Billboard Hot 100: 09/02/2023

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

[woods]

More like mid week.

[musiclife]

Omg Doja

[1^∞]

Is RMNOR gonna take next week as well, or is it a sales thing similar to how TTIAST almost spent 2 weeks at #1 then fell down, RMNOR has more streaming but with less sales I don’t think it’s keeping at #1

[jenglisbe]

Aug 23, 2023 11:08:31 GMT -5 Gary said:

So I apologize for not being claer in my intent - not trying to argue - since the song was reported that way in 1985 - why?  Wrong by today's stanadards - but  was in wrong on 1985 goven what was in place at the time? 

 By todays rules - sure. I AGREE, by todays standards, makes no sense. I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID.

But what I am trying to communicate here is that more research is needed to figure out why it was actually reported that way?
Why did the song chart that way even with the information at the time? Yes Billboard reported that it was the fastest selling single but only listed it at #22 - I AGREE, MAKES NO SENSE
Was it an error? Based on rules at the time and the fact it was never corrected _ I Do not know

I don't have time to do it myself but if someone cared to research the rules in place at the time, you might have the answer as to why it charted that way in the magazine.

If I remember right the tracking weeks for sales and airplay relative to the chart dates had a bit of a lag(bigger than today even), which might explain some of it

Weren't the sales charts at the time based on store reports? As in, stored submitted their lists of the top selling singles and Billboard tabulated its chart based on that. Once Soundscan came around, we found out stores weren't necessarily accurate with their rankings. With Soundscan we all of a sudden started seeing albums frequently debut at #1, whereas in the past it was a rare thing. That shows that stores weren't reporting initial sales accurately, which I am sure also applied to "We Are the World."

Aug 23, 2023 11:45:28 GMT -5 1^∞ said:

Is RMNOR gonna take next week as well, or is it a sales thing similar to how TTIAST almost spent 2 weeks at #1 then fell down, RMNOR has more streaming but with less sales I don’t think it’s keeping at #1

"TTIAST" had two solid weeks of sales in terms of the chart weeks, but I think it was really just 1 week of solid sales in a real sense. Didn't the controversy happen in the middle of a chart week, so it had a few good days of sales in one chart week and then a few good days of sales in the next one? This Oliver Anthony song seems to be holding on much better in general.

[iHype.]

Aug 23, 2023 11:08:31 GMT -5 Gary said:

Why did the song chart that way even with the information at the time? Yes Billboard reported that it was the fastest selling single but only listed it at #22 - I AGREE, MAKES NO SENSE

Hence… there was likely a limit on points that could be gained in a week. 😭

You’re now pretending you are interested in an explanation and agree it makes no sense, but originally rejected the idea and tried to re-state what Billboard said the chart was based on without any deeper thought.

It’s the same reason why essentially every single song that ever charted during those times also would reach a peak, no longer get a bullet, then immediately plummet after with no chances of resurrection (except the very few rare exceptions).

Pretty obvious when every single song is limited to the same chart run that there is some created limitations by Billboard on how a song can move week to week.

[Gary]

Aug 23, 2023 11:48:45 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Aug 23, 2023 11:08:31 GMT -5 Gary said:

Why did the song chart that way even with the information at the time? Yes Billboard reported that it was the fastest selling single but only listed it at #22 - I AGREE, MAKES NO SENSE

Hence… there was likely a limit on points that could be gained in a week. 😭

You’re now pretending you are interested in an explanation and agree it makes no sense, but originally rejected the idea and tried to re-state what Billboard said the chart was based on without any deeper thought.

It’s the same reason why essentially every single song that ever charted during those times also would reach a peak, no longer get a bullet, then immediately plummet after with no chances of resurrection (except the very few rare exceptions).

Pretty obvious when every single song is limited to the same chart run that there is some created limitations by Billboard on how a song can move week to week.

