|
Post by jlthorpe on Aug 24, 2011 11:09:45 GMT -5
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. I posted a thread about this some time ago in the General Music forum: at40fg.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=generalmusic&action=display&thread=1928Just like rock and roll became the start of a new era separate from the big-band/crooner era, I was thinking the advent of Soundscan (or hip-hop, etc.) should be the start of its own separate era.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Aug 24, 2011 12:28:00 GMT -5
Good point. Some people on this board have made the argument that the rock era actually ended at some point in the 90s. If it could be defined as starting in 1955 and ending in 1991, then you could say in the rock era, this was the record and in the hip-hop era, this was the record. But I doubt that people will ever agree on if or when the rock era ended.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 24, 2011 14:41:44 GMT -5
Good point. Some people on this board have made the argument that the rock era actually ended at some point in the 90s. If it could be defined as starting in 1955 and ending in 1991, then you could say in the rock era, this was the record and in the hip-hop era, this was the record. But I doubt that people will ever agree on if or when the rock era ended. That's a very good question--it's hard to argue that the Rock Era really ever ended, since many songs over the last 20 years could easily fit into the rock/rock and roll/etc. category. No doubt that hip hop has entered the fray (just as disco did in the late 70's), but what does that really mean in terms of what the era is called? It maybe one of those things that's subjective until a universally excepted theory comes along. Maybe history will give us a better idea someday.
|
|
|
Post by jlthorpe on Aug 24, 2011 22:06:00 GMT -5
You could also argue that even after the beginning of the Rock era, you still had the pre-rock acts hitting the charts. Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Perry Como, etc. were still charting years after the rock era began, not to mention the acts that still had hits even a few years into the era.
The disco comparison is valid, and I guess popular music didn't completely switch over to hip-hop the way it did after rock and roll hit.
Soundscan probably is the better divider, if only because of how many records were broken by its use. So whereas "Dont Be Cruel/Hound Dog" set the standard in the rock era for most weeks at #1 pre-Soundscan (11), "One Sweet Day" is the new standard that songs will have to beat (16). Songs that stayed at #1 for 9 or 10 weeks prior to Soundscan and just missed beating the Elvis record, have been replaced with songs being at #1 for 13 or 14 weeks. As for longevity on the charts, it was pretty hard for a single to remain on the charts for longer than 40 weeks pre-Soundscan. Now the standard is 70 weeks (I guess 70 is the new 40). It's apples to oranges, like you all have said.
|
|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Aug 25, 2011 5:57:34 GMT -5
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.. 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. Guys, why do you believe these so-called records of the Soundscan era are meaningless? I always viewed this new methodology as a change for the better. Billboard charts have never measured quality of a hit record...just its popularity. These chart actions are just as valid (probably even more valid) than what was set before 1992.
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Aug 25, 2011 7:13:42 GMT -5
When Glee has been on TV for 2 years and has already broken Elvis's record for chart entries, but with all one week entries because of the ITunes way VS buying a 45. It is meaningless to me. The 90's stuff is not AS meaningless to me, but I don't think songs need to be on the charts for 40+ weeks. I do not believe it to be accurate. They overplay things but not THAT much!
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Aug 25, 2011 7:55:36 GMT -5
Soundscan-era records are meaningless when trying to compare the same record to what the record was before this era started in most cases. And to say Soundscan is better is subjective at best. I heard the Music Expert Retro countdown this week and in it, bme states that because of airplay stopping completely for "They're Coming to Take Me Away", it had a chart run of like 50-11-5-3-5-37. My point is that whereas in the last 20 years, sales is the dominant factor in where a song charts, back then, airplay must have been a much bigger factor. And it should be IMO so I don't necessarily think the Soundscan change was for the better.
And the way they are dealing with airplay in this era is questionable. Why include country stations and all these other genres stations in the tabulation of the Hot 100?
|
|
|
Post by jlthorpe on Aug 25, 2011 8:08:37 GMT -5
That's why I was arguing for a separate era. Before Soundscan and other Billboard changes, country songs hit the pop charts because they became pop themselves. Now a lot of country acts hit the Top 40 without real mainstream exposure (with the exception of some acts like Taylor Swift). As for chart records, I think the pre-Soundscan records are meaningless when compared with post-Soundscan. It was a special thing to have no song come close to the weeks at #1 that "Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog" had. Since Soundscan, many songs have broken that record.
