Breakout: The Fray-Heartbeat
Optional Extra: Hoobastank-The Reason
30 39 (03) Cobra Starship/Sabi-You Make Me Feel
29 35 (59) Taio Cruz-Dynamite
AT40 Extra: Michelle Branch-Loud Music
28 28 (48) The Script-For The First Time
27 29 (37) Cee Lo Green-Forget You
26 25 (57) Bruno Mars-Just The Way You Are
25 24 (66) Neon Trees-Animal
24 26 (05) Red Hot Chili Peppers-The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie
23 23 (54) Pink-Raise Your Glass
22 22 (12) Mat Kearney-Hey Mama
21 21 (40) Pink-Perfect
Optional Extra: Evanescence-Bring Me To Life
20 20 (33) Andy Grammer-Keep Your Head Up
19 18 (20) Lady Gaga-The Edge of Glory
18 17 (10) LMFAO featuring Lauren Bennett and GoonRock-Party Rock Anthem
17 19 (03) Nickelback-When We Stand Together
16 16 (38) Adele-Rolling In The Deep
15 15 (03) Daughtry-Crawling Back to You
14 14 (07) Lady Antebellum-Just A Kiss
13 13 (16) Matt Nathanson-Faster
12 10 (18) The Band Perry-If I Die Young
11 12 (12) Gavin DeGraw-Not Over You
AT40 Breakout: Bruno Mars-It Will Rain
Optional Extra: Akon-Don't Matter
10 08 (17) Katy Perry-Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)
09 11 (12) Colbie Caillat-Brighter Than The Sun
08 09 (07) Lady Gaga-You and I
07 07 (06) Kelly Clarkson-Mr. Know It All
06 05 (28) OneRepublic-Good Life
05 06 (12) The Script-Nothing
04 03 (17) Hot Chelle Rae-Tonight, Tonight
03 04 (13) Foster The People-Pumped Up Kicks
Optional Extra: Destiny's Child-Say My Name
02 02 (14) Maroon 5/Christina Aguilera-Moves Like Jagger
01 01 (11) Adele-Someone Like You (2 weeks at #1)
Off The Chart:
Britney Spears-I Wanna Go (From #36, 8 weeks on chart)
Michelle Branch-Loud Music (From #32, 10 weeks on chart)
|
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Nov 5, 2011 18:18:19 GMT -5
Seriously?! "Dynamite" up 6 to #29?!  When will this end?! ??? |
|
|
|
Post by at40forever on Nov 6, 2011 5:51:33 GMT -5
Seriously?! "Dynamite" up 6 to #29?! When will this end?! ??? This is getting VERY annoying. Although the Ryan Seacrest version of AT40has been around since 2004, I still can't understand why it insists on playing recurrents on current charts. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Nov 6, 2011 10:51:28 GMT -5
Seriously?! "Dynamite" up 6 to #29?! When will this end?! ??? This is getting VERY annoying. Although the Ryan Seacrest version of AT40has been around since 2004, I still can't understand why it insists on playing recurrents on current charts. I'll gladly explain it. Pop radio has been increasingly playing their power hits more and more in recent years. The most played song ten years ago wasn't even getting 100 spins a week on most stations, if I'm correct where now they routinely get as many as 140 or so. Radio also has adopted minimal playlists by playing fewer newer songs at a given time and opting to play the bigger hits and a select few bigger recurrents. This means, if you turn on the radio for a short period of, perhaps, 20 minutes, the songs you here are probably 90-95% likely to consist of ALL songs you're familiar with and at least half to most of those songs will be the current big hits. Moves Like Jagger will be in there. Adele might likely be in there. A Katy Perry song (recurrent or current) and maybe a second Adele spin plus either a 90s Gold in the way of Notorious B.I.G., a massive 2000-2010 hit or Dynamite. All in that span of 20 minutes. Pick another 20 minute period to listen to a few hours later and most of those same songs will be played again. Why? Because most people that listen to Pop radio these days only listen for very short increments of time. Driving to and from work, popping into a store/shopping mall playing that station, listening to the radio in a restaurant, etc, etc. Pop radio is rarely used as a leisurely pass-time to hear songs you want to hear. As a result, stations MUST ensure that when people DO tune in, they hear songs they know to keep them listening for just a little bit longer. Every minute a person stays tuned in is more advertising dollars which is what pays for the radio station to stay in business. The songs are used as a tool to keep people listening in hopes to hearing the advertising. From your point of view, the music is the point of radio. From radio's point of view, advertising is the point of radio. Now, what does this have to do with American Top 40?! Simple. If there was a recurrent rule on the AT40 chart, a large portion of the bottom of the Top 40 (ie. the first hour) would consist of newer songs that most stations don't have on their playlists. An hour of songs with low-familiarity rates could kill ratings nowadays. If I only have 10 minutes to listen to the radio and I turn to a station playing a song I don't know, I'm going to switch the station until I hear a song I know (and hopefully like). So instead, AT40 keeps the older songs in their natural position (without recurrent rules) to help keep that level of familiarity amongst the first hour of the Top 40 chart that's aired.. If AT40 wants to stay on the air, they must give in to playing the hits consistently throughout their 4-hour block. Not for the last 2-hours, or the last 3-hours but all 4 hours. |
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Nov 6, 2011 12:23:18 GMT -5