Speculation. Is not something I am interested in

I was interested if someone were to read through the magazines and figure out things like tracking weeks and accuracy and timing in store reports among other things

This could lead to a better understanding about how the charts were reported in 1985

Until then. Nothing further to add

[badrobot]

Aug 23, 2023 10:47:48 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Aug 23, 2023 10:36:54 GMT -5 Gary said:

I am applying logical thinking

What were the chart rules in place during 1985?
What technology was in place? How accurate were the store reports?

That would get you the answer as to why Billboard charted the song that way


With current technology and current reporting rules and current chart rules --- I agree with everything you said but...I don't think you can apply that logic to 1985

Again, it was the fastest selling single in history at the time. It was obviously selling out everywhere and anywhere from the first day it went on sale.

I'm not sure why store reporters would just purposely lie and place it low first week. Especially when the entire music industry, press, and world was aware of how huge the song was on release.

The most logical thing for that #22 debut on Sales comes down to Billboard having some maximum on points gained in a week.

It makes more sense when you realize... practically every hit in the 80s had very similar chart runs. Hundreds of songs for years straight, always gaining the first few weeks, peaking and eventually not getting a bullet, then plummeting.

For 99.9% of singles released to have the same exact movement for years and years straight, Billboard obviously had some constraints on the way songs could move during a week-to-week basis. Most likely to prevent obvious fraud and to give the charts some type of credibility in reporting with limited technology.

So, let's go back to 1985.

There is no internet. Articles written about a song's sales aren't seen for likely a week or longer, and that's only if people are actively seeking out Billboard and similar industry magazines and reading them. If something is super notable, it's possible some TV news broadcasts might cover a story about how popular a new song like WATW is, but I have no idea if they actually did, or how long after the single came out they may have reported it. There is no widespread immediate awareness of the song's success, that takes a little time.

The single is arriving in stores as soon as shipments are availble. Some places, likely metropolitan areas, get shipments sooner because deliveries are faster to those locations.

So let's describe a possible scenario of what happened.

Week 1 --
Some stores have the single (probably the bigger, metropolitan ones), and it's selling enormously well. Many of them list the song as being at #1 right away.
Other stores, even those who have the single and are selling well, might view reporting to Billboard as telling them *last* week's sales, so they don't list it at all or list it lower than #1 because they haven't had the song for a full week (but then list at #1 the next week).
Other stores don't even have the single yet, so they don't list it at all either.
At this point, it could easily be the actual top selling single of the week but show up much lower on the list, because there's only been partial sales days at some stores, and the rankings don't reflect total volume at those stores with it at #1.

Week 2 --
Most stores have received shipments, but maybe some stores sold out immediately and don't have new stock yet and thus don't list at #1 because they ran out of copies.
Other stores are listing it at #1, but maybe some of those more remote stores are still listing lower numbers because they haven't gotten a full week's worth of sales or they're on a delay with how they report.
Here the song would definitely climb, but might not show up at #1 just yet.

Week 3 --
By now, every store has it, news about its runaway success is likely well known and widespread, and presumably stock is starting to catch up with demand.


Something like this is *a lot* more likely than some nefarious Billboard plan to deliberately lower the sales reports or put a maximum on how many points a song could have. There's no incentive for them to do such a thing anyway -- them being able to report record-breaking numbers is much more exciting news that would benefit them anyway!

Y'all are applying 21st century thinking to 20th century reality. Things just did not happen as fast back then.

I remember being on a Madonna email list in the mid-1990s. Some other folks here were also on it. We were able to get high-level numbers like Hot 100 positions relatively quickly, but if we wanted any more information, like sales numbers or airplay positions, you know how we got that info? Someone on the mailing list would go to a bookstore and find a copy of Billboard once it was finally available, and write down all the positions after looking through the magazine, then write all the info up in an email. We might get the airplay position for a song 2 weeks after we knew its Hot 100 position. And that was WITH early internet/email. Reporting information took awhile.

