jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on Apr 25, 2022 7:30:23 GMT -5
I think a weird twist on this thread would be - "What if Sales had never gone away from 1998 - 2005"? Would Hip / Hop & R&B still have a stranglehold on the Hot 100 during the early 2000s? I don't think so, but nothing else was really blowing up those years. We've talked about one-off "What-Ifs" like "Oops", "Toxic" or "Bye Bye Bye", but in general terms, I'm convinced things would have evolved differently pop-culturally. More than likely R&B/Hip-Hop would've still been the dominant genre, as it had the radio audience chokehold and you can't convince me songs like "Lose Yourself", "Yeah!", "In Da Club", "Crazy In Love", "Hot In Herre", "Hey Ya", etc wouldn't have had sufficient sales in addition. They were just objectively big moments in pop culture at the time. Pop/Rock would've definitely gained more footing though and we wouldn't have had it get to the point where 80%~ of the top 10 was just R&B/Hip-Hop almost any given week for years straight. I also think songs like Beautiful, Toxic, Complicated, This Love, Bring Me To Life, etc could've perhaps gone #1 with sales availability. Also an interesting concept -- what would the Hot 100/radio chart looked like if the formats instead had audience numbers similar to *present* where instead of Urban/Rhythmic having colossal audience, it's Pop/HAC that does. It does seem in retrospect like the numbers were very high, higher than they should've been for Rhythmic/Urban formats. I have a very hard time believing it truly got to the point where: Hot 100 - March 13, 2004 15. "Through The Wire" (#11 on Urban radio, #11 on Rhythmic radio, #37 on Top 40 radio) 16. "With You" (#1 on Top 40 radio, #28 on Hot AC radio) This was *actually* reflective of how lobsided in popularity those radio formats had gotten. I'm a bit confused. Are you saying the numbers reported for Rhythmic and Urban radio were wrong? |
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,714
|
Post by iHype. on Apr 25, 2022 8:05:40 GMT -5
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying the numbers reported for Rhythmic and Urban radio were wrong? Audience numbers are estimates based on them using their own data/surveying, and I do think that Urban/Rhythmic numbers were likely just overinflated throughout that period. Nobody will ever know for sure, but also the fact the audience numbers for those formats completely collapsed by 2010 then never rebounded makes me think they had research data that showed they were too highly representing those formats. Songs were pulling up to 100 million+ audience from Urban/Urban AC alone in the mid 2000s, then ever since 2010 they struggle to do 30 million. I don't think they magically lost 70%~ of listeners overnight. There's also nothing to suggest people drastically not listening to radio anymore around 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by phieaglesfan712 on May 13, 2022 8:33:38 GMT -5
The fact that Iris charted at #9 in December 1998, months after its peak, when AirPlay only songs became eligible to chart shows that at the very least, it would have challenged TBIM for #1 on the Hot 100 (and very likely would have taken weeks away from it) had rule change taken place six months earlier.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 13, 2022 8:38:51 GMT -5
The fact that Iris charted at #9 in December 1998, months after its peak, when AirPlay only songs became eligible to chart shows that at the very least, it would have challenged TBIM for #1 on the Hot 100 (and very likely would have taken weeks away from it) had rule change taken place six months earlier. This is FALSE. We have already been through this, so I don't know why you keep making this same incorrect point in various threads. |
|
|
|
Post by phieaglesfan712 on May 13, 2022 9:08:58 GMT -5
The fact that Iris charted at #9 in December 1998, months after its peak, when AirPlay only songs became eligible to chart shows that at the very least, it would have challenged TBIM for #1 on the Hot 100 (and very likely would have taken weeks away from it) had rule change taken place six months earlier. This is FALSE. We have already been through this, so I don't know why you keep making this same incorrect point in various threads. The test charts had Iris at #6 two weeks earlier, and it was well on the downswing by that point. Just imagine how much bigger it would have been at its peak during its summer months. The only thing that could have possibly stopped Iris was TBIM being such a huge smash, and I’m not 100% sure it would of. In my opinion, the songs that charted in 1997 and 1998 (HDIL, IBMY, TBIM, etc) when airplay only songs weren’t allowed to chart should have asterisks on any all time list they appear. I don’t think it’s fair that these songs get to reap the benefits of having some of the biggest competition removed. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 13, 2022 9:36:31 GMT -5
