| Author |
|
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 23 November 2022 at 6:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I guess the quickest answer would be that both Radio & Records and Gavin were compiling the charts from
Mainstream Top 40 stations only, whereas Billboard's scope ranged beyond that to include other formats. The R&R
and Gavin numbers certainly jibe closer to my recollections as far as Mainstream Top 40 airplay is concerned
during that era.
Which set of numbers you choose to subscribe to is totally up to you!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 27 November 2022 at 1:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've always thought what Billboard did to the Hot 100 then was a shame, and a terrible thing. Swapping out the pop/rock/mainstream radio component of the Hot 100 for a "combo of all radio genres under the sun" : pop + R&B + country + hard rock + rap + dance + punk + jazz + classical + you-name-it. Plus also being heavily influenced by sales of non-pop/rock records with little to no airplay. In my humble opinion, Billboard should have kept the Hot 100 as is, pop/rock/mainstream based, and then created a new separate super-chart for their "everything including the kitchen sink" chart.
As we know, this also futzed with the stations who were carrying AT40, and Casey's post-split spinoff, causing both to go looking for a better pop chart than the Hot 100.
In a similar vein, even Record Research abandoned the similarly modified country chart for its country singles book, and instead went with the country radio airplay chart.
Question: which chart do all of yall consider as the best successor to the previous pop/rock/mainstream based Hot 100 after it went schizoid for a "combo of every radio genre" and "including sales with little to no airplay"?
a. Radio & Records
b. Billboard Hot 100 airplay
c. Billboard mainstream Top 40
d. some adult contemporary chart
e. anything else
Edited by RoknRobnLoxley on 27 November 2022 at 1:15pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: 27 November 2022 at 9:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
e. The Billboard Hot 100.
The mission statement of the Hot 100 was always to measure the hottest or
most popular songs in America.
In the 60s,70s and 80s that meant Mainstream Top 40 radio by and large
and the 45 RPM singles that reflected radio play.
After the collapse of Top 40 in 1992, the music industry fragmented so
much that a Hot 100 simply counting down top 40 pop rock radio would
neglect millions & millions of rhythmic, country and alternative rock
listeners - formats that were niche before, but equally prominent by the mid
90s.
Millions of people stream music now and by & large they don’t select what
iHeart radio execs have been playing to death for the last 8 months.
I personally wish the Hot 100 was still a “pure pop radio based chart” … I
grew up with Casey and love pop music.
But unfortunately it wouldn’t be accurate.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: 27 November 2022 at 9:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Edit: WHAT is up with the formatting on this site?!?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 28 November 2022 at 5:51am | IP Logged
|
|
|
jebsib wrote:
| Edit: WHAT is up with the formatting on this site?!? |
|
|
Are you referring to a relatively narrow column width on some posts? This seems to happen when a poster uses Chrome browser.
You can get around this fairly easily, in the lower right corner of the text box there are a couple diagonal bars. You can "drag" the text
box to a larger size by clicking on those bars.
If that wasn't what you were referring to, then please elaborate.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 28 November 2022 at 6:04am | IP Logged
|
|
|
jebsib wrote:
e. The Billboard Hot 100.
The mission statement of the Hot 100 was always to measure the hottest or
most popular songs in America.
In the 60s,70s and 80s that meant Mainstream Top 40 radio by and large
and the 45 RPM singles that reflected radio play.
After the collapse of Top 40 in 1992, the music industry fragmented so
much that a Hot 100 simply counting down top 40 pop rock radio would
neglect millions & millions of rhythmic, country and alternative rock
listeners - formats that were niche before, but equally prominent by the mid
90s.
Millions of people stream music now and by & large they don’t select what
iHeart radio execs have been playing to death for the last 8 months.
I personally wish the Hot 100 was still a “pure pop radio based chart” … I
grew up with Casey and love pop music.
But unfortunately it wouldn’t be accurate. |
|
|
While the dig at I-Heart was unnecessary, I mostly agree with your comments. If anything the older, pre-1992 charts are the
ones that paint an inaccurate picture. The rise of AOR in the 1970s proved that a song didn't have to be released as a 45
and/or played on top 40 radio to be a hit. Examples abound. Doesn't it seem odd that only AC crossover country songs made the
Hot 100 in the 70s & 80s?
I'm sure focusing on top 40 radio made sense in the 50s & 60s when that format was (in theory) the most popular music,
regardless of genre, but that became less and less true as the 70s rolled on and "top 40" became a genre into itself.