Similarly, I worked in a record store in 1998/1999. I remember the week Britney Spears' first album came out. Our store had a "Top 20" albums section and the corporate team had decided Britney should be at #18. If Billboard had still been calling stores for manual reports at that point, whoever picked up the phone would've told them it was the #18 selling album. In reality, it was the #1 album of the week. But because the store didn't anticipate that, they hadn't listed it as such for the first week.

The idea of a song being instantly recognizable nationally as a massive hit within a day or week of it coming out is just wildly unrealistic in the pre-internet era.

[explicit]

Aug 23, 2023 12:03:11 GMT -5 badrobot said:

Aug 23, 2023 10:47:48 GMT -5 iHype. said:

The idea of a song being instantly recognizable nationally as a massive hit within a day or week of it coming out is just wildly unrealistic in the pre-internet era.

THIS!!!!

[85la]

Interesting explanation badrobot, and that does provide some further insight, however WATW was an exceptional release from that time in that it did get unprecedented media coverage and was widely hyped from the get-go, likely from a wide variety of sources, including radio, tv, print, billboards, etc. It would've had to have been, as it was clearly reported to sell near or over a million copies it's first week - that is pretty factual. So while some stores might not have received it or ranked it as highly that first week, clearly many stores would have, including the larger market stores as you mentioned, which I would assume Billboard would ordinarily give more weight to anyway, so I still don't see how a 1 million plus sales week would translate to only a #22 ranking in sales, so I think iHype's point still stands that it must've been artificially capped, the reasons for which they gave and aren't necessarily "nefarious," including to give some sense of chart integrity and proper week-to-week movement and to prevent fraud.

[wavey.]

Omg Chart conversation 🥰

[Gary]

One important point: Sales numbers were never available in the 80s. Artificial capping of sales would only occur if there was something to cap.

[jenglisbe]

Aug 23, 2023 13:10:25 GMT -5 85la said:

Interesting explanation badrobot, and that does provide some further insight, however WATW was an exceptional release from that time in that it did get unprecedented media coverage and was widely hyped from the get-go, likely from a wide variety of sources, including radio, tv, print, billboards, etc. It would've had to have been, as it was clearly reported to sell near or over a million copies it's first week - that is pretty factual. So while some stores might not have received it or ranked it as highly that first week, clearly many stores would have, including the larger market stores as you mentioned, which Billboard ordinarily would've given more weight to anyway, so I still don't see how a 1 million plus sales week would translate to only a #22 ranking in sales, so I think iHype's point still stands that it must've been artificially capped.

What was a normal sales debut position for the first week a song was released at that time, though? I don't mean a normal debut position, I mean the lag time between physical sales release and the song debuting on the Sales chart. It's at least possible that #22 debut was actually a really fast and high sales debut for a song in its first week of commercial release (possible in that I have no idea what was typical).

"We Are the World" debuted at #22 on the Sales chart and then rose to #5 in its second week. It was also its second week on the Hot 100. That same week Madonna's "Crazy For You" rose 29-14 on the Sales chart. That was its 5th week on the Hot 100. So, you can see from there that "WATW" was debuting and rising on Sales much quicker than a big song from a big artist at that same time. I know that isn't a perfect parallel for many reasons, but even if the Sales positions were behind what was really happening, I think its Sales positions were also potentially being reflected quickly in comparison to other songs at the same time.

[Groovy]

[badrobot]

Aug 23, 2023 13:10:25 GMT -5 85la said:

Interesting explanation badrobot, and that does provide some further insight, however WATW was an exceptional release from that time in that it did get unprecedented media coverage and was widely hyped from the get-go, likely from a wide variety of sources, including radio, tv, print, billboards, etc. It would've had to have been, as it was clearly reported to sell near or over a million copies it's first week - that is pretty factual. So while some stores might not have received it or ranked it as highly that first week, clearly many stores would have, including the larger market stores as you mentioned, which I would assume Billboard would ordinarily give more weight to anyway, so I still don't see how a 1 million plus sales week would translate to only a #22 ranking in sales, so I think iHype's point still stands that it must've been artificially capped, the reasons for which they gave and aren't necessarily "nefarious," including to give some sense of chart integrity and proper week-to-week movement and to prevent fraud.