This is getting VERY annoying. Although the Ryan Seacrest version of AT40has been around since 2004, I still can't understand why it insists on playing recurrents on current charts. I'll gladly explain it. Pop radio has been increasingly playing their power hits more and more in recent years. The most played song ten years ago wasn't even getting 100 spins a week on most stations, if I'm correct where now they routinely get as many as 140 or so. Radio also has adopted minimal playlists by playing fewer newer songs at a given time and opting to play the bigger hits and a select few bigger recurrents. This means, if you turn on the radio for a short period of, perhaps, 20 minutes, the songs you here are probably 90-95% likely to consist of ALL songs you're familiar with and at least half to most of those songs will be the current big hits. Moves Like Jagger will be in there. Adele might likely be in there. A Katy Perry song (recurrent or current) and maybe a second Adele spin plus either a 90s Gold in the way of Notorious B.I.G., a massive 2000-2010 hit or Dynamite. All in that span of 20 minutes. Pick another 20 minute period to listen to a few hours later and most of those same songs will be played again. Why? Because most people that listen to Pop radio these days only listen for very short increments of time. Driving to and from work, popping into a store/shopping mall playing that station, listening to the radio in a restaurant, etc, etc. Pop radio is rarely used as a leisurely pass-time to hear songs you want to hear. As a result, stations MUST ensure that when people DO tune in, they hear songs they know to keep them listening for just a little bit longer. Every minute a person stays tuned in is more advertising dollars which is what pays for the radio station to stay in business. The songs are used as a tool to keep people listening in hopes to hearing the advertising. From your point of view, the music is the point of radio. From radio's point of view, advertising is the point of radio. Now, what does this have to do with American Top 40?! Simple. If there was a recurrent rule on the AT40 chart, a large portion of the bottom of the Top 40 (ie. the first hour) would consist of newer songs that most stations don't have on their playlists. An hour of songs with low-familiarity rates could kill ratings nowadays. If I only have 10 minutes to listen to the radio and I turn to a station playing a song I don't know, I'm going to switch the station until I hear a song I know (and hopefully like). So instead, AT40 keeps the older songs in their natural position (without recurrent rules) to help keep that level of familiarity amongst the first hour of the Top 40 chart that's aired.. If AT40 wants to stay on the air, they must give in to playing the hits consistently throughout their 4-hour block. Not for the last 2-hours, or the last 3-hours but all 4 hours. I have to respectively disagree with your assessment, particularly from this last paragraph. I totally understand that familiarity is the name of the game these days. But I don't think one or two brand new songs per hour is going to hurt ratings that much. As a matter of fact, I think most teens would actually look forward to hearing more new music these days than the radio corportations believe they would. As I stated in the CHR thread, I grew up in a time where myself and most other teens actually looked forward to hearing four, five or six new songs per week. If some didn't work for me, so be it. Those would be dropped pretty quickly anyway. But on an average week there could be about three or four new songs that I really enjoyed and would become big hits. I think the record companies sell teens and young adults short these days. I think if you really moved by weight or force in a certain direction or into a certain position younger listeners (and adults as well who like Hot AC music), they would probably say they would be open to more new music than they believed. Sure, with so many songs released in a given year, of course the biggest hits will always be ones that people want to hear 10, 20 or even 30 years from now. So yes, stations definitely need a to compile a small, tight playlist of familiar songs that will form the core of their playlist. But at the same time, a couple of more newer songs would add the "spice" factor that keeps radio stations sounding fresh and ahead of their competition. And I think if the corporations really moved by weight or force in a certain direction or into a certain position listeners, many would say that too much familiarity allows stations to sound stale and would lead to more people changing the station. I know the three CHR and Hot AC stations in Chicago all earn very solid ratings in the market, but imagine how much better they would be if the CHR stations in particular added more new music. The Mix has been the highest rated station the past couple of years, and I would like to think it's because of their openness to be receptive to more new music than Kiss-FM and B96. Either way, it will be interesting to see how the three stations continue to evolve over the next few years. Now as the person who posts the Rick Dees Hot AC chart each week, one can compare his charts in both formats to the respective AT40 charts and see how fresh Rick Dees charts are. Of course Rick probably only has 10% the number of affiliates AT40 does and would probably for all intents and purposes be considered an online chart show. But at least Rick has the right idea. :) |
|
|
|
Post by MostInterestingManInTheWorld on Nov 6, 2011 12:24:43 GMT -5
Max, I don't disagree with anything you write, but it's very, very sad.
