Libra
Diamond Member
The One Who Knows Where All the Bodies Are Buried
:)
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,376
My Charts
|
Post by Libra on Aug 5, 2007 13:15:09 GMT -5
Maybe the reason for the big drops out of the Top 40 as well as some slow chart climbers in 1982 was because of viewers turning away from the radio to watch if they had cable TV the music video channel MTV. That doesn't account for those big drops disappearing the next year, though. As someone stated in one of the other threads in this forum (could be on a different page in this thread, even), the chart methodology during 1982 included a rule whereby songs would often be placed in a "holding pattern" for a few weeks. What that means is that when a song was believed to have peaked on the chart, it stayed at that peak position for a few weeks. This no doubt disregarded whatever chart points it may have had otherwise, so when a song was let out of its holding position, its chart points had declined so much that the result was a huge fall to its proper position. (NOTE: The holding pattern was never applied to a song at #1 - although, I suppose that theoretically, a "de facto" holding pattern could be in place for a #1 song if one was in place for #2, #3, #4, etc.) I don't claim to know anything other than the existence of the holding pattern as fact, but that explanation of the huge drops seems to make a lot of sense to me, especially given that the holding pattern would be phased out during the first half of the 1983 chart year.
|
|
dth1971
2x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 2,368
|
Post by dth1971 on Aug 5, 2007 19:26:59 GMT -5
And who can forget by surprise when AT40 switched charts a few times (1991, 1993, 2000, 2001, and 2004) some songs that fell out returned? Especially in 2004 after Ryan Seacrest took over Casey Kasem's AT40 when "In Da Club" by 50 Cent returned to the chart that now had no recurrent rule for 2 months from January to March 2004? That same first day AT40 Ryan Seacrest chart also had returning song in recurrent "Bring Me To Life" by Everessence that only lasted 1 week before leaving for good the next week.
|
|
BillboardBoy
3x Platinum Member
"Fantastic 4": #212 At The Box Office!
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 3,146
|
Post by BillboardBoy on Aug 6, 2007 7:33:38 GMT -5
Hot 100 Streams Into The Future
Billboard takes an important step this week by incorporating information
from streamed and on-demand music into the methodology of its Hot 100 hit
songs chart, beginning Aug. 11. The publication's Director of Charts, Geoff
Mayfield, explains why only data from AOL and Yahoo will be used in the new
system. "We are eager to add streaming and on-demand data from other
services too, but at present AOL and Yahoo are the only ones that provide
weekly, rather than monthly, data to BDS."
Under the new system one digital sale will carry the weight of 1,000 radio
listens. According to Mayfield, "In most weeks, the formula will yield a
chart that derives 55% of its points from radio audience, 40% from digital
sales, 5% from streaming/on-demand and less than 1% from retail single
singles. Also noteworthy, the chart's radio panel has been expanded to
include all currents-based commercial U.S. stations that BDS monitors,
regardless of whether those stations qualify for a Billboard or R&R format
panel. As a result, the station panel for the Hot 100 list will increase by
about 250 stations.
Fact: A recent Knowledge Networks/SRI report identifies a new demographic
they call "streamies" comprised of younger age groups who view streaming
audio or video on their home or work PCs at least once a week. They found
that 42% of teens 12-17 fit into the new group as do 26% of adults 18-34.
|
|
Hervard
9x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 9,740
|
Post by Hervard on Aug 6, 2007 16:04:23 GMT -5
Maybe the reason for the big drops out of the Top 40 as well as some slow chart climbers in 1982 was because of viewers turning away from the radio to watch if they had cable TV the music video channel MTV. That doesn't account for those big drops disappearing the next year, though. As someone stated in one of the other threads in this forum (could be on a different page in this thread, even), the chart methodology during 1982 included a rule whereby songs would often be placed in a "holding pattern" for a few weeks. What that means is that when a song was believed to have peaked on the chart, it stayed at that peak position for a few weeks. This no doubt disregarded whatever chart points it may have had otherwise, so when a song was let out of its holding position, its chart points had declined so much that the result was a huge fall to its proper position. (NOTE: The holding pattern was never applied to a song at #1 - although, I suppose that theoretically, a "de facto" holding pattern could be in place for a #1 song if one was in place for #2, #3, #4, etc.) I don't claim to know anything other than the existence of the holding pattern as fact, but that explanation of the huge drops seems to make a lot of sense to me, especially given that the holding pattern would be phased out during the first half of the 1983 chart year. IMO, the "holding pattern" thing was a bad idea in the first place, since it made for an inaccurate chart. "Love Is In Control" by Donna Summer seemed to be the exception to the rule, as the song held at #12 for a few weeks, then climbed to 11, then to 10. This caused "Take It Away" by Paul McCartney to fall back to #11 from its peak at #10, instead of having the song take a large fall from #10.] Both songs fell clean off the Top 40 portion of the Hot 100 the following week. In late 1982, the R&R chart also had a whole slew of songs falling off the chart from well inside the Top 20. I believe this was due to an unusually high volume of new releases that year. It would have been interesting had the chart been a full Top 40, so we could see where some of those songs had fallen to (of course, they might have fallen off the Top 40 chart from within the Top 20 as well).
