Talking Hot 100 Blues

[doomsdaymachine]

"If you’re a chart obsessive like I am, you likely are aware that, beginning around the time I worked at the magazine, dramatic changes rocked the Billboard Hot 100. The magazine began using computerized analyses of both airplay and sales at that time, in an effort to make the Hot 100 and its other charts more accurate than ever; paradoxically, though, changes in the practices of those who spun, manufactured and sold music conspired at that time to make the magazine’s flagship chart a less-accurate reflection of the public’s musical tastes."

popdose.com/jesus-of-cool-talking-hot-100-blues-with-geoff-mayfield/

[matt]

This is a great article, and goes a long way toward answering so many of the questions I have had about the Hot 100 and it's wild transformations over the last 20 years (thus prompting my start of the thread "What was the game changer back in '91" on these here boards).

The lack of inclusion of non-singles really wrecked the credibility of the Hot 100 during the 90's. How can you use the Hot 100 as any sort of accurate indicator of the most popular songs when it didn't include huge hits like "Don't Speak"? And we now know why the Soundscan method has had such an effect on stays at #1. Very interesting...and thanks a bunch for posting this link, Mr. doomsdaymachine!

[blackbowl68]

As far as songs like "Don't Speak" not making the Hot 100, I blame the greediness of the record companies themselves for damaging the credibility of the chart. If you see a record is getting mad requests on radio, why on earth would you not issue a single release? They played this hijack game to force consumers to buy a full album to ONE song. Billboard should have never changed its singles policy in 1998 to accommodate these non-singles. Fans should have further convinced the labels to issue the single.

[dukelightning]

Thanks for sharing. It looks like the Hot 100 was quite inaccurate for 10-15 years until about 2005 and was the most inaccurate for most of the 90s. To not have songs like "Don't Speak", "Iris" and "Torn" on the Hot 100 when clearly they were the biggest hits of those years is a major mistake. Some of the oddities of the 70s are also alluded to it would seem when it was pointed out that songs were intentionally passed over for the next record once they hit #1. That would explain the 35 #1s each in 1974 and 1975 and specifically the big drops from #1 in late 74 and the 12 straight new #1s in early 1975.

All of which makes comparing #1 songs and making lists of the biggest songs of the rock era or the last 20, 30, 50 years or whatever an exercise in futility. Incidentally, he made one mistake when he said there was only one song between 1958 and 1992 that spent 10 weeks at #1. He omitted "You Light Up My Life".

[Mike]

Jan 14, 2012 3:30:28 GMT -5 blackbowl68 said:

As far as songs like "Don't Speak" not making the Hot 100, I blame the greediness of the record companies themselves for damaging the credibility of the chart. If you see a record is getting mad requests on radio, why on earth would you not issue a single release? They played this hijack game to force consumers to buy a full album to ONE song. Billboard should have never changed its singles policy in 1998 to accommodate these non-singles. Fans should have further convinced the labels to issue the single.

Considering the hard-line stubbornness of the industry when it comes to things like music prices, I think odds would've been better at Billboard going belly-up from all the bad press over its pre-1998 policy, as opposed to labels giving in and issuing singles more readily again. The record industry has shown to be one that isn't often inclined to listen to its consumers.

[matt]

Jan 14, 2012 13:31:15 GMT -5 Mike said:

Jan 14, 2012 3:30:28 GMT -5 blackbowl68 said:

As far as songs like "Don't Speak" not making the Hot 100, I blame the greediness of the record companies themselves for damaging the credibility of the chart. If you see a record is getting mad requests on radio, why on earth would you not issue a single release? They played this hijack game to force consumers to buy a full album to ONE song. Billboard should have never changed its singles policy in 1998 to accommodate these non-singles. Fans should have further convinced the labels to issue the single.

Considering the hard-line stubbornness of the industry when it comes to things like music prices, I think odds would've been better at Billboard going belly-up from all the bad press over its pre-1998 policy, as opposed to labels giving in and issuing singles more readily again. The record industry has shown to be one that isn't often inclined to listen to its consumers.

Couldn't agree more--one word: Napster. Record companies got so badly burned by Napster and other P2P sharing services 10+ years ago because they so ardently stuck to their business model, which was as blackbowl says, to force customers to spend $15 on an entire album instead of allowing people to just buy the song. Can't tell you how many CD's I still have boxed up in my basement that I bought literally for one song, because there were no other decent alternatives. But P2P file sharing knocked record companies on their proverbial a$$, and forced them to deal with the fact that the majority of the time, people only wanted songs.

Billboard, however, was also caught flat-footed by not realizing that by sticking to the singles-only rule for the Hot 100, the chart's accuracy in terms of overall song popularity was greatly diminished.

And the HUGE irony in all of that, was that they had made the change in 1991 to go with Soundscan BDS, and what was the main point of doing so? Hmmm...could it have been...accuracy?!? Too bad that all that cost them credibility for, as dukedeb says, probably 10-15 years.