To be clear, I was just listing a possible scenario. I don’t know if that’s how it played out.

But also, the “artificial cap” may just be that they may have used points based on position. So, let’s say for the purpose of simplification, there are 5 stores total, each reporting a top ten, where #1 gets 100 points, #2 90 points, etc. A song could sell a million copies at 3 stores and be #1 at all of them, but not on the other 2 stores’ lists. Even if #2 is only selling 1000 copies, if a song is #2 at all 5 stores, it’s going to have a lot more points (450 vs 300).

Again, I don’t know the specifics of how it worked. But I think the answer to the relatively slow start compared to today is much more about the slower speed of physical shipments, less reliable reporting, and chart formulas that weren’t based on actual sales numbers.

[Gary]

What about delayed tracking week? Sales for one week counts for a different one - etc.  Also...

An article could be posted the second a song comes out about how much of a smash it is.

It is a different deal about retail reports, which were often taken over the phone or faxed. Getting those compiled and incorporated would take some time.

[jenglisbe]

Aug 22, 2023 18:28:57 GMT -5 lazer said:

Apparently Oliver Anthony is getting backlash from the right on Twitter for saying America is a melting pot.

This is what he said:

I'm interested to see if there is actual backlash, or more so if it's something that affects how the song is doing.

[iHype.]

Aug 23, 2023 13:10:25 GMT -5 85la said:

Interesting explanation badrobot, and that does provide some further insight, however WATW was an exceptional release from that time in that it did get unprecedented media coverage and was widely hyped from the get-go, likely from a wide variety of sources, including radio, tv, print, billboards, etc. It would've had to have been, as it was clearly reported to sell near or over a million copies it's first week - that is pretty factual. So while some stores might not have received it or ranked it as highly that first week, clearly many stores would have, including the larger market stores as you mentioned, which I would assume Billboard would ordinarily give more weight to anyway, so I still don't see how a 1 million plus sales week would translate to only a #22 ranking in sales, so I think iHype's point still stands that it must've been artificially capped, the reasons for which they gave and aren't necessarily "nefarious," including to give some sense of chart integrity and proper week-to-week movement and to prevent fraud.

Like view it this way....

The #1 songs on Hot 100 (and Sales) in that period would barely reach 500K total. A few of the monster hits of the year would get to 1 million. That is it. This means any week on average, the #1 selling song was probably more than likely not touching 100K.  That is the #1 song on Sales. Now imagine the #21 song on Sales? Probably barely even scraping 10K weekly. 

Again, "We Are The World" sold over 1 million first day alone and yet debuted #22 on Sales. It doesn't matter how many days of sales it had the first tracking week; 1 or a full 7 days of sales -- the first week figure would still be over 1 million.

There is no way a song that was selling well over 1 million in a week would somehow appear on less Sales reports, and be ranked lower on majority than a song selling 10K. Mathematically, there is just no way the sales can be dispersed in any manner to where 10K would be reflected higher than 1 million amongst samples for dozens of different cities and top chains.

Please be very logical and for real to the people who are actually thinking this....

Every hit song having the same type of chart run during the 80s pretty much is enough indication that Billboard clearly had limitations on week-to-week movements, and then an absolute behemoth outlier like "We Are the World" pretty much still being restricted to having the same type of chart run and also taking over a month to peak #1 confirms it.  

[wavey.]

Wait so that guy is just faking it?