|
|
johnnywest
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,870
|
Post by johnnywest on Sept 20, 2007 10:20:21 GMT -5
In September, Garth Brooks became the first artist to debut at #1 on the country singles chart.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Oct 30, 2010 9:47:50 GMT -5
I think we're all gonna look back and call this whole big Glee thing a very notorious Billboard episode.
|
|
glenpwood
New Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 240
|
Post by glenpwood on Nov 3, 2010 11:27:42 GMT -5
Fred Bronson is gonna have to rethink his point strategy since the majority of points is earned by chart placement rather than weeks. Otherwise, the Glee kids will outrank the Beatles and Elvis in the next year or two off the back of one week one episode wonders.
|
|
glenpwood
New Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 240
|
Post by glenpwood on Nov 3, 2010 12:22:30 GMT -5
I bought my first Billboard magazine back on 3/30/91 so I remember a lot of the reasons for some of the more unusual chart runs that year. Usually they got referenced in the Hot 100 Spotlight column.
Natalie Cole, Salt N Pepa, Steelheart, and Tevin Campbell bounced around a bit due to stronger sales points than airplay reports. A lot of stations played those tracks but either didnt playlist them at all, rank them high on their lists if they did, or finally added them late due to the single sales in their market causing the bouncing.
Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam's Let The Beat Hit Em just barely scraped the top 40 thanks to Gold sales but no significant pop playlist action points.
Paula Abdul's "Promise Of A New Day" was pointed out in the column when topping the Hot 100 but it would've only ranked in the top 5 of the test charts if the Soundscan/BDS charts were being used. It would never top either of those airplay or singles sales charts.
Some hits of that year that suffered from the change to BDS and Soundscan (or possibly revealed they were payola inflated in a couple of glaring cases) on the 11/30/91 chart and never recovered significantly...
EMF-Lies 18-66 (down 48) Blue Train - All I Need is You 46-77 (down 31) KLF-What Time Is Love 57-87 (down 30) John Mellencamp-Get A Leg Up 14-40 (down 26) Simply Red-Something Got Me Started 23-43 (down 20) Voice Of The Beehive - Monsters and Angels 74-93 (down 19) DJ Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince - Ring My Bell 20-38 (down 18) Curtis Stigers-I Wonder Why 9-26 (down 15)
I also remember in early 1992 them pointing out the big gap between airplay and sales points for Amy Grant's "Good For Me" which I recall was a top 5 airplay hit but only scraped in at like 72 briefly in sales. ("Grant"-ed Heart In Motion was 4x Platinum by that point but it was a new mix being played on the radio)
|
|
halo19
4x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 4,683
|
Post by halo19 on Dec 8, 2010 12:16:39 GMT -5
It's obvious that everyone thinks that they should have included airplay-only songs YEARS before they actually did. Wmale who is into other malesLY :o
|
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Dec 18, 2010 21:07:11 GMT -5
Some of these huge drops remind me of Dan Ingram's "Top 40 Satellite Survey" from the mid-80's. That was probably the wildest chart at that time. It was not at all uncommon for songs to drop 15 to 25 spots (or "bytes" as he called them) in a given week. It was also pretty much status quo that once a song started to drop, it dropped fast and furious with rarely anything in between. I can only recall one instance based on a previous post here where a song had a small two week drop. "Out of Touch" by Hall & Oates dropped from #1-3-4, where every other #1 dropper fell to no higher than #4, and in many cases much further. Btw, after the one week holiday break for their year-end survey in 1984, OOT dropped from #4 to #39! Freefalling would be more like it! The first of two weeks that really stuck out to me was the one week in early 1985 where not one but two songs dropped 28 spots! One was Foreigner's "That Was Yesterday" from #9 to #37. The other song that I can't remember dropped from #11 to #39. The second chart was the wildest week I have ever seen on any chart. During early July of 1985, this particular week saw ten debuting songs along with many huge movers in both directions. Among the droppers, there was one song that dropped something like from #8 to #29, one song that dropped from #5 to #26, another song that dropped from #4 to #23 which I believe was "Voices Carry", and Survivor's "The Search Is Over" dropping from #2 to #20! In the meantime there had to have been at least eight or nine songs with double digit gains including three songs leaping up #16 spots, one of them "Never Surrender" by Corey Hart. Even Dan couldn't believe the amount of activity that week! But for obvious reasons that week was hard to forget. I'm actually surprised that Billboard's chart had a lot of droppers like that in 1992. I do recall from reading another post on another Pulse board that Billboard apparently had a rule in 1982 that required an unbulleted song to hold at its peak position for two weeks in a row, thereby causing some huge drops that year. Why 1992 was so volatile though, I'm not sure. But