Is the top 10 entirely wrong in the 90s?

Knew that would get everyone's attention! But seriously, I just wondered
how other chart lovers felt about this.

I often wonder if the record industry wasn't entirely skewed by charting
practices in the 90s, forever changing the marketing decisions on music
genres. After the basic death of the 45 rpm, cassingles started getting
counted after a few years I believe...but then they were phased out by CD
singles, and I don't think those were actually charted for a while either.
Not to mention many "singles" released by artists in the 90s were never
actually ON a single, I think to bring up full length CD sales. As a result,
billboard eventually changed its method of charting the hits to make sure
these tracks, which were often huge radio hits, got counted in the charts.
But for most of the 90s, these tracks didn't even chart...if you look at Joel
Whitburn's book, he has that symbol next to "alternatve" chart hits that
were hugely popular, but couldn't make the offical chart because they
weren't released as singles.

From where I sit in New York, I can say that when I look back at each
week's top ten in the 90s, a majority of the songs charted were never
even played on popular radio here. We were bombarded by grunge and
"alt rock" tracks...that never charted but were huge "hits" in New York
reality.

Many of the official top ten hits I own from this era (I, like many on here,
collect all the chart hits) I had never even heard until i added them to my
collection.

There's very little diversity in 90s top ten hits--there's rarely a dance
track (and there was an abundance of them becoming big in the 90s,
from La Bouche, Real McCoy, Deboran Cox, Amber, etc) and there is
rarely a grunge or rock track...even some of the biggest tracks from the
the boy band/teen queen explosion don't make a dent in the top ten.

Does anyone think that billboard somehow didn't keep up with the times
by not changing charting method sooner, perhaps sending a completely
wrong message to record companies as to what was really popular music
of the time? Eventually, it becomes a vicious cycle--if the record industry
thinks certain sounds are hot, they start marketing that to listeners. If
young listeners are being spoonfed specific types of music, it's what they
are going to buy, simply because they've not had exposure to other
styles.

Personally, as a lover of pop music, there are SO many 'perfect pop'
songs from the 90s that I can't even believe never got any airplay, let
alone have the opportunity to chart.

What are other peoples thoughts/feelings/opinions about this
problematic chart period of RnR history?

Part of me agrees and part of me doesn't, mainly because Billboard's allowing non-commercial singles to chart on the Hot 100 led quickly to the demise of the commercial single. That certainly wasn't the only factor, but it was a HUGE factor in the demise of the format. Prior to that, most songs were still commercially released as singles. That's all changed now, but we had about a four-year period where sales were hardly factored into the Hot 100 at all -- it was all the whim of programming directors and the record companies who paid for hits.

Don't forget that the Hot 100 also changed significantly when they starting compiling it from SoundScan info in late 1991. For the six months prior to that, Billboard continued compiling the Hot 100 from their record store/radio station surveys while they were compiling the published Hot 100 Sales and Hot 100 Airplay charts from Soundscan info, and they were shocked at the discrepancy.

Example: Rod Stewart's "The Motown Song." #10 Hot 100. Sounscan Sales: #24. Soundscan Airplay: #36. That song would never have made the top ten on the Hot 100 if they had made the switch to Soundscan a few months earlier.

The George Michael/Elton John duet would likely have never been #1 if they had switched to Soundscan earlier, as it only hit #4 in both sales and airplay on the concurrent Soundscan-based charts.

That's when hip-hop and country singles started charting high on the charts, is when they began compiling it from Soundscan and getting the REAL figures.

Perhaps the question should be, "Are all charts before November 30, 1991 wrong?"

I actually think the Hot 100 is in really good shape at the moment. Some people have complained that it's time for doubling of download points to stop, but I don't know... I like that, week to week, the #1 hit on the Hot 100 is usually also the bestselling download or commercial single. I think the Hot 100 should be maybe 40% airplay, 60% sales.

Anyway, to answer your question: No, in spite of the airplay-only hits of the 1990s (which were really only a factor for about a five-year period, '94-'98), I think the Hot 100 was more accurate in the 1990s than at any time in the past.

There have always been occasional airplay-only hits that did not rank on the Hot 100. Stevie Wonder's "Isn't She Lovely" comes to mind. For some reason Stevie Wonder would not allow its release as a single.

Brian W. wrote: Stairway to Heaven is another song that was huge that never charted on the Hot 100. I have often thought Billboard should get rid of the Hot 100 and go back to separate airplay and sales charts. I think they're two different animals.

The Hot 100 has always been a sales/airplay chart since its inception in 1958. Prior to that there were charts such as "Best Sellers In Stores", "Most Played By Jockeys", "Most Played in Juke Boxes" and a Top 100. Billboard didn't print a sales/airplay breakdown until 1984.

there's also the impact of MTV..before it became NON-Music Television.
So many huge videos never charted on billboard either or got an radio
play.

Even to this day, I'll watch the top 20 video countdown on VH1 and every
couple of videos I'll be like, "I've never even heard this song on the radio,
yet it's a huge video hit?"

Soundscan made the data more accurate. Once it was in place, country and hip-hop started showing up more on the charts, leading the industry to change course. It is well-known that music sales figures had been artificially inflated before Soundscan. Even after Soundscan was implemented, retail clerks found ways to artificially boost sales figures of a given title at the point of sale.   But, the data was still now more accurate than before.

Radio play has always been regional, and you can't determine what was popular on radio alone. Grunge and alt could have been big in NY, but hip hop could have been more popular in Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Dallas, for an example. Perhaps the music sold more despite, or in spite of possible lower radio activity. If there were fewer or no singles available, it sounds perfectly logical to track album tracks. Radio is so fragnmented that one couldn't get totally reliable data from that. Now it's all going to get more interesting because online sales are now included in chart data.

That's my opinion, if you can call it that...