[jenglisbe]

Aug 23, 2023 14:37:40 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Aug 23, 2023 13:10:25 GMT -5 85la said:

Interesting explanation badrobot, and that does provide some further insight, however WATW was an exceptional release from that time in that it did get unprecedented media coverage and was widely hyped from the get-go, likely from a wide variety of sources, including radio, tv, print, billboards, etc. It would've had to have been, as it was clearly reported to sell near or over a million copies it's first week - that is pretty factual. So while some stores might not have received it or ranked it as highly that first week, clearly many stores would have, including the larger market stores as you mentioned, which I would assume Billboard would ordinarily give more weight to anyway, so I still don't see how a 1 million plus sales week would translate to only a #22 ranking in sales, so I think iHype's point still stands that it must've been artificially capped, the reasons for which they gave and aren't necessarily "nefarious," including to give some sense of chart integrity and proper week-to-week movement and to prevent fraud.

Like view it this way....

The #1 songs on Hot 100 (and Sales) in that period would barely reach 500K total. A few of the monster hits of the year would get to 1 million. That is it. This means any week on average, the #1 selling song was probably more than likely not touching 100K.  That is the #1 song on Sales. Now imagine the #21 song on Sales? Probably barely even scraping 10K weekly. 

Again, "We Are The World" sold over 1 million first day alone and yet debuted #22 on Sales. It doesn't matter how many days of sales it had the first tracking week; 1 or a full 7 days of sales -- the first week figure would still be over 1 million.

There is no way a song that was selling well over 1 million in a week would somehow appear on less Sales reports, and be ranked lower on majority than a song selling 10K. Mathematically, there is just no way the sales can be dispersed in any manner to where 10K would be reflected higher than 1 million amongst samples for dozens of different cities and top chains.

Please be very logical and for real to the people who are actually thinking this....

Every hit song having the same type of chart run during the 80s pretty much is enough indication that Billboard clearly had limitations on week-to-week movements, and then an absolute behemoth outlier like "We Are the World" pretty much still being restricted to having the same type of chart run and also taking over a month to peak #1 confirms it.  

Even if it was still a little behind reality in how quickly it rose, "We Are the World" did move up the Hot 100 faster than any other song at the time. Here is how long it took the songs that hit #1 in the first half of 1985 to get there:

"Like A Virgin" - hit #1 in week 7
"I Want to Know What Love Is" - hit #1 in week 9
"Careless Whisper" - hit #1 in week 9
"Can't Fight This Feeling" - hit #1 in week 8
"One More Night" - hit #1 in week 8
"We Are the World" - hit #1 in week 4
"Crazy For You" - hit #1 in week 11
"Don't You Forget About Me" - hit #1 in week 13
"Everything She Wants" - hit #1 in week 10
"Everybody Wants to Rule the World" - hit #1 in week 13
"Heaven" - hit #1 in week 10

So, "WATW" hit #1 much faster than any other song that year. It also hit #1 about 2 months faster than the two #1s that came right after it.

[KeepDeanWeird]

Pre-Soundscan, there was rampant chart manipulation by labels/promoters. I recently met a guy who owned a record store in the 80s. He's told me many stories, but the one that stuck with me: a major label was desperately trying to get a solo artist's debut to #1. The reps offered many 'perks,' including redistributing unsold inventory of that album to small-town stores, if his shop would list the album as #1 its weekly report to Billboard, despite the fact that it was being outsold by a 4:1 margin (John Cougar's 'American Fool') at the store. He did because it was a huge financial windfall for his store. He had the 'receipts' if Cougar's team challenged him.

[shadowthehedgehogfan]

didn't like a prayer reach #1 really fast too? like 5th week?

[jenglisbe]

Aug 23, 2023 17:08:21 GMT -5 shadowthehedgehogfan said:

didn't like a prayer reach #1 really fast too? like 5th week?

It hit #1 in week 6. "Right Here Waiting" and "Miss You Much" also hit #1 in their 6th week that same chart year. They all tied for fasted climb of 1989.