|
|
|
Post by Caseyfan4everRyanfanNever on Aug 25, 2011 10:40:40 GMT -5
I'm currently working on a project to figure the top pop singles from 1955 to the present and am wondering how to "weigh" things so that the Soundscan era (Nov 1991-) doesn't predominate. I just don't want to end up with a chart where songs that have come out in the last several years don't take over. I may sound a bit old fashioned but I will never accept the idea that Katy Perry, Pitbull, cast of Glee, etc are hotter than Elvis, Beatles, Elton John, Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey. What I want to do is to be able to come up with a chart where songs that have survived the test of time receive proper credit and not be overwhelmed by recent songs that have remained on the chart due to what I view as lack of competition.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Aug 25, 2011 11:31:38 GMT -5
I don't know that it is lack of competition as much as the methodology itself. But what you want is what Billboard did in their 50 year anniversary Hot 100 issue in 2008 and I have posted about this subject previously. They weighed songs differently (after receiving complaints about previous such listings being what you said...dominated at the top by 90s and 2000s songs) and came up with a proper rankings of songs. Looks like we need a contact at Billboard to figure out how they did that!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 25, 2011 13:24:50 GMT -5
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. Guys, why do you believe these so-called records of the Soundscan era are meaningless? I always viewed this new methodology as a change for the better. Billboard charts have never measured quality of a hit record...just its popularity. These chart actions are just as valid (probably even more valid) than what was set before 1992. It is ridiculous to suggest that it's not meaningless to compare all these chart records straight up. If one were to compare the records and standards set pre-Soundscan with those set after Soundscan was implemented, there would need to be some mathematical qualifier (perhaps as dukedeb mentioned, the weighting system Billboard used for the 50th anniversary chart), and even that I don't think would suffice. The baseball HR record was given as an analogy, but when it comes to the charts, the behavior of songs on the charts, and records set, that analogy is really oversimplifying things. Examples of this have been given, such as the number of weeks a song has spent on the Hot 100, the highest debut, most weeks at #1, etc. and there are probably several more where that came from. The bottom line is that, whereas the Hot 100 used to be a means by which successes and/or popularity of songs, could be measured, it is now not possible to compare the success/popularity of today's hit songs with that of hits in the pre-Soundscan era. Therefore, comparing pre-Soundscan charts with Soundscan era charts is a meaningless effort. As for the Soundscan method being better...in theory I'm sure there was a case made that it would be leading up to the change in 1991. But there's more to it than merely the use of the Nielsen Soundscan system. It can be assumed that the level of accuracy increased in terms of sales and airplay data that was acquired each week, but once acquired, data can be processed and potentially manipulated in any number of ways (and I'm guessing your next point would be to say that manipulation was possible during the pre-Soundscan days, one which I wouldn't argue). I couldn't disagree more that chart actions are more valid that those of pre-1992. The validity of chart actions either before or after Nov. 30, 1991 are probably somewhat subjective, but the bigger point is that they cannot be reasonably compared with one another. The data and methodologies used were entirely different and should be treated as such. blackbowl, it should be said it's not that the records set in the past 20 years are meaningless, it's just meaningless to consider them records for any period of time outside of the last 20 years. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't assume that "One Sweet Day" (and other aforementioned Soundscan-era hits) wasn't a huge hit, but it is meaningless to try to argue whether or not it is a bigger hit than "Hound Dog" based on the Hot 100 action of each. Another song that comes to mind is "Jump" by Kris Kross in the spring of '92...that song was #1 for 8 weeks, which would have tied it for the 2nd biggest hit in the both the 70's and 80's according the Hot 100, but (and no disrespect to this song) would any logical person dare to suggest that "Jump" really belongs in that same category?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Johnson on Aug 25, 2011 13:51:29 GMT -5
When Glee has been on TV for 2 years and has already broken Elvis's record for chart entries, but with all one week entries because of the ITunes way VS buying a 45. It is meaningless to me. The 90's stuff is not AS meaningless to me, but I don't think songs need to be on the charts for 40+ weeks. I do not believe it to be accurate. They overplay things but not THAT much! The example above is one of the reasons why I don't put any validity into the Hot 100. Most of those songs from Glee DID only stay on the chart for a week; probably because all the Gleeks bought them on iTunes the first chance they could. I think it's a joke that the show Glee has more Hot 100 entries than Elvis. That's just me though.
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Aug 25, 2011 17:14:42 GMT -5
Caseyfan4ever: When I do my specials that encompass new and old, I make a spreadsheet and take into account the pre soundscan and soundscan eras by placing less emphasis on weeks on chart. I more pay attention to peak position (Giving a mirror point value... 40 points for #1, 39 for #2 etc...) I also give bonus points for each week at #1.
Another method to try is taking a 1/2 total of weeks. Say a soundscan song was on for 60 weeks, I say 30. Its alot more accurate IMHO...
(I only would do that for songs on the charts for over 20-25 weeks though. That is feesible... 30+ is a bit excessive!)
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Aug 25, 2011 18:51:18 GMT -5
Someone once told me the following method, which I haven't tried much:
Compute the point totals the same for all songs through the years. Then, for each chart (calendar)year, calculate the average points for a song that year. Finally, divide each song's points by the average. This will give you a ratio of how much the song did compared to an average song.
For example, and using completely made up numbers, say "Every Breath You Take" had 800 points, but the average point for a song from 1983 was 400 points. Then "Every" has a ratio of 2.0. Say "One Sweet Day" had a total of 2000 points, but the average points for a song in 1996 was 800. Then "Sweet" had a ratio of 2.5. So "Sweet" would still be a bigger song, but with not as big a difference from 2000 points versus 800 points.
You may or may not like this method. I've had limited success in using it to compare songs on the HAC chart from 1994 to the present.
|
|
|
Post by kahunaburger61 on Aug 26, 2011 5:55:32 GMT -5
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. Guys, why do you believe these so-called records of the Soundscan era are meaningless? I always viewed this new methodology as a change for the better. Billboard charts have never measured quality of a hit record...just its popularity. These chart actions are just as valid (probably even more valid) than what was set before 1992. AGREE! Before record store & one stop clerks could fudge on the numbers! Radio monitor meant PD's couldn't actually lie on their playlist anymore! Of course record promotion people got around all of it anyway through buying plays but revamped Hot 100 is alot more accurate gauge!!!
|
|