|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Dec 30, 2020 12:29:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Dec 30, 2020 12:34:51 GMT -5
^^For TWFAF, this applied: "The 1986 Year End charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly, bi- weekly and monthly charts during the eligibility period of Nov. 17, 1985 through Nov. 15, 1986. The eligibility period of the pop and country singles charts extends through Dec. 6, 1986."
For WAL, this applied: "The 1987 Year -End charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly, bi- weekly and monthly charts during the eligibility period of Nov. 15, 1986 through Nov. 14, 1987. The eligibility period of the pop and country singles charts ex- tends through Dec. 5, 1987."
|
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Dec 30, 2020 12:43:26 GMT -5
Same with "Look Away" by Chicago. #1 song of 1989. Two weeks at #1 in Dec. 1988. I read an article that said when the computer printed out the final chart for 1989, many Billboard staffers groaned/sighed out loud that Look Away was #1. This streak ended in 1990 when Wilson Phillips "Hold On" was the #1 song on 1990. That hit #1 in June 1990. Good Facebook group for the 1980's Hot 100: www.facebook.com/groups/chartgeeksFor LA: "The 1989 Year -End Charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly, biweekly, and monthly charts dur- ing the eligibility period, which is Nov. 19, 1988 through Nov. 11, 1989 for all the charts except the Hot 100 Sin- gles, Hot Country Singles charts, and the pop and country singles /albums combined artist charts. The eligibility period for those charts, and charts derived from them, was Dec. 10, 1988 through Dec. 2, 1989."
For HO: "The 1990 Year -End Charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly and biweekly charts during the eligibility period, which is Nov. 18, 1989 through Nov. 17, 1990 for all the charts."
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Dec 30, 2020 13:46:05 GMT -5
AT40 sometimes did their own year end chart during the era that Hot 100 was the source
For example: YE 1990 #1 was Nothing Compares 2 U
Hold On (Wilson Phillips) was #5
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanalbright on Dec 30, 2020 13:53:18 GMT -5
It appears as if the chart year differences were important even then.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Dec 30, 2020 14:19:11 GMT -5
Holiday Songs Make Up 80% of Streaming Songs Chart
By Kevin Rutherford
12/30/2020
Click to copy
www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9505663/holiday-songs-make-up-most-of-streaming-songs-chart/
The 40 holiday tunes mark the most in the chart’s history, breaking the record of 31 in January 2019 and January 2020. Holiday music sets a new mark on Billboard’s weekly Streaming Songs chart, with 40 seasonal titles populating the Jan. 2-dated survey. In all, 80% of the chart -- 40 of the 50 songs – are holiday tunes, breaking the mark set during the previous two holiday seasons. The Jan. 5, 2019, list boasted 31 holiday titles, equaled again on Jan. 4, 2020. The entire top 30 of the latest chart is comprised of holiday songs as well. Previously, not even the entire top 10 had been held by such titles, let alone the top 30. Mariah Carey's 'Christmas' Back Atop Hot 100, As Dean Martin, Wham! & Chuck Berry Hit Top 10 Once again, Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You” leads at No. 1 with 54.9 million U.S. streams earned in the week ending Dec. 24, according to Nielsen Music/MRC Data. It’s the song’s ninth nonconsecutive week at No. 1, first coming via the tally dated Jan. 5, 2019. The song has ruled the last four frames, starting with the Dec. 12 ranking. Eight of the holiday titles on the latest chart reach Streaming Songs for the first time, led by Dan + Shay’s “Take Me Home for Christmas” at No. 29. Bad Bunny and Jhay Cortez’s “Dakiti,” meanwhile, is the top non-seasonal tune on Streaming Songs, ranking at No. 31 with 16.7 million streams.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Dec 30, 2020 14:19:58 GMT -5
Streaming Songs ex Christmas
31 25 6 8 Dakiti, Bad Bunny & Jhay Cortez 2
33 29 13 19 Mood, 24kGoldn Featuring iann dior 1
39 33 21 19 Lemonade, Internet Money & Gunna Featuring Don Toliver & NAV 2
40 36 29 25 For The Night, Pop Smoke Featuring Lil Baby & DaBaby 2
42 4 - 2 Willow, Taylor Swift 4
43 30 14 5 Body, Megan Thee Stallion 1
45 41 34 5 Whoopty, CJ 34
46 39 11 3 On Me, Lil Baby 11
48 37 22 8 34+35, Ariana Grande 2
50 38 23 9 Positions, Ariana Grande 1
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,919 
|
Post by 85la on Dec 30, 2020 16:44:18 GMT -5
^^For TWFAF, this applied: "The 1986 Year End charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly, bi- weekly and monthly charts during the eligibility period of Nov. 17, 1985 through Nov. 15, 1986. The eligibility period of the pop and country singles charts extends through Dec. 6, 1986." For WAL, this applied: "The 1987 Year -End charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly, bi- weekly and monthly charts during the eligibility period of Nov. 15, 1986 through Nov. 14, 1987. The eligibility period of the pop and country singles charts ex- tends through Dec. 5, 1987." By "eligibility period," I wonder if they mean "chart date" or the actual tracking period. Either way, it would shave off several weeks from all these songs that were No. 1 year-end, including some weeks they were in the top ten, in which case there was no way they could have been number one UNLESS they counted the weeks they charted before the actual tracking period. I"m sure this can be confirmed by looking up the chart runs and exact dates for these songs, but I can't seem to access chart runs easily anywhere anymore. The year-end charts then were likely tabulated by songs that reached their peak during the tracking period, and then included all chart points for those songs, even if some of those points came from weeks before the tracking period. |
