Top 40 Music on Compact Disc: The Comparison Book 1954-82

Active Topics

Memberlist

Help

Chat Board
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board

Topic: The Comparison Book 1954-82

Author

Message

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

80smusicfreak
MusicFan

Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527

Posted: 19 February 2015 at 6:45pm \| IP Logged

Paul Haney wrote:

80smusicfreak wrote:

I first became an "AT40" addict in 1982, and like many regular listeners, it wasn't long before I started writing down all of the songs and keeping track, week after week. The first (and only) time I heard such an error on the show was in the Summer of '83. On August 6, 1983, the group Charlie entered the Billboard top 40 for the first time ever, w/ "It's Inevitable", and I was listening. In fact, it was the first time I'd ever heard the song, and I thought it was catchy as heck - so I quickly ran out and bought the entire album on cassette. The following week - August 13, 1983 - "It's Inevitable" peaked at #38, spending its second and final week in the top 40. (It only got as high as #43 in Cash Box, so alas, it's not included in Pat's db.) However, "AT40" played a DIFFERENT (non-top 40) song at #38 instead (can't remember which one it was, off the top of my head). At that time, I'd just started buying Billboard every week off the newsstand, and noticed that one of my new favorite songs had somehow been CHEATED from being played on the show, and couldn't understand why. Sure enough, near the beginning of the following week's countdown (August 20, 1983), Casey came on and explained how there'd been a "mistake" in the previous week's show, and that Charlie should've been at #38, instead of "XXX" - while adding that we wouldn't be hearing "It's Inevitable" on the show ever again, because it had now fallen out of the top 40, to number fifty-something. :-( I recall Casey saying that the error was due to some sort of last-minute change in the tabulation of the "Hot 100" that prior week...

Here's some more details on that situation:

The AT40 show for 8/13/83 was guest-hosted by Keri Tombazian and instead of "It's Inevitable" by Charlie, they played "Pieces Of Ice" by Diana Ross. The interesting thing is that if you look at the actual Hot 100 that week, Charlie is #38 and Diana Ross is #45. However, at the bottom of the chart in the A-Z index, they show "It's Inevitable" at #45 and "Pieces Of Ice" at #38! So there really does appear to be some sort of mix-up from Billboard that week!

Very interesting, indeed! I don't recall noticing that in the magazine at the time, but I guess that means Casey was telling us the truth when he made the correction on-air the following week. Still have my copy of that issue, but it's currently packed away in storage, and needless to say, it's been YEARS since I last flipped through it. Thanks for the additional info...

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6513

Posted: 19 February 2015 at 10:23pm \| IP Logged

I'm not so sure that you could say Pat is "re-writing history" by
excluding "The Letter" from the database. If the song only appeared in
one of the major trade magazines, I suppose a case could be made
that the song was not a "consensus top 40 hit" as Pat is quoted saying
earlier in the thread.

Quote:

But we can also flip this: If a song was only a #17 hit in BB, while
missing in CB altogether (like "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong") - and that is
enough to qualify it for inclusion in the db - then surely a song that went
all the way to #1 in CB should also be included, even if it missed in BB
altogether, right??? So why is Wayne Newton's 1992 smash, "The
Letter", not in the db???

I would agree if "The Letter" had been an actual hit; however, we all
know that's not the case. As far as the Spin Doctors song goes, it does
raise an interesting question as to why that song never made Cash
Box.

Edited by aaronk on 19 February 2015 at 10:42pm

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

Brian W.
MusicFan

Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507

Posted: 20 February 2015 at 1:57am \| IP Logged

80smusicfreak wrote:

So why is Wayne Newton's 1992
smash, "The Letter", not in the db???

Like Aaron said, because that one is very obviously a
fake "planted" chart position that was bought and paid
for.

Besides, "The Letter" wasn't eligible to chart in
"Billboard" at the time because it wasn't a single;
according to the "Cash Box" chart achive it was a
"Curb album cut." So if it charted on airplay only,
rather odd that it didn't show up at all on either
Billboard's Hot 100 Airplay chart or on Radio &
Records airplay chart.

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 23 February 2015 at 8:17pm \| IP Logged

Speaking of weird chart phenomena, I saw in this week's "Entertainment Weekly" Magazine, that at #8 on the album list is Shawn Mendes' "Handwritten". I checked their source, and the top 10 is based on iTunes - "for the week ending Feb 2". So I went to amazon and saw that both the CD and digital download album will become available for sale on April 28!

