|
Post by kahunaburger61 on Aug 17, 2011 3:44:04 GMT -5
It's also worth noting that "Rick Dees Weekly Top 40" began to change in 1991. That's when he first started deleting songs from the countdown, or sometimes just playing a drop of it. The first song I recall that he skipped over was something by Another Bad Creation ("Iesha" or "Playground"). Later, he'd skip over all kinds of music. And even songs that had been on the chart for months (like "The Sign"). I believe this practice came to an end in 2009. ot surprised. With the new methodology keeping songs on the charts for eons, they had to do that. So AT40 had to ditch the Hot 100 chart & Dee's stopped playing songs on his countdown because new methodology & technology reflected the truth?
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Aug 17, 2011 7:23:13 GMT -5
Before the chart change in 1991, "I Do It for You" by Bryan Adams spent 7 weeks at #1. However, if BB had used its new method at the time, I believe that song would've spent nearly as long at #1 as Whitney, etc.
Unfortunately, Google doesn't have many BBs before 1991 on their site. However, they do have the October 12, 1991 edition. On the Hot 100 , the Bryan Adams song had fallen to #23. If you look at the Top 40 Radio Monitor, the song falls to #5. On the POS sales chart, the song is spending its 14th week at #1.
So, depending on its exact sales points, the song could've still been at #1 if the "new" version of the Hot 100 had been in effect. That would make it around week 12 or so at #1.
Working this analogy backward, I would guess that Whitney & Mariah/Boyz II Men would've spent 7-11 weeks at #1 using the old Hot 100 method.
|
|
|
Post by bandit73 on Aug 17, 2011 10:43:57 GMT -5
And how come rap and hip-hop all of us sudden gain such a presence on the charts, when the Hot 100 is not meant to favor any one particular genre? Small markets that had a lot of rock-leaning stations were basically dropped from the Hot 100 panel in 1991.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Aug 17, 2011 13:56:52 GMT -5
Well said wahoo and HOTAC. Billboard should have continued tabulating the Hot 100 the same way in some kind of unpublished chart just you could compare what songs like End of the Road, I Will Always... and One Sweet Day would have done in the old methodology versus the new method. For one one chart run, they have Smooth as the highest ranked song but it would be nice to see what it would have done in the old system just so everyone can see it for themselves that it is the top song. It is very tough comparing apples to oranges.
|
|
|
Post by kahunaburger61 on Aug 19, 2011 2:03:16 GMT -5
Well no matter what the reason Westwood One or ABC Radio or whoever FAILED! AT40 was always a quilt of pop, rock, r & b, country & adult contemporary songs! Who cares if there are rap, hip hop & country songs in current Hot 100 or how many weeks songs spend in Top 40 now!!!
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Aug 19, 2011 18:05:54 GMT -5
Well no matter what the reason Westwood One or ABC Radio or whoever FAILED! AT40 was always a quilt of pop, rock, r & b, country & adult contemporary songs! Who cares if there are rap, hip hop & country songs in current Hot 100 or how many weeks songs spend in Top 40 now!!! The radio stations that carried AT40 (and ultimately paid the bills) cared, which is why AT40 changed. The show would have been dropped from most stations (even faster than it was anyway).
|
|
|
Post by adam31 on Aug 19, 2011 19:23:35 GMT -5
C'mon Adam31, where's the love for Hammerin Hank? You're absolutely right, I had Willie Mays on the brain or something. How stupid is that? I need my baseball fan card revoked! I had to edit the post to erase the shame!! Hank Aaron 755 Willie Mays 660
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2011 7:40:36 GMT -5
I make two distinctions. One is chart history, the other is AT40 history. The chart methods changed, so debating what's equivalent in chart history is fine. However, for the program American Top 40, I have no problem accepting whatever records they claim songs have.
As fans, we can argue about the steroid era and whether the records are legitimate, but until baseball rules, the MLB record books will say Bonds is the HR king, and we live with that.
