|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Aug 26, 2011 7:04:10 GMT -5
I totally disagree. things didnt change overnight with sales and airplay. I understand songs got overplayed back then too, but not like this.
Also, I doubt if we had soundscan back in the 70's that songs like I Go Crazy By Paul Davis & How Deep Is Your Love by The Bee Gees would've been on the charts 50-60 weeks.
Soundscan is a joke and so is top 40 radio/the charts these days.
I mean come on, even Kesha's fans can't put up with the same song from her for more than 20 weeks, let alone 50
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Aug 26, 2011 8:24:21 GMT -5
One of the if not the biggest problem in the last 20+ years as compared to the 60s, 70s and 80s is the demise of top 40 radio. Back in those decades, top 40 radio was big and you could base the airplay portion of the Hot 100 on what top 40 radio played. But as we all know, top 40 as we knew it died around the beginning of the 90s. So with or without Soundscan, you had an unwieldy situation having to monitor all these stations from different genres. That is part of the reason that songs are staying on the chart for eons. When you have stations that just play AC or country or hip-hop, etc., those stations are going to play a certain song for a lot longer time than was the case with top 40 stations playing any given song back in the previous decades. Which is why we are in the apples and oranges situation that we are in. Even with all the tabulation adjustments, you may never be able to get a totally level playing field between say the 70s and the 2000s.
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Aug 26, 2011 10:02:53 GMT -5
I agree Dukedeb... I still say that handicapping the newer songs is the way to go. It seems to me that most songs' chart time has doubled from what it would have been otherwise...
|
|
|
Post by Hervard on Aug 27, 2011 12:46:26 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. I actually do like that method. It does give a truer picture of how popular songs really were, rather than favoring songs that charted in a certain era where the charts moved slower over others during a time when the chart moved more quickly (namely, the mid and late 1980s).
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Aug 27, 2011 14:28:36 GMT -5
I don't understand this statement... you may not like the numbers you're seeing, but they are certainly accurate in showing actual sales and airplay each week. Notice that even the Radio & Records charts slowed to a crawl in the mid-'90s when they started using actual number-of-plays rather than the old ranked playlist method. I will agree with you that Top 40 radio is a joke today (a station should not be playing a song 120 times each week). The charts just happen to be a reflection of the sad reality.
|
|
|
Post by marv101 on Sept 3, 2011 10:11:34 GMT -5
I agree with wahoo 100% regarding dividing all of Billboard's chart records into the pre-Soundscan and post Soundscan era due to the outsized emphasis which digital sales (iTunes, etc.) has in formulating the Hot 100 chart, and making it substantially easier to manipulate, and substantially less consistent & accurate in the process.
Consequently, when 'Harper Valley PTA' took the biggest jump in the history of the Hot 100 in 1968 (77 slots), it really meant something, and ditto for 'My Sweet Lord', which sailed 74 notches in a single week two years later.
Given the plethora of songs which have obliterated those standards over the past several years, those achievements are substantially less impressive for the aforementioned reasons.
The fact that Billboard has lost a ton of integrity by allowing the same song in both its original and remixed versions at two or more different formats to still be eligible to have both versions blended into a single listing on the Hot 100 instead of treating each single as a separate entity is also preposterous (think Taylor Swift).
Consequently, whenever I read that 'such and such' (artist or single) becomes the first (single or artist) in the history of the Hot 100 to (list chart achievement here), I immediately disregard it as being pointless, comparing apples to oranges, in a sense.
|
|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Sept 3, 2011 10:59:02 GMT -5
I understand why people feel there should be a weighted system to tabulate the greatest hits of HOT 100 history, but I'm extremely bothered by the motive behind it. There seems an overall belief all the hits of the last 20 years are so inferior to those of 30 years before. I find this totally biased because people simply want to amplify the chart careers of Elvis & the Beatles. In terms of chart performance, I don't consider them any better or worse than acts like Boyz II Men, Eminem, or Katy Perry. There's too many here trying to write with the mindset of a Rolling Stone columnist instead of a Billboard reporter. You can't call yourself a chart historian if you can't view a Hot 100 chart in 2011 with the same enthusiam as you would a chart in 1971. I'm a firm believer than airplay gets a song on a chart but it's sales that sends it to No. 1.
|
|
|
Post by marv101 on Sept 3, 2011 21:01:29 GMT -5
The problem with Billboard's current methodology remains that he went on todigital sales have far too much weight as opposed to airplay.