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Dec 30, 2020 17:03:42 GMT -5
"I don't believe it's either. The chart date used to have the caption "For the week ending". Thus, for example, the chart dated November 23, 1985, the dates covered started on November 17, 1985 and ended on the chart date. Since the Billboard Magazine had to be published and distributed, the actual tracking week involved had ended two Sundays before the chart date, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on Dec 30, 2020 17:07:45 GMT -5
^^For TWFAF, this applied: "The 1986 Year End charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly, bi- weekly and monthly charts during the eligibility period of Nov. 17, 1985 through Nov. 15, 1986. The eligibility period of the pop and country singles charts extends through Dec. 6, 1986." For WAL, this applied: "The 1987 Year -End charts were compiled by computer from Billboard's weekly, bi- weekly and monthly charts during the eligibility period of Nov. 15, 1986 through Nov. 14, 1987. The eligibility period of the pop and country singles charts ex- tends through Dec. 5, 1987." By "eligibility period," I wonder if they mean "chart date" or the actual tracking period. Either way, it would shave off several weeks from all these songs that were No. 1 year-end, including some weeks they were in the top ten, in which case there was no way they could have been number one UNLESS they counted the weeks they charted before the actual tracking period. I"m sure this can be confirmed by looking up the chart runs and exact dates for these songs, but I can't seem to access chart runs easily anywhere anymore. The year-end charts then were likely tabulated by songs that reached their peak during the tracking period, and then included all chart points for those songs, even if some of those points came from weeks before the tracking period. I wonder if this is what happened as well. There is no way all of these songs were year-end #1s while having weeks not counted. It's odd it happened so many years in a row; what was it about December/January #1s that helped them top the year-end chart? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 18:17:37 GMT -5
"I don't believe it's either. The chart date used to have the caption "For the week ending". Thus, for example, the chart dated November 23, 1985, the dates covered started on November 17, 1985 and ended on the chart date. Since the Billboard Magazine had to be published and distributed, the actual tracking week involved had ended two Sundays before the chart date, if I'm not mistaken. The eligibility period for TWFAF started on Nov 17 1985 and is the chart listed as Nov 23. Those dates align with the above mentioned eligibility period. Which means TWFAF lost two tracking weeks. It's debut at #67 and second week at #57. So it didn't lose a lot of points. It's important to remember that during this time most songs spent about 20 weeks on the chart in total. With the first few weeks climbing up the chart, so lower points. Losing 2-4 weeks on the front end wouldn't make much of a difference. |
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,919
|
Post by 85la on Dec 30, 2020 22:53:04 GMT -5
"I don't believe it's either. The chart date used to have the caption "For the week ending". Thus, for example, the chart dated November 23, 1985, the dates covered started on November 17, 1985 and ended on the chart date. Since the Billboard Magazine had to be published and distributed, the actual tracking week involved had ended two Sundays before the chart date, if I'm not mistaken. The eligibility period for TWFAF started on Nov 17 1985 and is the chart listed as Nov 23. Those dates align with the above mentioned eligibility period. Which means TWFAF lost two tracking weeks. It's debut at #67 and second week at #57. So it didn't lose a lot of points. It's important to remember that during this time most songs spent about 20 weeks on the chart in total. With the first few weeks climbing up the chart, so lower points. Losing 2-4 weeks on the front end wouldn't make much of a difference. It is incorrect that the chart date was the same as the end of the actual tracking week back then. It was as it is now, the chart is assigned to a date 2-3 weeks after the actual tracking period. The phrase "for the week ending" means "this chart is assigned to the week ending..." This is simple to find out if you look up any song or album released around the time, such as Madonna's Like a Virgin (album), which was released on Nov. 12, 1984 and debuted at #70, but assigned to the chart date of Dec. 1. And because songs spent fewer weeks on the charts, as you say about 20, losing up to 4 or more weeks could DEFINITELY make a difference, and even more so because there seemed to be a minimum points entry requirement back then where songs would typically only enter the charts in the 60s-70s range, and in addition, they used an inverse point system for the year-end in which more points would be awarded to those positions than if raw consumption data were to be used. Maybe with TWFAF it didn't make much difference, but if we look at Look Away from 1989, which reached #1 for 2 weeks starting the chart dated Dec. 10, 1988 (the tracking period which would have began in late November), and the song itself started to chart back in September, at least 8 weeks would have been shaved off (its 24 total weeks), so if you do the raw math, it simply does not add up to more than other songs that charted that year. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2020 23:48:07 GMT -5