|
|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Aug 21, 2011 9:37:56 GMT -5
I read the original statement that started this thread & I have my own responses. 1) Were there any other times during AT40's run that Billboard changed the way they acquired and compiled chart data each week for the Hot 100 besides 6/9/73 and 11/30/91? Answer: 11/30/1969: They changed the Hot 100 from a song chart to a singles chart -- meaning both sides were combined into one position. 12/05/1998: Due to labels (stupidly) not issuing singles to sell more albums, the Hot 100 allowed airplay-only tracks to chart, creating the most uneven playing field I've ever seen in music history. They also expanded the airplay panel to include stations in all US music formats including Spanish radio. 2/12/2005: Sales from legal digital download singles were now included in tabulating the Hot 100. (Finally righting the leaning chart tower of Pisa) There was also another change to airplay that heavily benefitted country records. (Don't know for sure what it was.) 2) Maybe more so, what was the "game changer" in November 1991? We all know Billboard started using Nielsen Soundscan for chart data, but why did this cause such a seismic shift in the charts? It seems that the Hot 100 became more sales heavy again, but people were buying less singles than ever at the time. Were the sales of each song's albums considered a sale of the single at that point? And how come rap and hip-hop all of us sudden gain such a presence on the charts, when the Hot 100 is not meant to favor any one particular genre? Clearly there is more to it than merely the way data was gathered--perhaps the most significant evidence being that even American Top 40 stopped using the Hot 100 and went to the Radio Monitor chart instead...it sure seems like this was about more than just improving the accuracy of the Hot 100. Answer: three words -- technology vs. advertising! Before 1992, the Hot 100 was actually a composite of sublist rankings. These rankings would give every position a fixed number of points and, depending on each source, give weights to each position. This happened for both sales and airplay. When Billboard made the change, the sublist rankings on the sales became less meaningless because they never previously took "spread" into account; piece count was all that mattered. (and yes, the singles market during this time was actually growing!) Meanwhile, airplay became limited due to actual time. Stations also began playing too many oldies skewing to the chart in favor of sales. This change took place around the time kids of Baby Boom generation were rearing their own families. Advertisers were catering to this audience and the best way to reach them was through radio. But record buyers began using other means to hear their favorite music. BTW, there were many times before 1992 where the Hot 100 did indeed favor one genre of music over all the others. Finally, this change seemed to have an influence on popular music that contributed to the splitting of genres and formats in the early '90s. Sure, that was starting to some degree anyway, but was the Hot 100 change the chicken or the egg? Answer: Advertising caused this split. Many AC radio stations in the late 80s passed themselves off as Top 40 and became increasingly arrogant. Once these stations realized the music selling the most was what their advertisers didn't wanna sponsor, they started creating campaigns effectively to state they play better material (read: no R&B or hip-hop). Real Top 40 stations saw this and decided they aren't gonna play their music (read: your parent's music) and stuck with what the kids are buying.
|
|
|
Post by marv101 on Aug 21, 2011 22:57:31 GMT -5
Several dozen stations bailed out of the top 40 format over the course of several years starting in the late eighties due to the explosion of rap music in popularity among 18-34 year old listeners.
When Power 106 (Emmis's KPWR) went from nonexistent to #1 in less than a year here in LA, and knocking off Rick Dees & the beyond-humungous KIIS-FM (at that time the #1 radio station in the country, as it had been since 1983) in the process, the entire radio industry was stunned, which led to the launching of dozens of CHR/Rhythmic stations nationwide, as numerous top 40 powerhouses were either demolished in the ratings (KTFM) or segued into Hot AC (WZPL) as new hip hop outlets came out of the proverbial woodwork.
Classic Rock, Country, AC, Smooth Jazz & AC all experienced massive increases in the late eighties and early nineties, and all at the expense of top 40 radio.
Furthermore, the skyrocketing popularity of the Hot AC format starting in the early nineties at stations such as KYSR, KHMX (with Larry Morgan doing mornings after leaving KIIS) and KFMB all came at the expense of top 40 radio as well.
Country has been the most-listened to music format in the USA since 1992, as was the most-listened to format overall until it was surpassed by News-Talk in 2008.
That switch by Billboard certainly benefitted lots of rap and R&B/hip artists, no doubt about it.
|
|
|
Post by lasvegaskid on Aug 22, 2011 16:00:34 GMT -5
What changed? As I recall, around this time stations when from mom and pop to corporate ownership. Instead of playing whatever they could sell advertising on, the accountants and marketing people took over. Now demographics mattered. Corporate station A couldn't play song x if it was already being played by Corporate station B. They didn't want stations under their umbrella siphoning listeners from one another. Therefore station A played a very rigid list of 20-30 new songs and station B played a different list of 20-30 songs. My listening reduced because now instead of getting to hear Dan Fogelberg, Garth Brooks, Eddie Money, and Peter Frampton on one station, I was constantly spinning the dial. During this period, if there was a new song I liked, instead of hoping to hear it on the radio, I bought a lot of Cassingles.
Eventully I couldn't even do that anymore as there was a time they tried to phase out singles altogether.
As a result, you rarely had mutli format hits and multi format stars anymore. I think it really hurt acts like Michael Jackson that relied on broad based airplay and sales, the same song getting spun on AC, R&B, and CHR and selling a ton.
I remember listening hearing a couple songs in summer 1992. Restless Heart by Peter Cetera and The One by Elton John. Those are the last examples I recall of a song being played on CHR, AOR, and AC stations.
