Peaks Vs. Weeks!

[radiorules]

This will make an interesting topic

What do you prefer more, peaks or weeks? I see a lot of people here who determine huge hits based on weeks, and i disagree with that. In my opinion, peaks are a lot more important than weeks. A song that spent 10 weeks at #1 but only 20 weeks in the top 40 is a bigger hit than a song that peaked at #2 but spent 30 weeks in the top 40. Why is this? Well lets use two songs as examples

Celine Dion "My Heart Will Go On": #1(9 weeks) 20 weeks
Vertical Horizon "Everything You Want": #2, 37 weeks on.

By the general public, which song do you think they would say was the most played song ever? The correct answer would be MHWGO. Many people would tell you that that song had to be the most overplayed song of the 1990's, even though it wasn't. Why do people think this? That's because the song was played to death when it was at it's peak and that's what matters the most. No one cares about a song 35 weeks after it's release, they care about how it's recieved when it's released and when it's at it's peak. Thus, this is the reason why MHWGO should be considered a bigger hit.

[Deleted]

I think it's definitely a combination. If a song jumps to #4 on the Hot 100, but only spends 5 weeks on, that looks like a flop to me.

Then again, you may have something that peaks at #70 with 15 weeks on.

I'd definitely say that the latter was the bigger hit.

[jimmy74747]

Depends on the songs being compared. In the above scenario, "My Heart Will Go On" is by far the more popular song. Its known by everyone, and has sold a ton of albums.

However, look at Amanda Perez' "Angel", which peaked at #3 versus John Mayer's "No Such Thing". John Mayer's song is the more popular song, and caused a bigger uproar with the general public.

You have to look at more than chart position to see what songs is more popular.

[af18c]

I'd say weeks. Because a song can shoot to number one and stay there for 3 weeks and tumble..but a song can peak at 3 and still accumulate more points on year end charts...example...

My Top 100 of 2002 #1 was Michelle Branch's "All You Wanted". She was at #2 for like 8 or 9 weeks and spent like 23 weeks on the chart.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I want to stress Jimmy's quote: "You have to look at more than chart position to see what songs is more popular." And especially want to relay that quote to radiorules.

[jond7699]

I definitely think it is a combination of the two. "Loverboy" was a disappointment eventhough it peaked at #2. Because it had a short run backed by no airplay and an incredibly cheap single price. If it would've had the airplay it would've stayed around longer and been consider a hit i suppose.

[Ragin]

radiorules said:

This will make an interesting topic

What do you prefer more, peaks or weeks? I see a lot of people here who determine huge hits based on weeks, and i disagree with that. In my opinion, peaks are a lot more important than weeks. A song that spent 10 weeks at #1 but only 20 weeks in the top 40 is a bigger hit than a song that peaked at #2 but spent 30 weeks in the top 40. Why is this? Well lets use two songs as examples

Celine Dion "My Heart Will Go On": #1(9 weeks) 20 weeks
Vertical Horizon "Everything You Want": #2, 37 weeks on.

By the general public, which song do you think they would say was the most played song ever? The correct answer would be MHWGO. Many people would tell you that that song had to be the most overplayed song of the 1990's, even though it wasn't. Why do people think this? That's because the song was played to death when it was at it's peak and that's what matters the most. No one cares about a song 35 weeks after it's release, they care about how it's recieved when it's released and when it's at it's peak. Thus, this is the reason why MHWGO should be considered a bigger hit.

I disagreed with you on a previous topic about this, and I still do.

Theoretically, a song could shoot to #1 in 2 weeks be played a horrendous amount of time within it's peak time of say 2 weeks. After that time the song could fall off completely and the station doesn't play it anymore. How many people do you think heard the song? Now, how many times did they hear it, and did they remember it? Compare that to a song that gets say 55 spins on a station for 12 weeks. Which song will be recognized by more people?

Unwell is more recognized by people I know than All I Have, and we know which one of the two peaked higher.

