![]() |
Billboard Charts 1974/75 and 1988/89 |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 12> |
Author | ||
Chatfan MA ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 09 March 2015 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 11 March 2015 at 4:20pm |
|
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? |
||
![]() |
||
Bill Cahill ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 27 June 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
Paul Haney ![]() Music Fan ![]() ![]() Joined: 01 April 2005 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
Smokin' TomGary ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 26 June 2011 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
Chatfan MA ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 09 March 2015 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
aaronk ![]() Admin Group ![]() Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Online Points: 123 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
Hykker ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 30 October 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
Chatfan MA ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 09 March 2015 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
||
![]() |
||
Chatfan MA ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 09 March 2015 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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%)." |
||
![]() |
||
Glenpwood ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 03 April 2012 Status: Offline Points: 2 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 12> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() 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 |