C.J. & Co. - Devil’s Gun

Although not listed by Pat, this song did make it to #36 in Billboard, and
was #100 for 1977's Top 100 singles in Billboard. I just bought a CD
single of this (with "We Got Our Own Thing") from Europe that was
released for dance DJ use. It's copyrighted from Westbound Records, and
does not sound as though it came from a vinyl source. I bought it to edit
it down to the 45 version, and found that you can't. The 45 version starts
out with a short drum roll not found on the LP version, and there is added
tympani in the intro. It IS nice to have a good copy of this song, though,
as it was one of my few favorites from the Disco Era. Now, to find the 45
version someday.

It doesn't seem possible that a song could only reach #36 on the weekly Billboard charts but end up as the #100 song for the entire year! It looks like chart positions could be bought up through 1977 anyway.

Paul Haney wrote: Moderator wrote: It doesn't seem possible that a song could only reach #36 on the weekly Billboard charts but end up as the #100 song for the entire year! It looks like chart positions could be bought up through 1977 anyway. Well, it was on the Hot 100 for 29 weeks, which was 2 to 3 times longer than the average for #36 songs during that era. In fact, it placed #3 in longevity for the entire year of 1977!

In some Billboard rankings that I've seen over the years, it's seemed to me like they gave an inordinate amount of credit for spending a long time on the chart, with less regard than might be intuitive for where on the chart those weeks were spent. One example that comes to mind is "I Miss You" by Klymaxx -- IIRC, it was ranked as something like the #5 song of the year on the 1986 Hot 100 year-end chart, even though it had only peaked at #3. The explanation apparently was that, in a period of relatively high turnover on the pop charts, it had a very long chart run. At the time, it was unusual to see a single spend much more than about 15 weeks in the Top 40 or 20 weeks in the Hot 100, but "I Miss You" did something like 17 weeks in the Top 40 and 29 weeks on the Hot 100.      

MCT1 wrote: In some Billboard rankings that I've seen over the years, it's seemed to me like they gave an inordinate amount of credit for spending a long time on the chart, with less regard than might be intuitive for where on the chart those weeks were spent. One example that comes to mind is "I Miss You" by Klymaxx -- IIRC, it was ranked as something like the #5 song of the year on the 1986 Hot 100 year-end chart, even though it had only peaked at #3. The explanation apparently was that, in a period of relatively high turnover on the pop charts, it had a very long chart run.

I had this backwards – it peaked at #5, but was the #3 song of the year.

torcan wrote: To me, it makes perfect sense that a song with a longer run would finish higher on the charts. After all, it's ranking up sales and airplay for that much longer than the average hit and it makes sense when all is said and done that it would be a bigger hit.

It certainly deserves credit for continuing to rack up sales and airplay, and I understand that this may push it higher in the year-end rankings than other songs with similar chart peaks. But all other things being equal, looking at songs like “Devil’s Gun” and “I Miss You”, it doesn’t seem like the additional sales and airplay attained by a song that lingers in the lower reaches of the chart ought to be enough to push its cumulative totals past those of so many songs that charted so much higher. Any system which results in a song that peaked at #5 being the #3 song of the year seems like it’s giving too much credit for simply being on the chart somewhere, and not enough credit for battling it out for the prime positions on the chart.

torcan wrote: During the mid-80s, the charts seemed to turn over quite quickly...but there were a few "stragglers" that seemed to run forever. REO Speedwagon's great "In My Dreams" is another one - only a No. 19 peak but a 30-week Hot 100 run. It easily finished in the top 100 for that year.

I’ve often wondered what the story was with that song. Here’s the chronology that I’m finding (I have info on its week of debut in the Hot 100 and its week-by-week positions within the Top 40, but no info on its week-by-week positions when it was below the Top 40. I am also assuming that the 30 weeks it spent in the Top 100 were consecutive, though I don’t know this for a fact):

--Debuted on the Hot 100 the week of 7/18/87

--Entered the Top 40 on 9/19/87, which was its 10th week on the chart

--Reached its peak of #19 on 10/24/87, which was its 15th week on the chart

--Last week in the Top 40 was 11/7/87, which was its 17th week on the chart

--Assuming no gaps, its 30th week in the Hot 100 would have been 2/6/88

Looking at the above, I’m struck by two things. First, it took a somewhat long time for “In My Dreams” to break into the Top 40. The underwhelming performance of the group’s previous single “Variety Tonight” (which only reached #60), and the fact that this was the third single from an album that had proven to be a mediocre seller (even its lead single, “In My Dreams”, had only hit #16), probably contributed to that. In addition, REO just wasn’t as hot of an act at this point as they had once been. I would imagine that this was not seen as a major new release by Top 40 radio when it first came out. Second, the song seems to have spent a very long time dropping down the chart. It remained in the Hot 100 for 13 weeks after the point where it fell out of the Top 40. Does anyone know the backstory behind all this?

JMD1961 wrote: MCT1 wrote: It certainly deserves credit for continuing to rack up sales and airplay, and I understand that this may push it higher in the year-end rankings than other songs with similar chart peaks. But all other things being equal, looking at songs like “Devil’s Gun” and “I Miss You”, it doesn’t seem like the additional sales and airplay attained by a song that lingers in the lower reaches of the chart ought to be enough to push its cumulative totals past those of so many songs that charted so much higher. Any system which results in a song that peaked at #5 being the #3 song of the year seems like it’s giving too much credit for simply being on the chart somewhere, and not enough credit for battling it out for the prime positions on the chart. At the time these year-end charts were being compiled, Billboard used an inverse point system based on weekly chart positions to generate positions on the year-end charts. (#1=100 pts., #2=99 pts., etc. down to #100=1 pt.) A three-tier system of bonus points was given for each week a song was in the Top Ten (#1=100 bonus pts, #2-#5=50 bonus pts., #6-#10=25 bonus pts.) Using this system a song generate points based on both chart position and weeks on the chart. So, a song that spent only a few weeks on the chart, even if it went to a high position on the chart, would only generate a relatively short points total. While a song that was around much longer could rack of quite a score and thus chart very high on the year-end chart. In the case of "I Miss You", it was a combination of the two (a high chart position and a long chart run) that allowed it to finish at #3 for the year.