[shadowthehedgehogfan]

what were the fastest climbs of each year from 1980-1995?

ik Rush Rush peaked it's 6th week at least

[jenglisbe]

Aug 23, 2023 17:23:17 GMT -5 shadowthehedgehogfan said:

what were the fastest climbs of each year from 1980-1995?

ik Rush Rush peaked it's 6th week at least

I don't know about all of those years, but here are some:

1984 - "When Doves Cry" and "Like A Virgin" on week 6
1985 - "We are the World" on week 4
1989 - 3 songs on week 6
1991 - "Black or White" on week 3
1995 - This one of course had 4 songs debut at #1

[somelikeitwhen]

Aug 23, 2023 14:23:28 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Aug 22, 2023 18:28:57 GMT -5 lazer said:

Apparently Oliver Anthony is getting backlash from the right on Twitter for saying America is a melting pot.

This is what he said:

I'm interested to see if there is actual backlash, or more so if it's something that affects how the song is doing.

also "oliver anthony billy bragg" was trending the other day, no idea what that's about

[kcdawg13]

I'm gonna be honest this year has been really mid for hit music, like there's been good hits but most of the good ones are from years ago. Sure Thing, Bloody Mary, Die For You, Cruel Summer, etc.

Kill Bill is basically the only really good song of the big hits this year, the rest are so meh; Last Night, Calm Down, Creepin, Flowers, all a bunch of mid. I don't think anyone is gonna remember half of these songs in 2 years, they are just background noise. Which is crazy to think about because almost every year for a while now we've had a defining hit song, even mid ass 2022 still had "As It Was" which I don't like but it's still an enduring song that people will remember. Despite having 16 weeks at #1, I don't think anyone is gonna really care about "Last Night" in the future.

I know it's been said again and again all year but man looking at the Top 10 every week is depressing, especially with these Republican songs stinking up the #1 spot every other week. 2023 feels like an in between year for trends, like 1991 or 1980, we are basically in a waiting period for something like Nirvana or Lorde to sweep away all the old boring shit and give us something different.

[Gary]

Aug 23, 2023 17:32:18 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Aug 23, 2023 17:23:17 GMT -5 shadowthehedgehogfan said:

what were the fastest climbs of each year from 1980-1995?

ik Rush Rush peaked it's 6th week at least

I don't know about all of those years, but here are some:

1984 - "When Doves Cry" and "Like A Virgin" on week 6
1985 - "We are the World" on week 4
1989 - 3 songs on week 6
1991 - "Black or White" on week 3
1995 - This one of course had 4 songs debut at #1

1980 Lady, Kenny Rogers 7
1981 Endless Love, Diana Ross,Lionel Richie 6
1982 Ebony And Ivory, Paul McCartney,Stevie Wonder 6
1983 Every Breath You Take, The Police 6
1984 Like A Virgin, Madonna 6
When Doves Cry, Prince And The Revolution 6

1985 We Are The World, USA For Africa 4
1986 Amanda, Boston 7

1987 Lean On Me, Club Nouveau 6
Bad, Michael Jackson 6

1988 One More Try, George Michael 7
Father Figure, George Michael 7

1989 Like A Prayer, Madonna 6
Miss You Much, Janet Jackson 6
Right Here Waiting, Richard Marx 6

1990 Vogue, Madonna 6
Step By Step, New Kids On The Block 6
Nothing Compares 2 U, Sinead O Connor 6

1991 Black Or White, Michael Jackson 3
1992 I Will Always Love You (From "The Bodyguard"), Whitney Houston 3
1993 That's The Way Love Goes, Janet Jackson 3
1994 I'll Make Love To You, Boyz II Men 3

[shadowthehedgehogfan]

yep those 4 were the ones i expected. what was the longest climb before amazed? Aside from red red wine

[Deleted]

So the new group of dominant pop girls are Doja, Billie, Olivia, and Dua