But my biggest complaint about Seacrest is that he doesn't seem to care about the music, rather focusing on such important topics as Paris Hilton's favorite color or who Miley Cyrus is going to Starbucks with. People want to complain about the dumbing down of society, well AT40 in its present state is a perfect example.
And don't get me started on a certain SF station which is now playing "Drops Of Jupiter" and "Barely Breathing" as if they were currents.
EDIT: A Pepsi to Pete.
|
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Nov 6, 2011 12:28:30 GMT -5
Max, I don't disagree with anything you write, but it's very, very sad. But my biggest complaint about Seacrest is that he doesn't seem to care about the music, rather focusing on such important topics as Paris Hilton's favorite color or who Miley Cyrus is going to Starbucks with. People want to complain about the dumbing down of society, well AT40 in its present state is a perfect example. EDIT: A Pepsi to Pete. Thanks!  I just edited my previous post to include a blurb about Rick Dees. I don't really mind Ryan so much as a host because he is very articulate and entertaining to listen to. It's just that his version of AT40 seems to be aimed at a completely different audience who only care about where their favorite celebs are hanging out and what they are wearing these days! Not my cup of tea. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Nov 6, 2011 12:46:47 GMT -5
I have to respectively disagree with your assessment, particularly from this last paragraph. I totally understand that familiarity is the name of the game these days. But I don't think one or two brand new songs per hour is going to hurt ratings that much. As a matter of fact, I think most teens would actually look forward to hearing more new music these days than the radio corportations believe they would. Yes and no. I think most teens nowadays seek out their own new music, either on their own or through their friends. Very few people would turn to radio for "new" songs. I know personally I know very few people, if anyone, that even listens to the radio. Everyone I know say radio sucks with a few exceptions. I think stations adding new songs quicker might work in their favour as well but then there's the idea of what songs would work and not turn off listeners. As of now, the only songs that radio adds immediately are by established artists that already have the hits. Radio can add new GaGa, Rihanna, Katy, etc, without risk. New songs by them are essentially the same as the big highly-played hits so they aren't a threat. It's the new-comers that we want to hear and that we think radio should play. But in order to get play, radio needs to be sure they aren't risking losing people by playing unfamiliar songs by unfamiliar names unless those names have weight to them. I do think that record companies are selling listeners short but when it comes to radio, I think they know what they're doing and that it sucks. But the key thing to remember is that a large proportion of radio listeners listen in small increments a day. They aren't long-term listeners. I know for me personally, when I'm in the car and listening to the radio, I channel surf at first opportunity to find something better. Such an opportunity includes commercials, a song I'm sick of, a song I don't like or a song I don't know that doesn't catch my interest. |
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Nov 6, 2011 12:57:39 GMT -5
I have to respectively disagree with your assessment, particularly from this last paragraph. I totally understand that familiarity is the name of the game these days. But I don't think one or two brand new songs per hour is going to hurt ratings that much. As a matter of fact, I think most teens would actually look forward to hearing more new music these days than the radio corportations believe they would. Yes and no. I think most teens nowadays seek out their own new music, either on their own or through their friends. Very few people would turn to radio for "new" songs. I know personally I know very few people, if anyone, that even listens to the radio. Everyone I know say radio sucks with a few exceptions. I think stations adding new songs quicker might work in their favour as well but then there's the idea of what songs would work and not turn off listeners. As of now, the only songs that radio adds immediately are by established artists that already have the hits. Radio can add new GaGa, Rihanna, Katy, etc, without risk. New songs by them are essentially the same as the big highly-played hits so they aren't a threat. It's the new-comers that we want to hear and that we think radio should play. But in order to get play, radio needs to be sure they aren't risking losing people by playing unfamiliar songs by unfamiliar names unless those names have weight to them. I do think that record companies are selling listeners short but when it comes to radio, I think they know what they're doing and that it sucks. But the key thing to remember is that a large proportion of radio listeners listen in small increments a day. They aren't long-term listeners. I know for me personally, when I'm in the car and listening to the radio, I channel surf at first opportunity to find something better. Such an opportunity includes commercials, a song I'm sick of, a song I don't like or a song I don't know that doesn't catch my interest.Well I admit I do have to agree with most of your points Max, even though I believe there needs to be a better way to get new music on the radio. I think the only point that we can debate here is that if most teens seek new music elsewhere, then logic dictates they will come back to radio if radio plays some of that same new music. Besides, if so many people have given up on radio despite the solid ratings most stations earn these days, then wouldn't it stand to reason that their potential for much higher ratings is high considering how many untapped ex-radio listeners exist? Just some food for thought to the corporations who run radio these days. :) |
|
|
|
Post by MostInterestingManInTheWorld on Nov 6, 2011 13:18:28 GMT -5
Regarding the statement "Nobody listens to the radio", I am reminded of what John Belushi once said about television: "I don't hate television. I hate what television has become."