You claim that no one cares about a song 35 weeks after the song has peaked, but I would assert that not many people care whether a song has peaked, when it was released etc. They only know what they like, and if they hear it on the radio and like it, it sticks with them. The more they hear it, the more they remember it.

You seem to make the assumption that most people follow the charts and artist like we do, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

[radiorules]

you guys seem to be using a lot of "Songs shooting up to #1 in weeks and then falling off quickly", but that's pretty obvious that it wasn't that big of a hit if it didn't spend it's full 20 weeks on. I am talking about songs that did go to #1 and spent their full 20 weeks on compared to other songs that didn't make it to #1 but spent more than 20 weeks on.

The "Unwell" vs. "All I Have" example is a pretty good one, and in my opinion AIH is the bigger hit. It was the most played song for several weeks and it had a pretty average fall/rise. Unwell stuck around and there is a word for that, it's called "annoying". A song that you hear an average amount of times for months and months on end becomes very annoying, and people purposely shut it out.

[Ragin]

radiorules said:

you guys seem to be using a lot of "Songs shooting up to #1 in weeks and then falling off quickly", but that's pretty obvious that it wasn't that big of a hit if it didn't spend it's full 20 weeks on. I am talking about songs that did go to #1 and spent their full 20 weeks on compared to other songs that didn't make it to #1 but spent more than 20 weeks on.

The "Unwell" vs. "All I Have" example is a pretty good one, and in my opinion AIH is the bigger hit. It was the most played song for several weeks and it had a pretty average fall/rise. Unwell stuck around and there is a word for that, it's called "annoying". A song that you hear an average amount of times for months and months on end becomes very annoying, and people purposely shut it out.

I think you have a very rigid requirement of your hits and I guess if that works for you, fine. I'm still telling you that more people will be able to identify Unwell than the people that identify All I Have, and what is a hit if it isn't about people knowing the song?

I think there have been some very weak #1s and I also think that depending on the other songs that are popular at the time, luck obviously plays a role as to whether a song can get to #1. If a song gets to #1 by default simply because all other songs in the top 10 are declining rapidly, but only gets a peak of 7800 spins, and another song is popular while say 4 other songs are also very hot, and it peaks out at 8200 spins but only get to #2 or #3, it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the song with less spins is a bigger hit simply because it hit #1.

As far as your perception of "annoying", I'd say that album sales indicate that hanging around reaches more people that will buy your album. Matchbox Twenty is still generating good album sales still based off of Unwell.

[j]

I agree with c(insert large number here). Unwell is the bigger hit, and is more identifiable with more people. I'm still not sick of the song yet.

And let me repeat an earlier astute observation for emphasis. "You have to look at more than chart position to see what songs is more popular."

[irice22]

This is one of those questions I really can't answer. But I would say "Everything You Want" was a bigger pop hit than "Thank U."

[radiorules]

irice22 said:

This is one of those questions I really can't answer. But I would say "Everything You Want" was a bigger pop hit than "Thank U."

Yes it was.

Okay here is a good one, if you had two songs on your personal charts and their chart runs were like this,

1/6/22 vs. 1/5/23

Which one would you rank higher on your year end chart? (1/6/22=#1(6 Weeks) 22 weeks on)

[Matt4319]

There's no way you can tell from that at all.

[FreakyFlyBry]

I'd go by their overall chart run, as I compile my year-end charts from points.

In most cases, my top 10 year-end is composed entirely, except for maybe one song, of #1 hits, and usually the non-#1 is in the bottom part. The exception for me was back in 2001, when Nelly Furtado spent 36 weeks in my top 40 with "Turn Off The Light", and peaked at #2, but was #1 for the year, and thereby beat out all the songs that made it to #1 that year.

It's all a relative situation. I've had songs that didn't even make my top 10 but lasted a long time beat out quick-to-rise, quick-to-fall top 5 hits.