the Top 40 Satellite Survey chart was very reminiscent of those types of moves. It was an in-house chart based on the trade magazines of that time, but it relied more on affiliate airplay than other charts, thereby allowing more songs to chart earlier than the other charts of that time. Still, I think there had to have been some "fudging" going on there because there was very rarely a dull week on that chart. Now one can only wish the current charts would move that fast. I don't consider Mediabase or BDS removing songs from the top 10 or 15 the same thing. But then again, there aren't as many quality songs around to keep most music charts moving these days anyway. Maybe the good old days will come back one of these years though. For now though, if anyone has any of the Top 40 Satellite Survey charts around, I'd be really interested in seeing them. :)
|
|
Hervard
9x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 9,740
|
Post by Hervard on Dec 23, 2010 17:22:43 GMT -5
Some of these huge drops remind me of Dan Ingram's "Top 40 Satellite Survey" from the mid-80's. That was probably the wildest chart at that time. It was not at all uncommon for songs to drop 15 to 25 spots (or "bytes" as he called them) in a given week. It was also pretty much status quo that once a song started to drop, it dropped fast and furious with rarely anything in between. I can only recall one instance based on a previous post here where a song had a small two week drop. "Out of Touch" by Hall & Oates dropped from #1-3-4, where every other #1 dropper fell to no higher than #4, and in many cases much further. Btw, after the one week holiday break for their year-end survey in 1984, OOT dropped from #4 to #39! Freefalling would be more like it! The first of two weeks that really stuck out to me was the one week in early 1985 where not one but two songs dropped 28 spots! One was Foreigner's "That Was Yesterday" from #9 to #37. The other song that I can't remember dropped from #11 to #39. The second chart was the wildest week I have ever seen on any chart. During early July of 1985, this particular week saw ten debuting songs along with many huge movers in both directions. Among the droppers, there was one song that dropped something like from #8 to #29, one song that dropped from #5 to #26, another song that dropped from #4 to #23 which I believe was "Voices Carry", and Survivor's "The Search Is Over" dropping from #2 to #20! In the meantime there had to have been at least eight or nine songs with double digit gains including three songs leaping up #16 spots, one of them "Never Surrender" by Corey Hart. Even Dan couldn't believe the amount of activity that week! But for obvious reasons that week was hard to forget. For now though, if anyone has any of the Top 40 Satellite Survey charts around, I'd be really interested in seeing them. :) Somewhere, I have the lists from Memorial Day, 1986 to the date of the end of the show, December 28, 1986. Do you still have any of those 1984 or 1985 lists still around? The ones you just posted are indeed wild. You mentioned "Out Of Touch" and how it was #4 the last weekend of 1984. I also remember "I Can't Hold Back" by Survivor jumping 17-8 on that particular chart (from an aircheck of that show I found on the Net a few years back). That was kind of strange, as the song had been dropping on the R&R chart for a week or two. Had the song peaked on the Satellite Survey chart previously, then started moving back up? Something similar happened with "Freedom Overspill" in late 1986. The song moved 18-14-22-17-38. I don't believe any other song had such erratic movement during the seven-month period that I listened to the show on a weekly basis.
|
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Dec 25, 2010 15:18:06 GMT -5
Somewhere, I have the lists from Memorial Day, 1986 to the date of the end of the show, December 28, 1986. Do you still have any of those 1984 or 1985 lists still around? The ones you just posted are indeed wild. You mentioned "Out Of Touch" and how it was #4 the last weekend of 1984. I also remember "I Can't Hold Back" by Survivor jumping 17-8 on that particular chart (from an aircheck of that show I found on the Net a few years back). That was kind of strange, as the song had been dropping on the R&R chart for a week or two. Had the song peaked on the Satellite Survey chart previously, then started moving back up? Something similar happened with "Freedom Overspill" in late 1986. The song moved 18-14-22-17-38. I don't believe any other song had such erratic movement during the seven-month period that I listened to the show on a weekly basis. I don't have any of the T40SS lists outside of one from a show that I stumbled upon that is posted on box.net, I think from a current or former Pulse Music Board poster. www.box.net/T40SSThose other lists you mentioned Hervard all came from memory, though I found that December, 1984 aircheck as well. I was 15 at the time and it's hard to forget those types of wild charts! If you have those charts from the latter half of 1986, I'd be interesting in seeing those. But if anyone else has any of the rest I'd also would be interested in obtaining those. In the meantime you can actually listen to entire show from the week of 8/30/85 at the link above. Enjoy!