The test charts had Iris at #6 two weeks earlier, and it was well on the downswing by that point. Just imagine how much bigger it would have been at its peak during its summer months. The only thing that could have possibly stopped Iris was TBIM being such a huge smash, and I’m not 100% sure it would of. "The Boy is Mine" was a top 10 airplay hit and selling well. That combination of points was too much for any airplay-only song to topple it at that time. Several of us have explained this with actual statistics in these threads. I don't know why you think your assumptions topple the actual data. Let's go through things week by week when "Iris" was #1 in airplay and "TBIM" was #1 on the Hot 100, and then the week it fell. August 1 - "Iris" #1 airplay but "TBIM" #4 airplay and #1 sales August 8 - "Iris" #1 airplay but "TBIM" #3 airplay and #2 sales August 15 - "Iris" #1 airplay and "TBIM" #2 airplay and #3 sales August 22 - "Iris" #1 airplay and "TBIM" #3 airplay and #7 sales August 29 - "Iris" #1 airplay and "TBIM" #3 airplay and #14 sales ("IDWTMAT" was #2 in airplay with 81 million impressions and it was mentioned it would have been #7 on the Hot 100 if allowed to chart so that shows you the gap) September 5 - "Iris" #1 airplay but "IDWTMAT" was #1 on Hot 100 with #2 airplay and #1 sales October 3 - I will mention this one because "IDWTMAT" took over #1 in airplay and was #14 in sales, yet it was #2 on the Hot 100. "Iris" without sales obviously was not going to #1 in this time either. Where in there are you claiming "Iris" would have been #1 on the Hot 100? That is a separate discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by phieaglesfan712 on May 13, 2022 10:29:23 GMT -5
My guess is that Iris would have taken the #1 on that final week of August. TBIM was definitely vulnerable at that point, and I Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing would have probably taken it if the single was released on time. Iris may have even challenged the week of 8/22.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 13, 2022 11:18:13 GMT -5
My guess is that Iris would have taken the #1 on that final week of August. TBIM was definitely vulnerable at that point, and I Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing would have probably taken it if the single was released on time. Iris may have even challenged the week of 8/22. For that 8/29 week I've already mentioned that "IDWTMAT" was #2 in airplay, and Billboard said it would be #7 on the Hot 100 if it could chart. That was the weakest week at #1 for "TBIM." So, you are claiming "Iris" had such a big lead on "IDWTMAT" in airplay that it could have overtaken 6 songs on the Hot 100 that had airplay and sales?! "Iris" would have needed to be ahead of "IDWTMAT" in airplay by 30 million or more impressions for that to even be within the realm of possibility. |
|
mikerivera
Platinum Member
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,782
|
Post by mikerivera on May 13, 2022 22:55:56 GMT -5
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying the numbers reported for Rhythmic and Urban radio were wrong? Audience numbers are estimates based on them using their own data/surveying, and I do think that Urban/Rhythmic numbers were likely just overinflated throughout that period. Nobody will ever know for sure, but also the fact the audience numbers for those formats completely collapsed by 2010 then never rebounded makes me think they had research data that showed they were too highly representing those formats. Songs were pulling up to 100 million+ audience from Urban/Urban AC alone in the mid 2000s, then ever since 2010 they struggle to do 30 million. I don't think they magically lost 70%~ of listeners overnight. There's also nothing to suggest people drastically not listening to radio anymore around 2010. So what caused the Urban audience AI to collapse in 2010 specifically? Is it possible the numbers were originally accurate in the 90s and had been gradually slipping throughout the 2000s (but wasn’t reflected until 2010)? |
|
mikerivera
Platinum Member
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,782
|
Post by mikerivera on May 13, 2022 23:02:01 GMT -5
Also, Iris probably could have reached #1 if it had been released as a physical single. But it wasn’t. And airplay points alone weren’t strong enough to get any song #1 spot until the turn of the millennium when physical singles officially died. Which is why none of the airplay-only 90s classics would have been #1 hits even if Billboard’s rules hadn’t excluded them. For that, blame the labels, not Billboard.