Sadly, things have become so fragmented that there really aren't any true hit songs anymore, by which I mean songs that 'most
everyone is at least familiar with.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: 28 November 2022 at 2:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks Hykker - was referring to the fact that while my responses look fine
when typing, they often post in a disjointed way with odd line-breaks in the
middle of sentences, etc.
I've seen this with many other posters as well, but oddly not everyone is
affected - I use Safari on my Mac, so maybe that is the culprit..?
And hey, I used to work for Clear Channel (which became iHeart) so no bad
blood - just a nod to the fact that a relatively few number of people control
what is heard by millions - same as it ever was, of course, but so frustrating
when you hear the same song 20 times a day!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 29 November 2022 at 6:14am | IP Logged
|
|
|
jebsib wrote:
And hey, I used to work for Clear Channel (which became iHeart) so no bad
blood - just a nod to the fact that a relatively few number of people control
what is heard by millions - same as it ever was, of course, but so frustrating
when you hear the same song 20 times a day! |
|
|
That's something that music fans have complained about with top 40 for decades. Power songs get
rotated quite heavily.
You have to keep in mind that to anyone other than radio insiders, when you've reached the point
when you're tired of a given song, most of the listening public is just becoming aware of it.
I've even noticed it myself as I've gotten older...I'll hear a cool "new" song on the radio, only
to find that it's a year and a half old!!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 11 March 2023 at 5:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
Question: which chart do all of yall consider as the best successor to the
previous pop/rock/mainstream based Hot 100 after it went schizoid for a
"combo of every radio genre" and "including sales with little to no airplay"?
a. Radio & Records
b. Billboard Hot 100 airplay
c. Billboard mainstream Top 40
d. some adult contemporary chart
e. anything else |
|
|
Post-1992, I considered Radio & Records the best successor. Of course, it
went out of business at some point. So now I consider the best successor
the Billboard Mainstream Top 40. (I also wish there was a chart like this that
also had a component for Mainstream sales - that would pretty much be the
successor in my opinion - but since the "end of the physical single", I
suppose the sales component wouldn't be that important anyway. Even
digital sales don't add up to that much.)
As far as Billboard changing it's "all-genres-in-one" chart back to the old
way, I kept asking the editor of Billboard to do that a lot (I'm pretty sure it
was Geoff Mayfield), and they did that! But for a very short time. And it
wasn't quite what I was asking for. I was saying to have something like a
"Pop 100", and that all-genres-in-one chart could be a smaller chart
(weekly) in both size/format and perhaps chart position (like some of their
other charts).
But what they ended up doing was post the Pop 100 as a full page chart
one week, then the "all-genre" Hot 100 the next week, and then Pop 100 the
next week, and then Hot 100, etc. They alternated each week, which
certainly wasn't what I was hoping for. And they stopped this after about 4
weeks; the editor told me it was too confusing for their readers, switching
the charts back and forth each week. Well, duh! I could have told him that
would happen.
I don't know why both couldn't have existed simultaneously each week,
even if they made the all-genre one a full page, like the Pop 100 that they
started doing. Then a reader could pick whichever chart they preferred (or
read both).
Does anyone else recall the 2 or 3 pop 100 charts they printed, for that
short time? (I may have the title wrong). Paul H, maybe you? You probably
had to look through them when you were doing your decades books :)
Edited by EdisonLite on 11 March 2023 at 5:39pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 11 March 2023 at 5:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
jebsib wrote:
| Edit: WHAT is up with the formatting on this site?!? |
|
|
Are you referring to a relatively narrow column width on some posts? This seems to happen when a poster uses Chrome browser.
You can get around this fairly easily, in the lower right corner of the text box there are a couple diagonal bars. You can "drag" the text
box to a larger size by clicking on those bars.
If that wasn't what you were referring to, then please elaborate. |
|
|
It's funny - I was wondering about this for a while. I use Safari, not Chrome, and my posts still have the narrower columns, while other people's posts go all the way from left to right. I'm going to try
your suggestion now and see if I get the longer lines, left to right.
But as far as some lines looking weird and being really short, I find this happens when I go back to edit a post. That's when some short lines will come up. And if I fix the short line, then the next line
becomes a short line! You have to keep going through to get to the end of your paragraph, correcting this for each line, if you don't want that uneven look.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 11 March 2023 at 5:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hey - if you look at my last 2 posts (left to right - lengthwise), you'll see that Hyker's suggestion worked. The 2nd post goes all the way, left to right.
BUT ... it also has some uneven lines, which I thought only occurred if you go back and edit your post - and I didn't go back and do that!
Edited by EdisonLite on 11 March 2023 at 5:45pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: The Gavin Report 1958-2000