The eligibility period for TWFAF started on Nov 17 1985 and is the chart listed as Nov 23. Those dates align with the above mentioned eligibility period. Which means TWFAF lost two tracking weeks. It's debut at #67 and second week at #57. So it didn't lose a lot of points. It's important to remember that during this time most songs spent about 20 weeks on the chart in total. With the first few weeks climbing up the chart, so lower points. Losing 2-4 weeks on the front end wouldn't make much of a difference. It is incorrect that the chart date was the same as the end of the actual tracking week back then. It was as it is now, the chart is assigned to a date 2-3 weeks after the actual tracking period. The phrase "for the week ending" means "this chart is assigned to the week ending..." This is simple to find out if you look up any song or album released around the time, such as Madonna's Like a Virgin (album), which was released on Nov. 12, 1984 and debuted at #70, but assigned to the chart date of Dec. 1. And because songs spent fewer weeks on the charts, as you say about 20, losing up to 4 or more weeks could DEFINITELY make a difference, and even more so because there seemed to be a minimum points entry requirement back then where songs would typically only enter the charts in the 60s-70s range, and in addition, they used an inverse point system for the year-end in which more points would be awarded to those positions than if raw consumption data were to be used. Maybe with TWFAF it didn't make much difference, but if we look at Look Away from 1989, which reached #1 for 2 weeks starting the chart dated Dec. 10, 1988 (the tracking period which would have began in late November), and the song itself started to chart back in September, at least 8 weeks would have been shaved off (its 24 total weeks), so if you do the raw math, it simply does not add up to more than other songs that charted that year. I never said anything about tracking week vs actual real world dates. The listed eligibility period clearly is referring to chart dates as it said the computer compiled the charts. I'll leave the specific number crunching to those much better at it than I. I will quickly note that #2 My Prerogative and #3 Every Rose has a Thorn also lost some early weeks as did a look Away. While #5 Miss You Much lost several weeks to 1990 totals. |
|
TakeMe
Charting
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 350
|
Post by TakeMe on Dec 30, 2020 23:52:54 GMT -5
Wth?
|
|
gs
Charting
Joined: October 2019
Posts: 453
|
Post by gs on Dec 31, 2020 0:01:47 GMT -5
They're buying because it was one of the members' birthday, also they know the charts are really weak. |
|
musicspy
Gold Member
Joined: August 2018
Posts: 978
|
Post by musicspy on Dec 31, 2020 5:02:26 GMT -5
Can this go to hell already? |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on Dec 31, 2020 9:06:21 GMT -5
It is incorrect that the chart date was the same as the end of the actual tracking week back then. It was as it is now, the chart is assigned to a date 2-3 weeks after the actual tracking period. The phrase "for the week ending" means "this chart is assigned to the week ending..." This is simple to find out if you look up any song or album released around the time, such as Madonna's Like a Virgin (album), which was released on Nov. 12, 1984 and debuted at #70, but assigned to the chart date of Dec. 1. And because songs spent fewer weeks on the charts, as you say about 20, losing up to 4 or more weeks could DEFINITELY make a difference, and even more so because there seemed to be a minimum points entry requirement back then where songs would typically only enter the charts in the 60s-70s range, and in addition, they used an inverse point system for the year-end in which more points would be awarded to those positions than if raw consumption data were to be used. Maybe with TWFAF it didn't make much difference, but if we look at Look Away from 1989, which reached #1 for 2 weeks starting the chart dated Dec. 10, 1988 (the tracking period which would have began in late November), and the song itself started to chart back in September, at least 8 weeks would have been shaved off (its 24 total weeks), so if you do the raw math, it simply does not add up to more than other songs that charted that year. I never said anything about tracking week vs actual real world dates. The listed eligibility period clearly is referring to chart dates as it said the computer compiled the charts. I'll leave the specific number crunching to those much better at it than I. I will quickly note that #2 My Prerogative and #3 Every Rose has a Thorn also lost some early weeks as did a look Away. While #5 Miss You Much lost several weeks to 1990 totals. There is something really odd that consistently the top songs on the year-end charts in the 80s were songs that had early parts of their run in the previous chart year. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 11:17:19 GMT -5