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,916 
|
Post by 85la on May 15, 2022 15:22:00 GMT -5
Also, Iris probably could have reached #1 if it had been released as a physical single. But it wasn’t. And airplay points alone weren’t strong enough to get any song #1 spot until the turn of the millennium when physical singles officially died. Which is why none of the airplay-only 90s classics would have been #1 hits even if Billboard’s rules hadn’t excluded them. For that, blame the labels, not Billboard. I tend to be more in line with this thinking. We really have to consider the question of whether it was a case of Billboard screwing over the songs, or the labels screwing over the songs? Billboard created a type of chart with specific parameters, namely that it had to be available as a purchasable physical single, hence the name of the chart back then, The Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart, so to me it seems more the fault of the labels for not making the songs eligible by releasing them as physical singles, and there was nothing stopping them from doing so. And we all pretty much know the reason why they did this, because it forced people who really wanted a copy of the song to buy the full album, from which the labels could make more money. It was a trade-off for the labels - you don't give consumers a cheaper option, at any time whatsoever during that song's initial run of popularity, of buying just that single song, you sacrifice that song's ability to chart on the main singles chart. And of course those songs were still eligible to chart on many other Billoard charts, including Hot 100 Airplay and all other genre airplay charts, so it wasn't as if they were completely excluded from receiving any mention, and of course, these songs were in no way erased from the public consciousness, as most people do not read or follow current or historical music charts in depth. Yes, I suppose it would have given a more accurate and all-encompassing picture if they had included them, but you can't really have expected Billboard to do that in the early days of the internet and when physical records was still the primary way of purchasing individual songs. And of course, they did eventually relent, when album-only hit songs became so overwhelming, and the importance of the physical single in the marketplace was drastically diminishing and eventually became completely obsolete, so it would have given a really distorted picture of song popularity if they stuck to that rule. Maybe they could have made the change a year or two earlier, but I don't fault them too much for not doing so. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 15, 2022 15:30:54 GMT -5
Also, Iris probably could have reached #1 if it had been released as a physical single. But it wasn’t. And airplay points alone weren’t strong enough to get any song #1 spot until the turn of the millennium when physical singles officially died. Which is why none of the airplay-only 90s classics would have been #1 hits even if Billboard’s rules hadn’t excluded them. For that, blame the labels, not Billboard. I tend to be more in line with this thinking. We really have to consider the question of whether it was a case of Billboard screwing over the songs, or the labels screwing over the songs? Billboard created a type of chart with specific parameters, namely that it had to be available as a purchasable physical single, hence the name of the chart back then, The Billboard Hot 100 Singles chart, so to me it seems more the fault of the labels for not making the songs eligible by releasing them as physical singles, and there was nothing stopping them from doing so. And we all pretty much know the reason why they did this, because it forced people who really wanted a copy of the song to buy the full album, from which the labels could make more money. It was a trade-off for the labels - you don't give consumers a cheaper option, at any time whatsoever during that song's initial run of popularity, of buying just that single song, you sacrifice that song's ability to chart on the main singles chart. And of course those songs were still eligible to chart on many other Billoard charts, including Hot 100 Airplay and all other genre airplay charts, so it wasn't as if they were completely excluded from receiving any mention, and of course, these songs were in no way erased from the public consciousness, as most people do not read or follow current or historical music charts in depth. Yes, I suppose it would have given a more accurate and all-encompassing picture if they had included them, but you can't really have expected Billboard to do that in the early days of the internet and when physical records was still the primary way of purchasing individual songs. And of course, they did eventually relent, when album-only hit songs became so overwhelming, and the importance of the physical single in the marketplace was drastically diminishing and eventually became completely obsolete, so it would have given a really distorted picture of song popularity if they stuck to that rule. Maybe they could have made the change a year or two earlier, but I don't fault them too much for not doing so. Labels deserve the blame 100% And really, if Billboard had allowed airplay-only songs to chart sooner, it wouldn't have made a difference in what was #1 as we've already discussed. Along with that, that rule change happening sooner probably would have just sped up the process of the physical single dying. I also maintain people would still gripe anyway; instead of complaints that many songs couldn't chart, the complaint would instead be about how songs like "Iris" and "Don't Speak" had Hot 100 peaks that didn't truly represent their popularity. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,611
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 24, 2022 21:17:44 GMT -5
Related to some of this, I just looked at the year-end Hot 100 Airplay chart for 1998 and was surprised. "Truly Madly Deeply" was #1 for the year, and "My Heart Will Go On" was down at #8 despite breaking records at its peak. "Iris" was at #4 despite so many weeks at #1, though I know it was still charting at the end of the chart year.