|
|
atlantaboy
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2007
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by atlantaboy on Dec 27, 2010 15:33:55 GMT -5
Paula Abdul's "Promise Of A New Day" was pointed out in the column when topping the Hot 100 but it would've only ranked in the top 5 of the test charts if the Soundscan/BDS charts were being used. It would never top either of those airplay or singles sales charts. Some hits of that year that suffered from the change to BDS and Soundscan (or possibly revealed they were payola inflated in a couple of glaring cases) on the 11/30/91 chart and never recovered significantly... EMF-Lies 18-66 (down 48) Blue Train - All I Need is You 46-77 (down 31) KLF-What Time Is Love 57-87 (down 30) John Mellencamp-Get A Leg Up 14-40 (down 26) Simply Red-Something Got Me Started 23-43 (down 20) Voice Of The Beehive - Monsters and Angels 74-93 (down 19) DJ Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince - Ring My Bell 20-38 (down 18) Curtis Stigers-I Wonder Why 9-26 (down 15) Yeah, I think a lot of stations in the pre-BDS era had it set in their minds that songs had to rise on their playlists until they peaked, and then plummet from there - so if a station wasn't ready to drop a song yet (like Promise Of A New Day or Get A Leg Up), it would artificially keep it rising on the playlist, even though the actual spins were starting to going down
|
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Dec 28, 2010 0:37:23 GMT -5
Paula Abdul's "Promise Of A New Day" was pointed out in the column when topping the Hot 100 but it would've only ranked in the top 5 of the test charts if the Soundscan/BDS charts were being used. It would never top either of those airplay or singles sales charts. Some hits of that year that suffered from the change to BDS and Soundscan (or possibly revealed they were payola inflated in a couple of glaring cases) on the 11/30/91 chart and never recovered significantly... EMF-Lies 18-66 (down 48) Blue Train - All I Need is You 46-77 (down 31) KLF-What Time Is Love 57-87 (down 30) John Mellencamp-Get A Leg Up 14-40 (down 26) Simply Red-Something Got Me Started 23-43 (down 20) Voice Of The Beehive - Monsters and Angels 74-93 (down 19) DJ Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince - Ring My Bell 20-38 (down 18) Curtis Stigers-I Wonder Why 9-26 (down 15) Yeah, I think a lot of stations in the pre-BDS era had it set in their minds that songs had to rise on their playlists until they peaked, and then plummet from there - so if a station wasn't ready to drop a song yet (like Promise Of A New Day or Get A Leg Up), it would artificially keep it rising on the playlist, even though the actual spins were starting to going down That seems right. I remember collecting some B-96 (WBBM-FM in Chicago) playlists from the late 80's and early 90's. Now while songs did drop off quite a bit faster than they rose, there was on particular week where a song that I can't remember plunged from #2 to #30! Talk about the ultimate "dartboard" move as there was no way in heck that a song would lose popularity that quickly in reality! Yeah, those were the good old days when the charts moved fast, whether artificial or not.
|
|
Hervard
9x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 9,740
|
Post by Hervard on Dec 29, 2010 17:11:57 GMT -5
Somewhere, I have the lists from Memorial Day, 1986 to the date of the end of the show, December 28, 1986. Do you still have any of those 1984 or 1985 lists still around? The ones you just posted are indeed wild. You mentioned "Out Of Touch" and how it was #4 the last weekend of 1984. I also remember "I Can't Hold Back" by Survivor jumping 17-8 on that particular chart (from an aircheck of that show I found on the Net a few years back). That was kind of strange, as the song had been dropping on the R&R chart for a week or two. Had the song peaked on the Satellite Survey chart previously, then started moving back up? Something similar happened with "Freedom Overspill" in late 1986. The song moved 18-14-22-17-38. I don't believe any other song had such erratic movement during the seven-month period that I listened to the show on a weekly basis. I don't have any of the T40SS lists outside of one from a show that I stumbled upon that is posted on box.net, I think from a current or former Pulse Music Board poster. www.box.net/T40SSThose other lists you mentioned Hervard all came from memory, though I found that December, 1984 aircheck as well. I was 15 at the time and it's hard to forget those types of wild charts! If you have those charts from the latter half of 1986, I'd be interesting in seeing those. But if anyone else has any of the rest I'd also would be interested in obtaining those. In the meantime you can actually listen to entire show from the week of 8/30/85 at the link above. Enjoy! Wow, thanks for that link! I'm listening to that show right now and I'm like, wow! It's great to hear the show after so many years. I vaguely remember listening to this one on Labor Day weekend in 1985. Not sure if I listened to the whole show or not. I wonder if any of our members have any other editions of the Satellite Survey. The one I'm most interested in obtaining would be the Top 80 of 1984 (part of that is found on YouTube). I thought it was cool that Dan mentioned the peak positions, as well as the month in which they peaked. You sure don't hear that kind of info on today's year-end countdowns! Anyway, thanks again!
|
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Dec 29, 2010 22:41:19 GMT -5
I don't have any of the T40SS lists outside of one from a show that I stumbled upon that is posted on box.net, I think from a current or former Pulse Music Board poster. www.box.net/T40SSThose other lists you mentioned Hervard all came from memory, though I found that December, 1984 aircheck as well. I was 15 at the time and it's hard to forget those types of wild charts! If you have those charts from the latter half of 1986, I'd be interesting in seeing those. But if anyone else has any of the rest I'd also would be interested in obtaining those. In the meantime you can actually listen to entire show from the week of 8/30/85 at the link above. Enjoy! Wow, thanks for that link! I'm listening to that show right now and I'm like, wow! It's great to hear the show after so many years. I vaguely remember listening to this one on Labor Day weekend in 1985. Not sure if I listened to the whole show or not. I wonder if any of our members have any other editions of the Satellite Survey. The one I'm most interested in obtaining would be the Top 80 of 1984 (part of that is found on YouTube). I thought it was cool that Dan mentioned the peak positions, as well as the month in which they peaked. You sure don't hear that kind of info on today's year-end countdowns! Anyway, thanks again! No problem! I thought there would be a few people on here who would be interested in that link. I enjoy listening to this show every so often, but after hearing the same week over and over, it would be nice if others had recordings to obtain. I know there is a person online who sells CD's of AT40, Rick Dees WT40 and some other 80's countdown shows including about 8 weeks of T40SS. However, he is selling these for roughly $12 to $16 per show, depending on the length. I can post that link if you want. I personally think it's a bit steep to pay that much for just one week at a time, especially when Rick Dees has posted some of his past countdowns on his website for free. But glad you enjoyed this show. :) "Spanish Eddie is what they call a long knife in Madrid!" "Ah yes, Spanish Eddie. He used to be called Fast Eddie but he got his act together a long time ago!"
