Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 11:37:47 GMT -5
I don't believe this rule was in effect yet. Could swear I've heard songs from months ago in the bottom half of the show still. Maybe there was but not at #20 yet. For the record, I hate the recurrent rule and always have. If something is one of the 40 biggest hits and it's now #35 in it's 27th week it deserves to still be there. Couldn't agree more--clearly the recurrent rule was implemented to try to create more turnover among countdown songs and expunge songs that had lingered in the countdown for a long time. However, in adding such rules, the integrity of the countdowns became compromised. You're right Paul--the recurrent rule is essentially a manipulation of the chart that places songs in artificial positions, presumably to add to the appeal of countdown shows. But the end result is that you're not really getting an accurate representation of the charts. And truthfully, why should any respected publication care what a radio countdown does? If they have integrity they'll print things the way they are and let the shows do what they will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 11:45:55 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more--clearly the recurrent rule was implemented to try to create more turnover among countdown songs and expunge songs that had lingered in the countdown for a long time. However, in adding such rules, the integrity of the countdowns became compromised. You're right Paul--the recurrent rule is essentially a manipulation of the chart that places songs in artificial positions, presumably to add to the appeal of countdown shows. But the end result is that you're not really getting an accurate representation of the charts. I am going to both agree and disagree with you. The rule where a song was removed from the chart after falling below #20 was a bad rule. Having said that, at some point, wasn't there a rule later on where a song which fell below #50 was removed from the chart? That rule is somewhat of a happy medium between the old rule and having songs linger forever on the chart. Recently, Imagine Dragons spent something like 77 weeks on the Hot 100 which to me is crazy. With charts being based on airplay, there is no delineation between a new song getting airplay and a re-current song getting airplay. At what point now does a new song become a re-current song? I always wonder what the Hot 100 would have looked like in the 1980s had the chart been based on chart impressions like it was in the 1990s. Would songs like "You Give Love A Bad Name" by Bon Jovi been on the Hot 100 for 30+ weeks? Would R & B/Soul songs have done better on the charts than they did? Back in 1986 and 1987, Billboard published station playlists. I think there was a station in Boston (Sunny Joe White may have been the PD?) where once a song peaked on their chart, it was dropped and made a re-current hit. Songs dropped from #1 out of the countdown on some station playlists! This was reflected in the Hot 100 so songs had a much faster drop in the 1980s than the 1990s. I wonder how slowly or how quickly some songs would have moved in the 80s if the 90s rules were in effect. What you are describing is something like the country chart now. Billboard even implemented this nonsense of of a song lost spins for 3 weeks it's gone. So essentially a #1 song could fall to 2 one week and be gone the next. I've NEVER understood this. Yes, the hot 100 was dropping below top 50 but that's about all I remember about a top 50 rule. There is one and only one instance I'm actually fine with a recurrent rule kicking in. In the BB/AT40 days when they were using the AirPlay charts occasionally songs would peak and then drop off. And you know based on where it peaked it had seen it's popularity day come and go so I'm not talking about a song that got to #37. These songs would once in awhile come back. Notably to me right off the top of my head, in listening to the 94 shows this year, "Cryin" by Aerosmith returned for 2 weeks I think. Even moved UP in the second week! A song like this should have never been back. This to me was just stupid. Countdown show or not it's aggravating seeing or wasting time listening to something you know is an anomaly and isn't going far.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Sept 11, 2014 13:58:22 GMT -5
In the be careful what you wish for category would be getting more accurate music charts. When the charts became more accurate with impressions, etc., that's what happens. The charts are not as volatile. The charts in the 60s, 70s and 80s were more volatile and IMO more entertaining because as someone posted above, certain PDS..maybe most PDs... stopped tracking songs on their own charts once they peaked. So that's how you get the big drops. And when you get big drops, the charts opens up and you then have openings for songs to take big jumps. So when the charts were less accurate, they were actually more interesting with all the volatility. Once the impressions-methodology kicked in, guess what, the charts became more molasses like. Listening to these shows from Dec. 1991 onward on AT40 and April 1994 onward on CT40, it is always "Well there is one debut this week" or "there are 2 debuts this week". And the biggest mover this week, up 5 notches is...". No such thing as 6 or 7 or 8 debuts as there were in the 70s and 80s. Can't happen.
So it has always been my claim that before the 90s, teh charts had more of an entertainment value to them because of the chart volatility. But if you want a more accurate chart, you cannot have volatility too. Cannot have your cake and eat it too in other words.
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Sept 11, 2014 15:16:04 GMT -5
I don't believe this rule was in effect yet. Could swear I've heard songs from months ago in the bottom half of the show still. Maybe there was but not at #20 yet. For the record, I hate the recurrent rule and always have. If something is one of the 40 biggest hits and it's now #35 in it's 27th week it deserves to still be there. I just looked at a Top 40/Mainstream chart from 1993, and the recurrent rule at that time was 26 weeks and below #20. I believe it was the same for the remainder of AT40's original run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 16:38:27 GMT -5
I'd have to go back and look. I heard AT40 from 9/10/94 today and "Return to Innocence" was at I believe 35. Not sure how many weeks it was on as of that week, but I know it was a loooooong freakin' time!
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Sept 11, 2014 18:45:56 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 19:19:10 GMT -5
Looks like it was in its 25th week this particular show.
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Sept 11, 2014 20:05:01 GMT -5
25 weeks can seem like a very long time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 9:19:52 GMT -5
And to think that was becoming the norm then :/
|
|