I never said anything about tracking week vs actual real world dates. The listed eligibility period clearly is referring to chart dates as it said the computer compiled the charts. I'll leave the specific number crunching to those much better at it than I. I will quickly note that #2 My Prerogative and #3 Every Rose has a Thorn also lost some early weeks as did a look Away. While #5 Miss You Much lost several weeks to 1990 totals. There is something really odd that consistently the top songs on the year-end charts in the 80s were songs that had early parts of their run in the previous chart year. They would have benefited from Christmas sales and year end countdowns. |
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,927
|
Post by jebsib on Dec 31, 2020 12:50:32 GMT -5
I never said anything about tracking week vs actual real world dates. The listed eligibility period clearly is referring to chart dates as it said the computer compiled the charts. I'll leave the specific number crunching to those much better at it than I. I will quickly note that #2 My Prerogative and #3 Every Rose has a Thorn also lost some early weeks as did a look Away. While #5 Miss You Much lost several weeks to 1990 totals. There is something really odd that consistently the top songs on the year-end charts in the 80s were songs that had early parts of their run in the previous chart year. Back then there was something particularly powerful about the points attributed to songs affected by that annual Frozen Week. This only seemed to be a factor in the later 80s (1985 - 1989) Also because Radio Stations and Retail Stores essentially 'closed shop' at the end of the year, the chart moved super slow during that month anyway, giving those frozen hits even more chart gravity than if they were hits in say - the middle of summer. BTW, as sales were not based on actual purchases (rather, just ranked lists), and airplay was not based on actual radio play, the post Christmas buying frenzy and year end countdowns would not affect chart points. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on Dec 31, 2020 14:18:22 GMT -5
There is something really odd that consistently the top songs on the year-end charts in the 80s were songs that had early parts of their run in the previous chart year. They would have benefited from Christmas sales and year end countdowns. I thought the year-end charts at that point were tabulated via points for chart placement; they didn't have chart points like we do now because actual sales and airplay stats didn't exist. To that end being #1 during Christmas didn't count more or less than being #1 in a dead month. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 15:02:22 GMT -5
There is something really odd that consistently the top songs on the year-end charts in the 80s were songs that had early parts of their run in the previous chart year. Back then there was something particularly powerful about the points attributed to songs affected by that annual Frozen Week. This only seemed to be a factor in the later 80s (1985 - 1989) Also because Radio Stations and Retail Stores essentially 'closed shop' at the end of the year, the chart moved super slow during that month anyway, giving those frozen hits even more chart gravity than if they were hits in say - the middle of summer. BTW, as sales were not based on actual purchases (rather, just ranked lists), and airplay was not based on actual radio play, the post Christmas buying frenzy and year end countdowns would not affect chart points. It would affect chart points in the sense you alluded to. The bigger songs would receive more sales and more AirPlay, therefore keeping them higher on the charts for longer and those gaining more points. You were much more likely to get w top hit as a gift than a song hovering around #100. i should have been a bit clearer when I simply said sales and AirPlay but it was late! i also think during that time period songs were much closer together rather than run away songs. They all spent low weeks at #1. under 10 weeks in the top ten, And low 20 some weeks overall on the chart. A lot of consistency. A song doing something different than the overwhelming norm would pull ahead. |
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,927
|
Post by jebsib on Dec 31, 2020 16:25:34 GMT -5
Agreed. It is also very hard to explain this NOW, but there was real excitement with that consistency.
When a milestone was hit, it felt impactful & emotional, not just a ho-hum "anything can happen" experience.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 16:55:35 GMT -5
They would have benefited from Christmas sales and year end countdowns. I thought the year-end charts at that point were tabulated via points for chart placement; they didn't have chart points like we do now because actual sales and airplay stats didn't exist. To that end being #1 during Christmas didn't count more or less than being #1 in a dead month. I went digging to find the post by RockGod about top 100 by year peaked. So the totals listed on this page would need to be adjusted for year overlap. But it does look quite legitimate on a fast look, that Look Away did have the most points after adjusting. pulsemusic.proboards.com/thread/179723/last-complete-1985-2017-charts?page=4 |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2020 16:59:21 GMT -5
Agreed. It is also very hard to explain this NOW, but there was real excitement with that consistency. When a milestone was hit, it felt impactful & emotional, not just a ho-hum "anything can happen" experience. Yes. Well said! seems nowadays every week has new records broken. It's just so overwhelming and lost in a sea. I don't even try to remember the records now knowing full well it will just change very soon anyway. I do like reading what the new ones are though. |
|