|
|
CookyMonzta
Platinum Member
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 1,362
|
Post by CookyMonzta on Jan 3, 2011 0:15:19 GMT -5
Three things that I believe tarnished the Billboard charts:
1. Erasing long-standing hits from the Hot 100, once the national-sample system was replaced by BDS and SoundScan. On the last Saturday of November, 1991, once a song spent more than 20 weeks on the chart and fell below the top 20, it was removed. Later, the grace period was extended to the top 40, then the top 50. This rule, I believe, undermines a song's ability to accumulate points to advance its standing among the year's top hits.
2. Denying older Christmas albums from re-entering the Billboard 200. A stupid rule right from the start, because most Christmas albums spent only 6 to 8 weeks on the chart, and many of them were not more than 3 years old.
3. Denying re-entry by albums that were at least 2 years old. Michael Jackson's death, and the surge in sales that saw some of his albums sell enough to be among the top 10, laid waste that rule. I happen to think that every chart that was affected by that rule should be completely REWRITTEN to reflect the true standings of every album on that chart, with the inclusion of those that sold enough to have earned a spot but were removed because they were too old and relegated to the Catalog chart.
|
|
musicfanpete
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 2,194
|
Post by musicfanpete on Jan 3, 2011 21:54:59 GMT -5
Three things that I believe tarnished the Billboard charts: 1. Erasing long-standing hits from the Hot 100, once the national-sample system was replaced by BDS and SoundScan. On the last Saturday of November, 1991, once a song spent more than 20 weeks on the chart and fell below the top 20, it was removed. Later, the grace period was extended to the top 40, then the top 50. This rule, I believe, undermines a song's ability to accumulate points to advance its standing among the year's top hits. 2. Denying older Christmas albums from re-entering the Billboard 200. A stupid rule right from the start, because most Christmas albums spent only 6 to 8 weeks on the chart, and many of them were not more than 3 years old. 3. Denying re-entry by albums that were at least 2 years old. Micvhael Jackson's death, and the surge in sales that saw some of his albums sell enough to be among the top 10, laid waste that rule. I happen to think that every chart that was affected by that rule should be completely REWRITTEN to replect the true standings of every album on that chart, with the inclusion of those that sold enough to have earned a spot but were removed because they were too old and relegated to the Catalog chart. That would be one heck of a project for some people at Billboard to take on! But I think you have a great point and it probably should be done.
|
|
jldel
New Member
Joined: April 2013
Posts: 2
|
Post by jldel on Apr 28, 2013 18:47:01 GMT -5
There has been various talk in this message board about the "holding policy" Billboard used from the mid-70s to the mid-80s (I believe Cashbox -- certainly in the late 70s -- used a similar, if unstated, policy). I don't think this was a bad policy, but more on that below. I do think one of the oddest effects of "holding pattern" policy occurred on August 19, 1978, the top 14 songs hit a holding pattern gridlock and froze in place. No movement. The highest ranking mover on the chart was #15 (Shame by Evelyn Champagne King moving from 19-15)
Here's what that gridlocked chart looked like that infamous week:
TW-LW Song/Artist 1-1 Three Times A Lady/Commodores 2-2 Grease /Frankie Valli 3-3 Last Dance/Donna Summer 4-4 Miss /Rolling Stones 5-5 Hot Blooded/Foreigner 6-6 Boogie Oogie Oogie/A Taste Of Honey 7-7 Love Will Find A Way/deleted Cruise 8-8 Copacabana/Barry Manilow 9-9 Magnet And Steel/Walter Egan 10-10 An Everlasting Love/Andy Gibb 11-11 Hopelessly Devoted To You/Olivia Newton-John 12-12 Life's Been Good/Joe Walsh 13-13 My Angel Baby/Toby Beau 14-14 I'm Not Gonna Let It Bother Me Tonight/Atlanta Rhythm Section
That being said, I am not opposed to the holding pattern rule -- it does serve several good purposes.
1. The "holding pattern" generally keeps the chart orderly, making a super-fast climbing hit something to really catch the eye. If songs debut at #1 or #2 or #3, or even in the high teens, on a regular basis, there is no sense of a song ascending the chart -- no idea that songs build up listeners.