The other big change was no more music on AM. AM was a good option for the upper end of the CHR age range because they often dayparted the louder music or didn't play it at all (rap). Those captured by AM were now forced to listen to news and sports talk or find rapless CHR alternatives on FM like oldies or Smooth Jazz.
|
|
|
Post by MEF on Aug 22, 2011 18:12:02 GMT -5
Its was changing in Detroit radio in 1991 on CHR radio. We had 3 top 40 stations, WCZY, WHYT, and WDFX. Around that time WCZY changed to Hot AC and became WKQI. WHYT leaning toward CHR Rymthic. It became the rap station for Detroit. If you liked it you called it "96.3 FM." If you hated it, you called it "Disco 96.3 FM" WDFX was the last true CHR in Detroit. But at the end of 1992 they flipped to news/talk, then to country. For the next seven years, Detroit didn't have a CHR station. I remember I had to listen to WTWR 98.3 for top 40 radio, 30 miles away.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2011 14:04:37 GMT -5
I make two distinctions. One is chart history, the other is AT40 history. The chart methods changed, so debating what's equivalent in chart history is fine. However, for the program American Top 40, I have no problem accepting whatever records they claim songs have. As fans, we can argue about the steroid era and whether the records are legitimate, but until baseball rules, the MLB record books will say Bonds is the HR king, and we live with that. True - and time will tell whether the HR record, etc. will be qualified with some phrase like, "accomplished with the help of performance enhancing drugs". But, I would always qualify any of the Billboard records discussed during the rock era from 1955 - 11/23/1991 as "pre-Soundscan era". Otherwise, the so-called records are really meaningless. Take for instance the trivia question asked during the 8/14/82 show regarding the post-Beatles record that had the highest debut on the Hot 100 (the answer of course was Lennon's "Imagine", which debuted at #20). "Let It Be" had the all-time record for debuting at #6. However, during the Soundscan era, there have been how many songs that debuted at #1 - songs which at this point, it could be argued don't seem to have much historical significance in music...at least not that of "Let It Be" or "Imagine" and maybe more so, may not have had the success from a statistical standpoint (sales, airplay, etc.) that "Let It Be" and others had. So unless you qualify a record with which era you are referring, it doesn't make much sense to just say that song X holds the all time record for highest debut, weeks and #1, etc., just as it won't make much sense to compare what Barry Bonds accomplished with what Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, et al, have accomplished without PED's...
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 23, 2011 14:19:21 GMT -5
2/12/2005: Sales from legal digital download singles were now included in tabulating the Hot 100. (Finally righting the leaning chart tower of Pisa) There was also another change to airplay that heavily benefitted country records. (Don't know for sure what it was.) My understanding is that in the early days of rock and roll, singles (i.e. 45's) were the predominant form of music that people purchased. Albums then began to take over, and as blackbowl said, labels stopped selling singles in order to force people to buy albums. No doubt this was part of the reason that downloading, whether legal or not, became so popular overnight. In any event, the record industry has come full circle to a degree, in that singles sales in the form of downloads, dominate record sales again today.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Aug 24, 2011 8:01:52 GMT -5
I make two distinctions. One is chart history, the other is AT40 history. The chart methods changed, so debating what's equivalent in chart history is fine. However, for the program American Top 40, I have no problem accepting whatever records they claim songs have. As fans, we can argue about the steroid era and whether the records are legitimate, but until baseball rules, the MLB record books will say Bonds is the HR king, and we live with that. True - and time will tell whether the HR record, etc. will be qualified with some phrase like, "accomplished with the help of performance enhancing drugs". But, I would always qualify any of the Billboard records discussed during the rock era from 1955 - 11/23/1991 as "pre-Soundscan era". Otherwise, the so-called records are really meaningless. Take for instance the trivia question asked during the 8/14/82 show regarding the post-Beatles record that had the highest debut on the Hot 100 (the answer of course was Lennon's "Imagine", which debuted at #20). "Let It Be" had the all-time record for debuting at #6. However, during the Soundscan era, there have been how many songs that debuted at #1 - songs which at this point, it could be argued don't seem to have much historical significance in music...at least not that of "Let It Be" or "Imagine" and maybe more so, may not have had the success from a statistical standpoint (sales, airplay, etc.) that "Let It Be" and others had. So unless you qualify a record with which era you are referring, it doesn't make much sense to just say that song X holds the all time record for highest debut, weeks and #1, etc., just as it won't make much sense to compare what Barry Bonds accomplished with what Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, et al, have accomplished without PED's... Yep, there is no point in many instances of mentioning records that were set in the last 20 years because of the changes. Not only debuting at higher positions but biggest climbs to #1, number of songs on the chart by an artist, weeks on the chart, number of chart entries, turnover at the #1 position, consecutive weeks at any position are some of the categories that have been affected by the Soundscan system that allows songs to chart. It is a lot easier to debut high on the chart, amass a large number of weeks on the chart or number of charted songs, etc. So what you have is essentially one record for the apples and another for the oranges and that is as far as you can go with this.
|
|