As Dick Griffey, the president of SOLAR Records (Whispers/Lakeside/Shalimar) pointed out in a blistering condemnation of BB's Hot 100 in 1980, 'It's A Love Thing' by the Whispers sold 2.2 million copies, in the USA, but barely cracked the top 30 of BBs Hot 100--he went on to say that it should have been a top five record, and he was absolutely correct.
That's also why trying to tabulate a top 100 singles of all-time while blending the wide difference in the methodology pre-Soundscan vs. post-Soundscan would also be downright challenging, if not totally impossible.
Furthermore, the top 40 format was substantially bigger not only popularity-wise but also as it relates to the number of stations in the format throughout the sixties, seventies and most of the eighties than it is today, and also enjoyed a much wider variety of music, since rock music has essentially been nonexistent at the format for several years, going back to early 2000's charttoppers from the likes of Linkin Park, Three Doors Down, Green Day & Avril Lavigne.
The format's appeal is also substantially narrower than ever, having lost millions of adult listeners between the late eighties and the late nineties, during which time several dozen stations bailed out of the format forever.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 4, 2011 1:44:41 GMT -5
The problem with Billboard's current methodology remains that he went on todigital sales have far too much weight as opposed to airplay. As Dick Griffey, the president of SOLAR Records (Whispers/Lakeside/Shalimar) pointed out in a blistering condemnation of BB's Hot 100 in 1980, 'It's A Love Thing' by the Whispers sold 2.2 million copies, in the USA, but barely cracked the top 30 of BBs Hot 100--he went on to say that it should have been a top five record, and he was absolutely correct. That's also why trying to tabulate a top 100 singles of all-time while blending the wide difference in the methodology pre-Soundscan vs. post-Soundscan would also be downright challenging, if not totally impossible. Furthermore, the top 40 format was substantially bigger not only popularity-wise but also as it relates to the number of stations in the format throughout the sixties, seventies and most of the eighties than it is today, and also enjoyed a much wider variety of music, since rock music has essentially been nonexistent at the format for several years, going back to early 2000's charttoppers from the likes of Linkin Park, Three Doors Down, Green Day & Avril Lavigne. The format's appeal is also substantially narrower than ever, having lost millions of adult listeners between the late eighties and the late nineties, during which time several dozen stations bailed out of the format forever. No offense...but what you've just posted here would be evidence for the argument that they never got it right.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Sept 4, 2011 7:58:08 GMT -5
The problem with Billboard's current methodology remains that he went on todigital sales have far too much weight as opposed to airplay. As Dick Griffey, the president of SOLAR Records (Whispers/Lakeside/Shalimar) pointed out in a blistering condemnation of BB's Hot 100 in 1980, 'It's A Love Thing' by the Whispers sold 2.2 million copies, in the USA, but barely cracked the top 30 of BBs Hot 100--he went on to say that it should have been a top five record, and he was absolutely correct. That's also why trying to tabulate a top 100 singles of all-time while blending the wide difference in the methodology pre-Soundscan vs. post-Soundscan would also be downright challenging, if not totally impossible. Furthermore, the top 40 format was substantially bigger not only popularity-wise but also as it relates to the number of stations in the format throughout the sixties, seventies and most of the eighties than it is today, and also enjoyed a much wider variety of music, since rock music has essentially been nonexistent at the format for several years, going back to early 2000's charttoppers from the likes of Linkin Park, Three Doors Down, Green Day & Avril Lavigne. The format's appeal is also substantially narrower than ever, having lost millions of adult listeners between the late eighties and the late nineties, during which time several dozen stations bailed out of the format forever. He was probably just as upset at the other 2 groups on his label missing the top 40 completely with songs I hear all the time on my R&B oldies staion...Laskeside's "Fantastic Voyage" and Shalamar's "Make That Move". Great songs I might add.
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Sept 4, 2011 20:31:42 GMT -5
As Dick Griffey, the president of SOLAR Records (Whispers/Lakeside/Shalimar) pointed out in a blistering condemnation of BB's Hot 100 in 1980, 'It's A Love Thing' by the Whispers sold 2.2 million copies, in the USA, but barely cracked the top 30 of BBs Hot 100--he went on to say that it should have been a top five record, and he was absolutely correct. I'm going off-topic, but I have to wonder why SOLAR never requested the RIAA certify "It's A Love Thing" platinum (heck, even gold...)? I realize the record companies have to pay for the audit, which may be expensive for a smallish label, but you'd think the president of the label would at least want something official showing the single was a huge hit even if the pop chart didn't reflect it. (That happens to be one of my favorite songs, btw... glad to know at least 2 million others liked it too.)
|
|
|
Post by artsmusic on Sept 9, 2011 6:50:12 GMT -5
Here's something you guys might not have seen. It's one of the reasons in the digital download era that we may have been able to try to compare the pre-'91 charts to the post-'91s....but we can't compare EITHER to the digital current reality. On this week's Hot 100, Lil Wayne has EIGHT songs join three that were already charted. 1/10+ of the chart is Lil Wayne.
