|
|
Post by Private Dancer on Aug 4, 2020 0:00:24 GMT -5
In the 80s how was the hot 100 airplay ranked was it based of audience impressions like it is today?
And how was the Mainstream top 40/CHR Pop ranked? Was it based of spins like today?
Someone please explain because I'm confused
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Aug 4, 2020 8:22:38 GMT -5
In the 80s, airplay was not based on audience impressions. That didn't happen on a chart until 1990, and didn't affect the Hot 100 until the tail end of 1991.
Back then, all the top 40 stations in the US gave their playlists to Billboard, who would tally them up and give each song a point total.
Hot 100 Airplay (and thus the airplay component of the Hot 100) ranks were based on those points.
However, during the last few years, those airplay ranks WERE affected by how many people listened to a station, so while it wasn't impressions per se, the stations were divided up by Gold, Slver and Bronze designations (NYC was Gold, a small rural station would be Bronze). Gold points had more weight.
The Mainstream top 40/CHR chart didn't start until 1992. Before then there was Hot 100 AirPlay, which was basically CHR. Prior to 1990, it followed the above formula.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,875
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Aug 4, 2020 8:30:10 GMT -5
If you're looking for a bigger picture of airplay at top 40 radio, Radio & Records would be the best source. It started in late 1973 and ceased in 2009. It used Mediabase for a time in the 2000s before VNU (Billboard's parent company) bought it in 2006. From August 2006-June 2009, the R&R chart was the same as Billboard's Mainstream Top 40 chart. From 20009-on, one could look at Mediabase's Top 40 chart or Billboard's Mainstream Top 40.
Billboard's Mainstream Top 40 chat, for a number of years, wasn't the best source, as the panel included was not as large as it could be (many smaller-)market stations were not monitored by BDS, and were included on the Hot 100 via the old method of airplay reporting).
|
|
|
|
Post by Private Dancer on Aug 4, 2020 11:23:14 GMT -5
Thank y'all very much. I think I got ths picture now. It all makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Aug 4, 2020 12:38:13 GMT -5
^Also, Billboard used to publish airplay charts for different radio stations tiered according to their weekly audience: platinum 1 million or more weekly audience, gold 500k to less than a million weekly audience and silver 250-500k weekly audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Private Dancer on Aug 4, 2020 15:07:42 GMT -5
Where can I find this. I'm trying to see did a certain song in the 80s have high audience impressions. Where can I find the gold, platinum, and silver stats stats?
|
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Aug 4, 2020 15:40:49 GMT -5
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,954 
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Aug 4, 2020 15:57:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Aug 4, 2020 15:59:54 GMT -5
^I wasn't aware that existed. Thanks!
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,875
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Aug 4, 2020 18:55:20 GMT -5
brocka- audience impressions were not listed for songs in the '80s. Rather, Billboard printed select stations' ranked playlists.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,937
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Aug 4, 2020 19:05:04 GMT -5
In a more just world, I would love to be an analyst on a Music Data Warehouse not owned by Nielsen.
We would cross-reference census data and real-time airplay broadcasts to calculate audience impressions and compare our back-calculated charts to what was published by Billboard and R&R.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Aug 4, 2020 21:25:24 GMT -5
If the 80s charts used monitored impression based airplay, there would have been far fewer #1 songs and far fewer hits as the cycle of releases would slow. Typically a new song by one act would come out every 12 weeks. None of this 35 weeks in the top 10 snooze-fest.
|
|
Michael1973
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,543
|
Post by Michael1973 on Aug 7, 2020 9:13:41 GMT -5
It seems to be widely accepted nowadays that the radio playlists that were submitted in the 1980s were not very accurate. In a bit of irony, that's what made the charts more fun to follow. It's why songs were typically gone from the top 40 six weeks after hitting #1, and why you'd occasionally hear a song hit the top 20 nationally even though you never heard it on the radio.
I always found it somewhat amusing that the more accurate the ranking methods became, the less interesting the charts were to follow each week.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Aug 7, 2020 14:54:08 GMT -5
Honestly, true they weren't 100% precise, but they weren't as bad as you imagine.
At least a #8 hit FELT like a number 8 song, as opposed to the '90s when huge songs that you heard everywhere might only reach #25.
Or dare I say today when a #1 song… is off the charts in 4 weeks??
The 1970s were REALLY filled with inaccuracies and downright corruption. That period in 1974 when 2 songs in a row fell from #1 to #12...
Then a week or so later 2 songs in a row fell from #1 to 15?
Or when a John Lennon song was plummeting fast down the charts but suddenly froze in place for one week so that all 4 of the Beatles could simultaneously be in the top 40 hits for a Casey Kasem story?
Yeah, right!
|
|
|
|
Post by Private Dancer on Aug 7, 2020 16:07:45 GMT -5
Honestly, true they weren't 100% precise, but they weren't as bad as you imagine. At least a #8 hit FELT like a number 8 song, as opposed to the '90s when huge songs that you heard everywhere might only reach #25. Or dare I say today when a #1 song… is off the charts in 4 weeks?? The 1970s were REALLY filled with inaccuracies and downright corruption. That period in 1974 when 2 songs in a row fell from #1 to #12... Then a week or so later 2 songs in a row fell from #1 to 15? Or when a John Lennon song was plummeting fast down the charts but suddenly froze in place for one week so that all 4 of the Beatles could simultaneously be in the top 40 hits for a Casey Kasem story? Yeah, right! Also today whenever songs debut high on the charts the radio airplay is very low. The charts had to be inaccurate because ain't no way a song spending 2 weeks a #2 could be 1 for 10 weeks *cough cough* "Physical" |
|
Michael1973
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,543
|
Post by Michael1973 on Aug 9, 2020 21:38:39 GMT -5
Honestly, true they weren't 100% precise, but they weren't as bad as you imagine. At least a #8 hit FELT like a number 8 song, as opposed to the '90s when huge songs that you heard everywhere might only reach #25. Or dare I say today when a #1 song… is off the charts in 4 weeks?? #1 songs fall off fast now for different reasons than they did in the 1980s. Nowadays its because any flash-in-the-pan song can chart for a week or two and be gone as soon as people move on to the next fad. I like your comment that (paraphrased) a top ten song felt like a top 10 song in the old days. The music charts pre-Soundscan may not have been the most accurate, but if you listened to radio regularly they made a lot of sense. That went out the window fast by the late 1990s and doesn't exist today unless you count airplay-only charts. |
|
|
|
Post by Private Dancer on Aug 10, 2020 0:51:53 GMT -5
Honestly, true they weren't 100% precise, but they weren't as bad as you imagine. At least a #8 hit FELT like a number 8 song, as opposed to the '90s when huge songs that you heard everywhere might only reach #25. Or dare I say today when a #1 song… is off the charts in 4 weeks?? #1 songs fall off fast now for different reasons than they did in the 1980s. Nowadays its because any flash-in-the-pan song can chart for a week or two and be gone as soon as people move on to the next fad. I like your comment that (paraphrased) a top ten song felt like a top 10 song in the old days. The music charts pre-Soundscan may not have been the most accurate, but if you listened to radio regularly they made a lot of sense. That went out the window fast by the late 1990s and doesn't exist today unless you count airplay-only charts. Even in the 2000s and early 2010s looking at those radio charts, songs on the radio at the time felt like their peak on the radio charts. It started around 2014 when songs didnt feel like their peaks. |
|