How can this be? At first, I thought maybe they include "pre-order" sales when iTunes tabulates their biggest selling albums of the week. But even that doesn't make sense. First, Shawn Mendes isn't THAT well known as an artist, and his single "Life of the Party" got little airplay, so it seems like the pre-sales of this album on that particular week would be minimal. Secondly, if iTunes really does include pre-order sales as sales and reports their top 10 to Entertainment Weekly in this manner every week - then (as a couple examples) the #1 album of the week would be, say, Taylor Swift or Katy Perry, WEEKS before the album was available for sale! And we've never seen iTunes or Entertainment Weekly list an album at #1 weeks or months before it was released. So can anyone explain to me why this Shawn Mendes album would be the #8 album of the week (in EW & iTunes) 11 weeks before it was released??

I almost wonder if this was some kind of technical error, and iTunes really meant something else was the #8 album of the week.

Edited by EdisonLite on 23 February 2015 at 8:21pm

Glenpwood
MusicFan

Joined: 03 April 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75

Posted: 01 March 2015 at 11:04am \| IP Logged

To clear up the Shawn Mendes situation, despite him not having an
actual hit yet on the radio he is a huge social media star with the
tweens thanks to his Vine videos. He is also touring with Taylor Swift
this year so between those two fan bases and the download of a new
song with presale purchase surged him into the Top 10 on Itunes
quickly the week in question. It crashed back down just as quickly but
I'm willing to bet whoever puts that chart in EW just copied the current
Top 10 albums off Itunes since its a rolling chart, hence its appearance
weeks before its release.

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 01 March 2015 at 7:18pm \| IP Logged

Glen, I'm not sure I completely understand. Are you saying it was sales of the single plus pre-sales of the album during that week that brought the album up to #8 on the iTunes chart that week? Is the iTunes albums chart now always based on pre-sales of the album and actual sales of the single (along with actual sales of the album)?

I know iTunes has a singles chart, too, so this is still a bit confusing to me.

Also, I believe I read recently about the Billboard charts that for every 10 purchases of a single, it counts as a sale of one album + 10 singles. Kinda odd that buying one single would count as sales for a single AND an album. I know many people in the business that think the Billboard charts are pretty useless now and became that way since they started including YouTube views as part of the Hot 100. And now don't Twitter mentions also count towards the Hot 100 and other charts?

Edited by EdisonLite on 01 March 2015 at 7:44pm

Hykker
MusicFan

Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386

Posted: 02 March 2015 at 6:30am \| IP Logged

EdisonLite wrote:

Glen,
Also, I believe I read recently about the Billboard charts
that for every 10 purchases of a single, it counts as a
sale of one album + 10 singles. Kinda odd that buying one
single would count as sales for a single AND an album. I
know many people in the business that think the Billboard
charts are pretty useless now and became that way since
they started including YouTube views as part of the Hot
100. And now don't Twitter mentions also count towards the
Hot 100 and other charts?

I'm not sure it's even possible to create a meaningful
chart today (and this includes much of this century). With
tight, highly focused radio playlists on one hand and the
ability to download songs that aren't even designated
singles muddies the waters to the point where you can't
tell what the hits are (all the 1 or 2-week "chart runs" of
songs by the cast of Glee is a perfect example).
It sure ain't like the old days!

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6513

Posted: 02 March 2015 at 8:54am \| IP Logged

Yes, it ain't like the old days. But you could also argue the flip side that
the charts are even more meaningful and accurate than they have ever
been. They reflect what people are actually buying right now, even if
that means a song can come and go on the chart in a matter of a
couple weeks. Why would you say that you can't tell what the hits are?

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 02 March 2015 at 12:35pm \| IP Logged

You could take it one or two steps further. There are so many ways to make determinations of popularity.

And btw, in the past: didn't the spins on MTV count toward the Hot 100 at one point, and then later, not?

Also in the past I believe, in the '70s and '80s, when there was a #1 country hit that was not on the Hot 100 - it must have had quite a bit of sales - and Billboard had a way of determining which singles sales applied to which chart/genre. Otherwise, how could there be so many #1 country hits in those 2 decades that didn't even peak at, say, #82, on the pop chart - with all those sales around the country?