2. The "holding pattern" reinforces the idea that a singles success is built as stations add the song, as it moves up stations' playlists and as sales build. It takes time for a song to increase, and its momentum makes for time for the song/record to ebb... the holding pattern allows that momentum slow-down time.
3. The "holding pattern" keeps erratic movement from occurring -- a song, in this system, is generally ascending, until it hits it peak, and then descends -- this can be a short process for clunker or a months and months and months for a big hit.
4. The "holding pattern" existed long enough for charts (mid-70s to late-80s) to provide a baseline for measuring and comparing chart movement. What Billboard did in 1991, completely eliminated any reasonable or practicable chart comparisons to the previous era. Songs fly up and down the chart, have ridiculous chart lives and follow no measurable pattern movement.
5. The "holding pattern" provided a method for song to seemingly peak, lose a star, but then regain momentum and keep moving upward. I think "Love Is Thicker than Water" in 1978 had various slow downs/speed ups in chart movements in this regard. It also allowed songs like 1977/78's "I Go Crazy" from plummeting out of the top 40 while it struggled to increase listenership from region to region -- the holding pattern allow that song to seemingly peak for a week or two, and then regain momentum as new markets opened to it. In short the holding pattern allowed a song to breakout in different regions, move up the chart, and not have to fall and rise endless as it expanded listeners in different regions (e.g. a Disco hit would go great in the Northeast, and Pacific Southwest, but not necessarily break in the midwest for another month -- so rather than a song going 60-44-34-42-31-25-39-17-10-9-14-9-18-20-50 it might move in a more trend-line format, like 60-44-34-33 (no bullet) -25-24 (no bullet) -17-10-9-9-9 (no bullet)-18-20-50. The latter is much more understandable to the chart watcher: that song was on its way up and continued to grow region by region (as the northeast rotation fell off, the midwest rotation kicked in, etc), hence it slowed, but didn't fall until it really peaked.
Yes the "holding pattern" is not a perfect system, but it served the charts well; it made chart movement comparable (week to week, year to year), measurable and understandable. It provided a cohesion to the function of what might otherwise be erratic and hard to understand chart movement... in short the Hot 100 during the "holding pattern" era provided the chart-watchers with what marketing folks would call "trendlines," rather than some kinds a weekly snapshot-in-time.
|
|
dth1971
2x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 2,368
|
Post by dth1971 on Apr 28, 2013 22:02:07 GMT -5
There has been various talk in this message board about the "holding policy" Billboard used from the mid-70s to the mid-80s (I believe Cashbox -- certainly in the late 70s -- used a similar, if unstated, policy). I don't think this was a bad policy, but more on that below. I do think one of the oddest effects of "holding pattern" policy occurred on August 19, 1978, the top 14 songs hit a holding pattern gridlock and froze in place. No movement. The highest ranking mover on the chart was #15 (Shame by Evelyn Champagne King moving from 19-15) Here's what that gridlocked chart looked like that infamous week: TW-LW Song/Artist 1-1 Three Times A Lady/Commodores 2-2 Grease /Frankie Valli 3-3 Last Dance/Donna Summer 4-4 Miss /Rolling Stones 5-5 Hot Blooded/Foreigner 6-6 Boogie Oogie Oogie/A Taste Of Honey 7-7 Love Will Find A Way/deleted Cruise 8-8 Copacabana/Barry Manilow 9-9 Magnet And Steel/Walter Egan 10-10 An Everlasting Love/Andy Gibb 11-11 Hopelessly Devoted To You/Olivia Newton-John 12-12 Life's Been Good/Joe Walsh 13-13 My Angel Baby/Toby Beau 14-14 I'm Not Gonna Let It Bother Me Tonight/Atlanta Rhythm Section That being said, I am not opposed to the holding pattern rule -- it does serve several good purposes. 1. The "holding pattern" generally keeps the chart orderly, making a super-fast climbing hit something to really catch the eye. If songs debut at #1 or #2 or #3, or even in the high teens, on a regular basis, there is no sense of a song ascending the chart -- no idea that songs build up listeners. 2. The "holding pattern" reinforces the idea that a singles success is built as stations add the song, as it moves up stations' playlists and as sales build. It takes time for a song to increase, and its momentum makes for time for the song/record to ebb... the holding pattern allows that momentum slow-down time. 3. The "holding pattern" keeps erratic movement from occurring -- a song, in this system, is generally ascending, until it hits it peak, and then descends -- this can be a short process for clunker or a months and months and months for a big hit. 4. The "holding pattern" existed long enough for charts (mid-70s to late-80s) to provide a baseline for measuring and comparing chart movement. What Billboard did in 1991, completely eliminated any reasonable or practicable chart comparisons to the previous era. Songs fly up and down the chart, have ridiculous chart lives and follow no measurable pattern movement. 5. The "holding pattern" provided a method for song to seemingly peak, lose a star, but then regain momentum and keep moving upward. I think "Love Is Thicker than Water" in 1978 had various slow downs/speed ups in chart movements in this regard. It also allowed songs like 1977/78's "I Go Crazy" from plummeting out of the top 40 while it struggled to increase listenership from region to region -- the holding pattern allow that song to seemingly peak for a week or two, and then regain momentum as new markets opened to it. In short the holding pattern allowed a song to breakout in different regions, move up the chart, and not have to fall and rise endless as it expanded listeners in different regions (e.g. a Disco hit would go great in the Northeast, and Pacific Southwest, but not necessarily break in the midwest for another month -- so rather than a song going 60-44-34-42-31-25-39-17-10-9-14-9-18-20-50 it might move in a more trend-line format, like 60-44-34-33 (no bullet) -25-24 (no bullet) -17-10-9-9-9 (no bullet)-18-20-50. The latter is much more understandable to the chart watcher: that song was on its way up and continued to grow region by region (as the northeast rotation fell off, the midwest rotation kicked in, etc), hence it slowed, but didn't fall until it really peaked. Yes the "holding pattern" is not a perfect system, but it served the charts well; it made chart movement comparable (week to week, year to year), measurable and understandable. It provided a cohesion to the function of what might otherwise be erratic and hard to understand chart movement... in short the Hot 100 during the "holding pattern" era provided the chart-watchers with what marketing folks would call "trendlines," rather than some kinds a weekly snapshot-in-time. I also remember 2 entire top 10 chart the same as the previous week holding patterns: One in Summer 1982 and another in April 1983.
