| Author |
|
Chatfan MA
MusicFan
Joined: 09 March 2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: 11 March 2015 at 4:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
As many of you surely know: the Billboard HOT 100 of the
years 1974/75 and 1988/89 showed more #1 records than
usual (with more than 30 #1s per year). In this forum I
read some interesting facts especially for the 70s. The
hits went in and out very, very rapidly and sometimes
fell out of the TOP 10 immediately after reaching #1. It
was discussed that the reporting system for the charts
probably was weak and did open doors for an arbitrarily
reporting, or even some "payola" behind the curtains. I
also learned that for similar reasons that Billboard
probably suspended airplay information already in May
1968 for the TOP 50 of the HOT 100. Until when I could
not clearly find out ... But who knows something about
the background for the chart "phenomenon" that was seen
in 1988/89 again with a high fluctuaion of #1 hits?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bill Cahill
MusicFan
Joined: 27 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 595
|
| Posted: 12 March 2015 at 4:40am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Some of the below is conjecture from my experience in
Top 40 radio in those years. The record promoters
would do whatever they could to prop up a song. Since
there was no monitored airplay the promoters would beg
the local radio stations to get their songs moved up
the local station chart. Sometimes they'd ask for more
airplay too, but not always, they just wanted it to
move up the local chart. Also, the label sales people
would do some tricks too, they'd give the Billboard
reporting stations free product to tell Billboard it
sold more copies than it did, or actually buy a bunch
of 45s. When scan bars were introduced there was an
accusation that a label purposely put the wrong scan
bar on a struggling album to make it look like that
album was selling more. There was also the habit of
stations doing "paper adds", where they'd add a song
to their playlist but never actually play it. Then
there was the opposite approach where an independent
record promoter would ask a station to NOT report a
song that they weren't hired to promote until that
promoter was put on the song (I believe this was
covered in the book Hitmakers) Of course that's
racketeering. Once a label stopped propping up a song
it would fall off quickly everywhere. While I'm not
positive, the 1974-1975 period may have involved some
promoters handing out drugs to radio station program
directors, and the late 80's there were certainly a
lot of paper adds. But there was also the issue that
nobody was buying 45s, so a label could buy ten copies
of a 45 in one reporting store and it could help the
cause. I cannot report any specific instances on any
of the above, and even if I could I would not report
them as I'd rather not have my legs broken...
Edited by Bill Cahill on 12 March 2015 at 4:44am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 12 March 2015 at 9:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
What's really amazing is that in 1974/75 there were even MORE #1s in both Cash Box and Record World!
1974 - Cash Box - 48 #1s
1974 - Record World - 44 #1s
1975 - Cash Box - 44 #1s
1975 - Record World - 39 #1s
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Smokin' TomGary
MusicFan
Joined: 26 June 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: 12 March 2015 at 4:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Creative manipulation of data is a combination of art and science. At one well known top 40 AM station I served as CE record reps would go to extremes to have their song added to our playlist. One song was #1 for ten weeks. You'd never hear it during daytime hours. It was dayparted until after 7pm. Under a previous PD an opposite situation occurred. He believed the Abba song "Fernando" had no place on the radio. It was never added and sold virtually no copies in the market, despite its nationwide success.
When I was OM at another top 40/Hot AC station I added Bill Medley's "I Still Do". This was the summer of 1984. I was still reporting it in the early Fall. The RCA rep told me they were no longer working the title and didn't need to report it. I told him I reported it because I got requests for it. He told me I was one of the few honest people out there. No paper adds for me. I reported them as I played them.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chatfan MA
MusicFan
Joined: 09 March 2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: 12 March 2015 at 6:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thnx Bill, Paul, Tom ... interesting. Thus can't we rely
on all charts ever issued?
I think, knowing all the charted TOP hits from the 40s
until now that most of them were really great hits ... if
we try to think in mainstream choice (means: a melody of
a song ... interpretation ... from popular movie ...
dance styles, etc. we can estimate if the song has a
good melody even if we finally like it personally or not,
isn't it so?). And finally, due to different reportings
from different people .. honest .. or manipulated the mix
was more or less okay ... of course, we never know how it
really was but I think the very biggest hits are
identical with the charts.
However, the chart methodologies can be improved even
today. Its not understandable that some hits like
"Wrecking Ball" got much more points from Billboard in
the formula from the streaming component (50% or even
60&) than the average streaming(20-30%) is. Why not 30%
as maximum??
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/ask-
billboard/5740625/ask-billboard-how-does-the-hot-100-work
... and so on .. thinking about "Harlem Shake" vs.