Surely any/all of the popular artists of the past whose albums were pieced out would have had as many entries. Not just the Beatles and Elvis, but the Madonnas, MJs and any other super hot artists could likely have had 10 entries. Thought you guys should know !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 12:52:58 GMT -5
I understand why people feel there should be a weighted system to tabulate the greatest hits of HOT 100 history, but I'm extremely bothered by the motive behind it. There seems an overall belief all the hits of the last 20 years are so inferior to those of 30 years before. I find this totally biased because people simply want to amplify the chart careers of Elvis & the Beatles. In terms of chart performance, I don't consider them any better or worse than acts like Boyz II Men, Eminem, or Katy Perry. There's too many here trying to write with the mindset of a Rolling Stone columnist instead of a Billboard reporter. You can't call yourself a chart historian if you can't view a Hot 100 chart in 2011 with the same enthusiam as you would a chart in 1971. I'm a firm believer than airplay gets a song on a chart but it's sales that sends it to No. 1. I don't consider that to be the case at all. However, do you think all the acts from the last 20 years are better than nearly every act of the previous 30 as you alluded to? When looking at the Top 100 of the 90's from R&R, did you think everything from 94-on was better than nearly everything from 90-93? I think people would just like more of an apples to apples comparison between the two. Thats all. If "Boom Boom Pow" or something like that is the number 1 song of all time, fine. But I'd like to see that in proper comparison with the charts and methodologies of the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 12:56:54 GMT -5
Here's something you guys might not have seen. It's one of the reasons in the digital download era that we may have been able to try to compare the pre-'91 charts to the post-'91s....but we can't compare EITHER to the digital current reality. On this week's Hot 100, Lil Wayne has EIGHT songs join three that were already charted. 1/10+ of the chart is Lil Wayne. Surely any/all of the popular artists of the past whose albums were pieced out would have had as many entries. Not just the Beatles and Elvis, but the Madonnas, MJs and any other super hot artists could likely have had 10 entries. Thought you guys should know ! Maybe I'm just naive to all of this. Back when Billboard used sales to help tabulate their charts (I'm talking back in the 70's and 80's now) was it just singles and 45's or did actual album sales somehow count towards the single on the chart as well since it could easily be assumed that someone bought the album to hear the song? I always assumed entire album sales were figured in. This leads to this issue with the digital download deal. Digital downloads of singles count for that song. Digital sownloads of the albums count for that song. Digital downloads of others that are not released, don't.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Sept 9, 2011 13:42:40 GMT -5
I understand why people feel there should be a weighted system to tabulate the greatest hits of HOT 100 history, but I'm extremely bothered by the motive behind it. There seems an overall belief all the hits of the last 20 years are so inferior to those of 30 years before. I find this totally biased because people simply want to amplify the chart careers of Elvis & the Beatles. In terms of chart performance, I don't consider them any better or worse than acts like Boyz II Men, Eminem, or Katy Perry. There's too many here trying to write with the mindset of a Rolling Stone columnist instead of a Billboard reporter. You can't call yourself a chart historian if you can't view a Hot 100 chart in 2011 with the same enthusiam as you would a chart in 1971. I'm a firm believer than airplay gets a song on a chart but it's sales that sends it to No. 1. I don't consider that to be the case at all. However, do you think all the acts from the last 20 years are better than nearly every act of the previous 30 as you alluded to? When looking at the Top 100 of the 90's from R&R, did you think everything from 94-on was better than nearly everything from 90-93? I think people would just like more of an apples to apples comparison between the two. Thats all. If "Boom Boom Pow" or something like that is the number 1 song of all time, fine. But I'd like to see that in proper comparison with the charts and methodologies of the past. Well said Paul. I definitely concur with that assessment. As to your question about the 70s and 80s, album sales had absolutely no input into the Hot 100. It was a singles chart and had nothing to do with album sales.
|
|