[Keith3000]

Radiorules has some good points, but one cannot generalize based on either weeks on the chart or peak position. I agree that a combination of the two should be used to determine how big a hit is in the long run, as far as chart analysis is concerned.

c670769 is absolutely right when he says that most people don't go by the charts when deciding how big a hit is. But I tend to agree that the songs that will be remembered most by the general public years after they get released are those that are huge during a certain time period and get massive airplay. Even those who don't follow the charts and don't know the exact weeks a song was #1 would remember how massive the song was during that time, in he case of "My Heart Will Go On".

But this all depends, of course, on each song.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

The said:

I think it's definitely a combination. If a song jumps to #4 on the Hot 100, but only spends 5 weeks on, that looks like a flop to me.

Then again, you may have something that peaks at #70 with 15 weeks on.

I'd definitely say that the latter was the bigger hit.

I totally disagree. the #4 song on the hot 100 has at least 4 times the amount of airplay the #70 song has. soo with only 4 weeks it will take the #70 song at least 15 weeks to be able to even compete with the #4 song.

I say the smaller the number the bigger the hit! with the exception of non-charting songs.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

irice22 said:

This is one of those questions I really can't answer. But I would say "Everything You Want" was a bigger pop hit than "Thank U."

I dont think soo. I think more people remember Thank U than Everything You Want and Thank U was a bigger hit at radio.

[j]

Adonis said:

I totally disagree. the #4 song on the hot 100 has at least 4 times the amount of airplay the #70 song has. soo with only 4 weeks it will take the #70 song at least 15 weeks to be able to even compete with the #4 song.

I say the smaller the number the bigger the hit! with the exception of non-charting songs.

I agree with astericky. Since we don't have Hot 100 figures, let's just look at Mediabase Pop.

#4 Fountains of Wayne 6097 spins
#70 Thalia 306 spins

That 1 week alone at #4 is worth 23 times that 1 week at #70.

I think no one will dispute that #4 with 5 weeks on is a bigger hit than #70 with 15 weeks on. Chances are, you'd probably have heard of #4 but not #70.

[radiorules]

I agree with Keith, for example even though in the end "Unwell" has the same amount of spin totals as "Beautiful", the latter song will most likely be the one remembered because it was very popular durring a specific time period. I don't know about you guys but whenever an old song comes on the radio the first thing i ever remember about it is the time period it was released and the environment/sourroundings i was in when the song was popular, but with songs like "Unwell", it's really hard to remember when it was popular due to the fact that it wasn't even getting massive airplay durring it's peak.

[Keith3000]

Adonis said:

I dont think soo. I think more people remember Thank U than Everything You Want and Thank U was a bigger hit at radio.

Certain people definitely remember some songs more than others. However, I don't really understand how you can consider "Thank U" a bigger hit at radio than "Everything You Want". "Thank U" was only #1 on R&R for one week, and made a quick rise and fall from the top. EYW, though only reaching #2, was on the chart for most of 2000 and, according to the year-end chart, was the most played song that year.. Plus, EYW was much bigger on alternative and Hot AC radio than was "Thank U", and for the record, it also topped the Hot 100. It also got much more recurrent and gold play in the proceeding years.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

If a song comes out that's in your face for a short period of time and you compare that to a song that is mildly known (such as Dido's 'White Flag') but is mildly known at a constant rate for, say, six months. I would definately dispute that Dido's song would be a bigger hit than the in-your-face-for-a-month song.

[Ragin]

Mister said:

If a song comes out that's in your face for a short period of time and you compare that to a song that is mildly known (such as Dido's 'White Flag') but is mildly known at a constant rate for, say, six months. I would definately dispute that Dido's song would be a bigger hit than the in-your-face-for-a-month song.

That's because you are comparing two songs that are very far apart in their popularity. From what I gathered we were discussing a #1 versus say a #2 #3 or #4 type song. I argued that the lower peaks can easily be bigger hits in the long run. when I have more time I'll get some examples to try and convince you guys of this.