Same thing applies to radio - I would not listen if every hour played the likes of "Secrets", "Dynamite", "For The First Time" and "Just The Way You Are" as if by necessity. Funny thing is: the radio naysayers are suddenly quiet when they're presented with satellite radio or something off of the Comcast 9xx channels.
|
|
atlantaboy
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2007
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by atlantaboy on Nov 6, 2011 20:47:27 GMT -5
But I don't think one or two brand new songs per hour is going to hurt ratings that much. I think it depends on the market though, and how well engrained the radio station is in the community There are tons of stations nationwide airing AT40 that are in tight competitive battles with other HACs, CHRs, ACs, etc., and unfortunately, too many unfamiliar songs is a major reason your average listeners will change the station and switch to the competitor If it's a station at or near the top of the market that's been around for 20 years, a handful of unfamiliar songs aren't gonna matter - but if it's a station fighting a three-way battle with other stations, an AT40 countdown similar to the Top 40 Mediabase chart would probably kill ratings for the first 2 hours it aired - especially if the station is in a more conservative area of the country Most Hot AC stations don't have 40-song playlists - in fact, I'd say most have 20-25 currents on their playlist, and that's it - so if Seacrest is gonna have a show that compliments your average Hot AC station, it can't have 40 "fresh" new tracks - it might work in certain areas of the country with really liberal listening habits (California, Vegas, Northern Wisconsin/Michigan), but I'm pretty sure nationwide it would flop, at least for the first couple hours |
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Nov 6, 2011 21:14:35 GMT -5
But I don't think one or two brand new songs per hour is going to hurt ratings that much. I think it depends on the market though, and how well engrained the radio station is in the community There are tons of stations nationwide airing AT40 that are in tight competitive battles with other HACs, CHRs, ACs, etc., and unfortunately, too many unfamiliar songs is a major reason your average listeners will change the station and switch to the competitor If it's a station at or near the top of the market that's been around for 20 years, a handful of unfamiliar songs aren't gonna matter - but if it's a station fighting a three-way battle with other stations, an AT40 countdown similar to the Top 40 Mediabase chart would probably kill ratings for the first 2 hours it aired - especially if the station is in a more conservative area of the country Most Hot AC stations don't have 40-song playlists - in fact, I'd say most have 20-25 currents on their playlist, and that's it - so if Seacrest is gonna have a show that compliments your average Hot AC station, it can't have 40 "fresh" new tracks - it might work in certain areas of the country with really liberal listening habits (California, Vegas, Northern Wisconsin/Michigan), but I'm pretty sure nationwide it would flop, at least for the first couple hours Yeah, I guess that's the way things are these days, but will an hour or two of new songs (usually on weekends when ratings aren't nearly as important as during the weekdays anyway) really kill the station for the rest of the week? I personally don't think so, but the record companies and radio ownership obviously do think so. Thankfully we have the internet to fall back on. |
|
atlantaboy
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2007
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by atlantaboy on Nov 7, 2011 17:22:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess that's the way things are these days, but will an hour or two of new songs (usually on weekends when ratings aren't nearly as important as during the weekdays anyway) really kill the station for the rest of the week? Yeah it seems ridiculous - doesn't it... Here's the thing though IMO - if an hour or two of new songs wouldn't make a difference in the ratings, PDs would also probably be adding new songs all throughout the week also I know that in Atlanta, Star 94 basically won't add anything that hasn't gone Top 20 on the HAC chart - not even one or two non-syndicated spins per week - I think they view it as though if listeners hear a nonfamiliar song, they'll flip to B98.5 (our current-leaning AC) or Q100 (our adult-leaning CHR) |
|
When will this end?! ???