But I digress ... now a computer could determine the total # of times a song (or an artist) is mentioned on twitter and facebook every week. You could take it even one step further - if there are ways to determine how often we mention a song title or artist on the phone (and don't some people think organizations like the NSA can do that anyway? :), these mentions could be added in, too. As well as people's personal top 40 charts (there are quite a few people that make their own charts.) And there are so many ways to take all possible info to determine a Hot 100. And as Hykker said, there are so many narrow playlists - because of narrow radio stations - which ones contribute to the Hot 100 - and couldn't we argue that classical stations be included, too - if some song gets played enough to make the Hot 100, why not? - and how much weight should each genre's radio stations count toward the Hot 100 - a country station vs. R&B station, etc. (Would it be based solely on the size of its audience?) Obviously, YouTube views and Spotify and Pandora plays count now. But how much do you weigh one person listening to a song on Spotify once vs. a NYC radio station spinning a song once?

I think the point is this could go on endlessly. I feel the chart tabulations are getting too chaotic. You can go overboard - and there was something very nice about tabulating singles sales and radio station spins for each genre, e.g. like "the good old days".

And P.S. If buying 10 singles equates to buying one album now (in Billboard), then a song like Meghan Trainor's "All About That Bass" (or any song near or at the top of the chart) will be skewing an album to look more successful than it is. That's why Billboard had separate singles & albums charts. If they really want to combine sales this way, then they ought to call the chart "the top singles & albums chart".

Edited by EdisonLite on 02 March 2015 at 12:55pm

MMathews
MusicFan

Joined: 18 August 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 978

Posted: 02 March 2015 at 1:54pm \| IP Logged

I recently watched an interesting show "Hitmakers" with lots of interviews with artists and record co. execs.

They had several artists from the "old days" (70's thru 90's) and a few recent ones that have to make their living in the modern world of streaming and downloading.

One of the record execs pointed out how much simpler it was in the pre-computer era. The main goal then was radio play,and as a result of that air-play get unit sales and then onto the Billboard charts. Sales and airplay would determine a "hit".

But he said in this modern world of streaming and smartphones, there are so many more avenues people are discovering and sharing music. You can have a song that isn't even on any chart yet, but might have 26 million youtube plays and millions of Spotify plays just from word / links spread thru social media. He said the whole definition of what makes a "hit" has now changed and there is no longer one all-encompassing place to go to know what is popular. That is the challenge modern record companies and artists face.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years.
MM

Edited by MMathews on 02 March 2015 at 2:03pm

80smusicfreak
MusicFan

Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527

Posted: 02 March 2015 at 11:42pm \| IP Logged

EdisonLite wrote:

And btw, in the past: didn't the spins on MTV count toward the Hot 100 at one point, and then later, not?

No - MTV videoplay was NEVER factored into the "Hot 100" rankings by Billboard at any time. However, starting in the January 29, 1983, issue, the magazine DID publish a weekly list of the channel's most-played videos, which was compiled & submitted by MTV itself. That very first list consisted of 63 then-current videos, broken down into three weighted categories: "Heavy Rotation" (defined by MTV as 3-4 plays a day), "Medium Rotation" (2-3 plays a day), and "Light Rotation" (1-2 plays per day). Another 6 videos were in the special "New Videos Added" category that week, making a total of 69. Over the next 10 years, the length of the list varied slightly from week to week, and additional categories were eventually added. I've often wondered just how much it would've changed things had Billboard found a way to accurately factor MTV videoplay into their chart mix, though - especially during the '80s...

Quote:

I feel the chart tabulations are getting too chaotic.

Yeah, and don't forget that starting in May, any current song charting on the "Hot 100" that samples an older hit will have half of its point total awarded to the original song as well, thus allowing many of those old classics to scrape back into the bottom of the chart... ;-)

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 03 March 2015 at 2:06am \| IP Logged

Are you joking? If that's the case, does that mean that a sampled hit would not do as well on the Hot 100 chart because half its points are being taken away from it? You're probably kidding ... right?

Edited by EdisonLite on 03 March 2015 at 11:13am

Hykker
MusicFan

Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386

Posted: 03 March 2015 at 7:38am \| IP Logged

80smusicfreak wrote:

I've often wondered just how much
it would've changed things had Billboard found a way
to accurately factor MTV videoplay into their chart mix,
though - especially during the '80s...

I wonder how MTV play would have been weighted, given the
fact that MTV was not on all cable systems in the 80s, and
there were some major cities (Boston was one) where cable
did not exist.

Those reasons could have been a factor in BB not including
MTV play in the Hot 100.

Edited by Hykker on 03 March 2015 at 7:39am

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6513

Posted: 03 March 2015 at 3:55pm \| IP Logged

80smusicfreak wrote:

Gordon, I read that as in addition--not that any points would be taken away from the current hit. I wonder, though, why they would do that?