Mostly I'm wondering why "MHWGO" was so low. Additionally how many weeks was "TMD" #1 in airplay?
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,916
|
Post by 85la on May 25, 2022 21:08:20 GMT -5
Related to some of this, I just looked at the year-end Hot 100 Airplay chart for 1998 and was surprised. "Truly Madly Deeply" was #1 for the year, and "My Heart Will Go On" was down at #8 despite breaking records at its peak. "Iris" was at #4 despite so many weeks at #1, though I know it was still charting at the end of the chart year. Mostly I'm wondering why "MHWGO" was so low. Additionally how many weeks was "TMD" #1 in airplay? It is somewhat surprising that MHWGO was only at #8, but I guess it was just a really competitive year where the other songs just happened to have better longevity and were able to maintain overall higher numbers for more weeks near their peaks. Though MHWGO was #1 for 10 weeks and broke audience records, it might not have maintained this high level for very long and probably had a relatively quick rise and then a relatively quick fall, and it only spent 30 weeks on the chart and 17 in the top 10 that chart year, while most of the songs that ranked above it spent around 40+ weeks on the chart and at least around 20 or more in the top 10. When you look at Truly Madly Deeply's run it actually isn't too surprising it ranked #1 year-end, because it was on the chart for all 52 weeks, 29 in the top 10, and only 5 at #1 but then 14 additional weeks at #2!! (that itself must be a record for most weeks at #2 on the airplay chart!). As for Iris, for the 1998 chart year it was on the chart for 33 weeks, 25 in the top 10, and 17 at #1, thus that put it comfortably ahead of MHWGO, but not quite enough to beat TMD. In addition, since MHWGO's 30 weeks were all at the beginning of the year, I'd imagine that if you were to count all the airplay it continued to accumulate for the remaining 20 or so weeks it wasn't on the chart, it might rank a little higher on a hypothetical list of "all airplay songs accrued in a one-year period." |
|
|
|
Post by thirddegree50123 on May 26, 2022 11:44:33 GMT -5
Can those year end airplay charts be viewed somewhere? Would love to see the full list
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,916
|
Post by 85la on May 27, 2022 22:54:12 GMT -5
Can those year end airplay charts be viewed somewhere? Would love to see the full list You can view Billboard's year-end Radio Songs section on their website here (you can view all years back to 2006 by using the scroll-down at the top of the chart): www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2021/radio-songs/Before 2006, it's a bit more tedious to find, but you can go to this website (where they have tried to actually compile all issues in Billboard's existence), and you can go to each of the year-end issues and search for the lists there: worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard-Magazine.htm
Hope that helps!
|
|
|
|
Post by thirddegree50123 on May 29, 2022 17:00:09 GMT -5
Can those year end airplay charts be viewed somewhere? Would love to see the full list You can view Billboard's year-end Radio Songs section on their website here (you can view all years back to 2006 by using the scroll-down at the top of the chart): www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2021/radio-songs/Before 2006, it's a bit more tedious to find, but you can go to this website (where they have tried to actually compile all issues in Billboard's existence), and you can go to each of the year-end issues and search for the lists there: worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard-Magazine.htmHope that helps!
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
renaboss
Platinum Member
I don't want to miss a thing.
|
Post by renaboss on Mar 4, 2024 19:17:48 GMT -5
Soooooo no chance we can get 1995 and 96?
|
|
jdanton2
Diamond Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 12,515
|
Post by jdanton2 on Mar 4, 2024 19:35:16 GMT -5
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,916
|
Post by 85la on Mar 6, 2024 19:14:12 GMT -5
Soooooo no chance we can get 1995 and 96? See the previous page, where your question was already addressed. So, probably not. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2024 22:21:39 GMT -5
The fact that Iris charted at #9 in December 1998, months after its peak, when AirPlay only songs became eligible to chart shows that at the very least, it would have challenged TBIM for #1 on the Hot 100 (and very likely would have taken weeks away from it) had rule change taken place six months earlier. This is FALSE. We have already been through this, so I don't know why you keep making this same incorrect point in various threads.  |
|