"Thrift Shop", too.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 12 March 2015 at 9:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chatfan MA wrote:
However, the chart methodologies can be
improved even today. Its not understandable that some hits like
"Wrecking Ball" got much more points from Billboard in
the formula from the streaming component (50% or even
60&) than the average streaming(20-30%) is. Why not 30%
as maximum?? |
|
|
I read the article, and I think you may be misunderstanding. The
percentages given are based on the total number of points that the
song received for each component. The article goes on to give an
example of "Dark Horse" that in its debut week it did not have a music
video or any streaming, it didn't have any airplay, and therefore 99% of
it's points were from sales. The percentages for each song will vary
from week to week, depending on how well it sold vs how many people
streamed it vs how much airplay it received.
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 13 March 2015 at 7:15am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Smokin' TomGary wrote:
Creative manipulation of data is a
combination of art and science. At one well known top 40 AM
station I served as CE record reps would go to extremes to
have their song added to our playlist. One song was #1 for
ten weeks. You'd never hear it during daytime hours. It was
dayparted until after 7pm. |
|
|
Wow, I don't think I've ever been involved with a station
that dayparted the #1 song...usually if something makes it
to power rotation, all daypart restrictions are removed
(this is not to say there may not be a day version and a
night version).
Burying songs a PD is pressured to add into overnights was
also a common trick.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chatfan MA
MusicFan
Joined: 09 March 2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: 14 March 2015 at 2:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aaronk wrote:
Chatfan MA wrote:
However, the chart
methodologies can be
improved even today. Its not understandable that some
hits like
"Wrecking Ball" got much more points from Billboard in
the formula from the streaming component (50% or even
60&) than the average streaming(20-30%) is. Why not 30%
as maximum?? |
|
|
I read the article, and I think you may be
misunderstanding. The
percentages given are based on the total number of points
that the
song received for each component. The article goes on to
give an
example of "Dark Horse" that in its debut week it did not
have a music
video or any streaming, it didn't have any airplay, and
therefore 99% of
it's points were from sales. The percentages for each
song will vary
from week to week, depending on how well it sold vs how
many people
streamed it vs how much airplay it received. |
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chatfan MA
MusicFan
Joined: 09 March 2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: 14 March 2015 at 2:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The percentages for each song will vary
from week to week, depending on how well it sold vs how
many people
streamed it vs how much airplay it received.
Thnx for information, now I understand that even if a
record in one week had 99% of streaming at all it will not
have more than 30% in the overall formula that is:
Hot 100 formula targets a ratio of sales (35-45%), airplay
(30-40%) and streaming (20-30%)."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Glenpwood
MusicFan
Joined: 03 April 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: 17 March 2015 at 8:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
While I wasn't even born yet for the 74 epic turnover on
the Hot 100 and album charts, (A few albums there also
dramatically crashed out of the top ten a week after
topping the chart), a lot of turnover speeding up in 88-
91 until the implemention of Soundscan I agree was radio
playlisting as well as singles not selling as well or
getting deleted the second they topped the chart or
reached the Top 10 forcing them to drop quicker and newer
available product to take their place.
Physical single sales were also in a drought for most of
that period. The
RIAA even lowered the certification levels since 86-87
had been so bleak. I think the lack of sales also meant
Billboard tweaked their chart to be more radio based. I
remember in the period before the first offical Soundscan
Hot 100 they were publishing SS Airplay & sales charts
that were showing vast differences between what was
selling or being played. A few singles like Whitney
Houston's Miracle stick out in my mind as never hitting
the Top 10 on either chart but still scraping top 10 on
the official chart. They also went out of the way to note
that Paula Abdul's "Promise Of A New Day" wouldn't have
topped the chart if the new formula was already in place
as it was only a top five placer on the SS airplay/sales
charts. Of course, that first SS Hot 100 was a real eye
opener when you had tracks like EMF's "Lies" pluge from
#18 to #66 and Curtis Stigers "I Wonder Why" from #9-#26.
The nice thing Soundscan did prove, even though labels
figured out ways to manipulate that system with free
goods, was that folks didn't tire of hits as quickly at
13 weeks and done. I know that can get boring for chart
watchers like us, but I find I recall easier a lot more
Top tens from that era than when were getting over 100
top tens a year in 88-89.
Edited by Glenpwood on 17 March 2015 at 9:00am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chatfan MA
MusicFan
Joined: 09 March 2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: 17 March 2015 at 2:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Glenpwood: Thnx for your comments. They seem to be the
solution for my initial question showing that the
SoundScan era was really needed to get more improved and
reliable charts specially looking at the "extreme" years
74/75 and 88/89.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KentT
MusicFan
Joined: 25 May 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 650
|
| Posted: 18 April 2015 at 7:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Indeed. I can think of one major dayparted song in my
broadcast career. Chuck Berry's "My Ding A Ling" was
that song. Conservative East TN AM station (owned by a
Bonneville spin off). Not played during morning drive or
3-10 PM. 10 PM to 5 AM fine.
__________________
I turn up the good and turn down the bad!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Billboard Charts 1974/75 and 1988/89