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

Glenpwood
MusicFan

Joined: 03 April 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75

Posted: 03 March 2015 at 9:23pm \| IP Logged

EdisonLite wrote:

Glen, I'm not sure I completely understand. Are
you saying it was sales of the single plus pre-sales of the album during
that week that brought the album up to #8 on the iTunes chart that
week? Is the iTunes albums chart now always based on pre-sales of
the album and actual sales of the single (along with actual sales of the
album)?

I know iTunes has a singles chart, too, so this is still a bit confusing to
me.

Also, I believe I read recently about the Billboard charts that for every
10 purchases of a single, it counts as a sale of one album + 10 singles.
Kinda odd that buying one single would count as sales for a single AND
an album. I know many people in the business that think the Billboard
charts are pretty useless now and became that way since they started
including YouTube views as part of the Hot 100. And now don't Twitter
mentions also count towards the Hot 100 and other charts?

Yes, presales do factor into Itunes album chart rankings weekly overall
and hourly. However they do not factor into the Billboard 200 until the
fan physically redeems the presale from the albums actual release
date. They are also now counting individual album cut downloads and
album track streams towards the chart as noted above. I believe they
are doing this to stem the blood loss from album sales flatlining thanks
to streaming. Hence why albums like the new Nick Jonas are still in the
Top 40 when the physical sales are much much lower.I don't believe
they are allowing Twitter mentions to count though...

80smusicfreak
MusicFan

Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527

Posted: 04 March 2015 at 12:28am \| IP Logged

EdisonLite wrote:

Yes, as aaronk said, I meant "in addition" - not "taken away" - so the current hits would still retain their full (normal) point totals. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the same will also be true when cover versions chart - so the next time the "Glee" Cast extends its record-setting number of chart hits as the most successful group/artist in rock history, the originals will get half the number of points, too. No, wait - yeah, you got me (j/k all along)... :-P

Seriously, though, while I do believe that Billboard is doing its best to try and accurately measure the popularity of songs here in 2015, let's face it, the music biz itself is such a mess right now, that it's headed for a complete collapse, IMO. Like you said, the way it "functions" now, there are so many ways to make determinations of popularity that w/ the exception of the top 10 hits, it's hard to tell which songs are really "popular" anymore! (I pretty much agree w/ Hykker's assessment.) I was just attempting to throw out a couple other possible measures you may not have considered, lol. ;-) (Um, Twitter mentions in compiling the "Hot 100"??? REALLY?!? Now THAT'S a new one on me!)

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 04 March 2015 at 10:49am \| IP Logged

<Twitter mentions in compiling the "Hot 100"??? REALLY?!? Now THAT'S a new one on me!) >

Well, I'm pretty sure they count towards Billboard's "Social Top 50" weekly chart. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually get extended to counting toward the Hot 100, too.

mstgator
MusicFan

Joined: 06 September 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 98

Posted: 22 March 2015 at 8:13am \| IP Logged

EdisonLite wrote:

Also in the past I believe, in the '70s and '80s, when
there was a #1 country hit that was not on the Hot 100 - it must have
had quite a bit of sales - and Billboard had a way of determining which
singles sales applied to which chart/genre. Otherwise, how could there
be so many #1 country hits in those 2 decades that didn't even peak at,
say, #82, on the pop chart - with all those sales around the country?

I'm fairly certain that a song needed to be on a minimum number of Top
40 stations before being allowed to debut on the Hot 100 (at least that's
what I read in the mid '80s). So a #1 country hit could conceivably not
chart on the Hot 100 no matter how much it sold.

EdisonLite
MusicFan

Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237

Posted: 22 March 2015 at 10:13am \| IP Logged

That makes sense. Now I wonder ... once a country song reached that pop radio station threshhold, how did Billboard decide which SALES they'd count toward the pop chart and which ones counted toward the country chart. Maybe they went by town/state? It doesn't seem to me that they counted ALL the country song's sales toward the pop chart because ... every time a country song reached the pop stations threshhold and debuted on the pop chart, all country songs would debut rather high because there'd be a lot of sales contributing that week (assuming the pop crossover occured while the song was still in the country top 10 and not already way down on that chart).

JMD1961
MusicFan

Joined: 29 March 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185

Posted: 22 March 2015 at 2:19pm \| IP Logged

EdisonLite wrote:

Maybe they figured it on a percentage basis. If a song's pop radio points was ... say ... 20% of it's country radio points, then it would be assumed that 20% of its sales points were from pop exposure. Not very scientific, I know. Besides, I'm just speculating anyway.

<< Prev Page of 5 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.0664 seconds.