|
|
johnnywest
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,870
|
Post by johnnywest on Mar 29, 2014 11:47:51 GMT -5
It was around the March 1, 2014 when they shrunk the physical size of their magazine. It's still bigger than most magazines but not by much. That's also around the time when they changed the name of the Hot 100 Airplay chart to Radio Songs.
|
|
johnm1120
Diamond Member
JAM
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 24,123
|
Post by johnm1120 on Mar 31, 2014 2:24:32 GMT -5
How about when "Wolly Bully" by Sam Sham and the Pharoahs finished as the #1 song of the year but it only got to #2 for it's chart run in 1965 Faith Hill also did that in 2000 with "Breathe." Los Del Rio reaching #1 in their 33rd week on the chart I'm sure would be up there. This week Soko broke the record for highest drop-off going 9-off. In AC-Land, the most notorious chart episode has to be the week of the Adult Top 40 chart's official debut. March 9th, 1996 the AC chart saw some insane leaps, debuts, re-entries and crashes. Leaps of the week: Rod Stewart - So Far Away (22-4) George Michael - Jesus to a Child (19-5) *rebound and new peak* Whitney Houston - Exhale (rebounded 13-6) Selena - Dreaming of You (26-9) *rebound and new peak* Phil Collins - Somewhere (27-10) Tony Rich Project - Nobody Knows (23-15) Falls: Everything But The Girl - Missing (6-14) *after peaking at #6 the previous week* Hootie & The Blowfish - Time (4-17) *after peaking at #4 the previous week* Deep Blue Something - Breakfast At Tiffany's (10-23) *peaked at #8 2 weeks prior* Natalie Merchant - Wonder (18-26) *after peaking at #18 the previous week* Goo Goo Dolls - Name (5-27) *peaked at #5* Debuts 13. Michael Bolton - A Love So Beautiful (Debuted and peaked at #13) 18. Peter Cetera - Faithfully (Peaked at #13) 19. Celine Dion - Because You Loved Me (Would shatter the 13 week at #1 record by staying at #1 for 19 weeks) 21. Mary Chapin Carpenter - Grow Old With Me (Peaked at #17) 25. Jim Brickman - By Heart 29. Steve Winwood - Reach For the Light 30. Amy Grant - The Things We Do For Love Re-Entries: 20. All-4-One - I Can Love You Like That 22. Sarah McLachlan - I Will Remember You 24. Michael Jackson - You Are Not Alone Falling off: Del Amitri - Roll to Me (8) Gin Blossoms - Til I Hear it From You (9) Blues Traveler - Run-Around (16) Melissa Etheridge - I Want to Come Over (17) *peaked at #17* Joan Osbourne - One of Us (20) *peaked at #20* Natalie Merchant - Carnival (21) Jann Arden - Insensitive (25) *would later re-enter and peak at #4* Mariah Carey - Fantasy (28) Blues Traveler - Hook (29) Toad The Wet Sprocket - Good Intentions (30)
|
|
johnnywest
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,870
|
Post by johnnywest on Jul 18, 2014 13:35:19 GMT -5
As of the June 28, 2014 issue, The Hot 100 has been moved to the front of the magazine and it's spread out over 3 pages (up from 2) and includes artist interviews.
This probably hasn't sit well with those who save the actual pages of the Hot 100.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Jul 20, 2014 21:27:19 GMT -5
The chart actually looks better than before in my opinion. Clearer, more symmetrical, more colorful. But I collect the chart as both hard copies & PDFs, and two pages was bad enough. Three is a collector's nightmare.
|
|
johnnywest
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,870
|
Post by johnnywest on Aug 18, 2014 12:42:34 GMT -5
Just a few weeks ago, Billboard added an "Artist" chart. The first person to top the chart was Sam Smith and I believe the second was Tom Petty (thanks to his first #1 album).
|
|
johnnywest
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,870
|
Post by johnnywest on Nov 30, 2014 13:35:07 GMT -5
In December, Billboard will start including streaming and digital tracks (along with their regular methods) to compile the Billboard 200.
|
|
jdanton2
Diamond Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 11,570
|
Post by jdanton2 on Dec 1, 2014 11:52:42 GMT -5
Hot 100 Streams Into The Future Billboard takes an important step this week by incorporating information from streamed and on-demand music into the methodology of its Hot 100 hit songs chart, beginning Aug. 11. The publication's Director of Charts, Geoff Mayfield, explains why only data from AOL and Yahoo will be used in the new system. "We are eager to add streaming and on-demand data from other services too, but at present AOL and Yahoo are the only ones that provide weekly, rather than monthly, data to BDS." Under the new system one digital sale will carry the weight of 1,000 radio listens. According to Mayfield, "In most weeks, the formula will yield a chart that derives 55% of its points from radio audience, 40% from digital sales, 5% from streaming/on-demand and less than 1% from retail single singles. Also noteworthy, the chart's radio panel has been expanded to include all currents-based commercial U.S. stations that BDS monitors, regardless of whether those stations qualify for a Billboard or R&R format panel. As a result, the station panel for the Hot 100 list will increase by about 250 stations. Fact: A recent Knowledge Networks/SRI report identifies a new demographic they call "streamies" comprised of younger age groups who view streaming audio or video on their home or work PCs at least once a week. They found that 42% of teens 12-17 fit into the new group as do 26% of adults 18-34. i did not realize streaming was used that far back . i thought it started in 2012.
|
|
johnnywest
5x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 5,870
|
Post by johnnywest on Jul 16, 2015 11:43:43 GMT -5
Recently, they changed the tracking period to Monday-Sunday.
Also, not sure if anyone else noticed, but a couple of songs this year had their multi-platinum status demoted.
"Uptown Funk!" when from 7x platinum to 5x platinum.
"Shut Up + Dance" went from double platinum to platinum.
|
|
brady47
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 1,449
|
Post by brady47 on Aug 24, 2015 21:23:42 GMT -5
Christina Aguilera's "Beautiful" being blocked from the top by B2K's "Bump Bump Bump"
|
|
jldel
New Member
Joined: April 2013
Posts: 2
|
Post by jldel on Oct 31, 2017 8:22:56 GMT -5
A good question to be asked, especially geared towards the many books from Records Research and Billboard which document chart performance, achievements, stats, etc., is this: Can the pre-1991 Hot 100 chart really, and accurately be compared on a head-to-head basis with the 1957 to 1991 Hot 100 chart. 1991 marked a different way of compiling data, and using in fact different data than previously used (resulting in songs with longer stays at number, number 1 song debuts, etc., and longer chart life). Even more the question needs to be asked with chart changes in 1998 (a song no longer had to be a designated single release to be considered); 2005 (downloaded songs now counts), and 2007 (streaming media now counts).
Why should be there a reconsideration in comparing current charts to older one? Because you are no longer comparing apples to apples, but rather apples to genetically engineered bananas. What do I mean by this?
Let's take 2015, when artist Drake set a record with 24 songs simultaneously in the hot 100, with EVERY single track of his just-released album charting, and simultaneously set the record for most career hot 100 songs. Okay, let's go back to Elvis Presley who long held that latter record (career record of 108 songs in the hot 100). Or even the Ray Charles with 75 chart records and the Beatles, I believe with 74. Okay, if in 1964 people were able to download or even designate tracks from the Beatles first US LP, I am sure every track would have made the chart; likewise for 1969's Abbey Road LP. But that couldn't be done. Likewise for albums by Ray Charles and Elvis Presley. Either a song was a designated single release, or it didn't chart. I think back to 1978, when the Bee Gees, who were on fire at the time, had a song (LP cut) called "More than a Woman." If it would have been released as a single, it would have been #1, as it lead airplay lists nationally; but it wasn't so it didn't. In 1979, "All My Love" by Led Zepplin likewise would have been a top ten smash, but it wasn't released, it couldn't be streamed, it couldn't be downloaded, and it wasn't a designated single release, so it didn't chart.
The point I make is that the contemporary music charts track so much more material from so many more sources, of course more songs from the same artists chart... of course they spend more time on the chart. You can't make that comparison of for example artists chart performance of 1976 for example, and artist chart performances of 2014. The chart is track different things.
I would suggest that perhaps the chart eras of the Hot 100 be divided into three eras: 1957-1991, 1991-2005, 2005-present. Not a perfect skew but better than the flat comparison. How then would compare chart stats? By norming them to their era, assigning them point scores and a relativity measure. So, for example, if an average album in 1965 yielded 2 singles on the Hot 100, and a 2017 album yields 4 per album on the chart, either the 1960s era singles get a multiplier score of x2, or the 2017 hits get a 50% measure reduction. This is one small example, I hope to write up a more developed system down the road; it would be complicated, but it would make chart comparisons, and artist chart performance comparisons more realistic, and accurate.
|
|