|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Jan 21, 2012 18:15:47 GMT -5
You know, I read many posts about how song should have charted higher than its recorded peak position. However, what I never seen anyone say is that he or she BOUGHT the record in question.
To my understanding, American Top 40 from 1970 to 1991 was using the upper portion of the Billboard Hot 100 from its show. From 1958 to 1998, this chart tabulated its list based on SINGLE SALES & RADIO AIRPLAY. So when someone complains a song released from a best-selling album did not perform well on the charts, I am not seeing anyone suggest the many record consumers actually bought the single SEPARATE from the album. Isn't this is what pushes a record up the chart?
IMHO, radio airplay is not really a gauge to determine popularity. It is merely a promotion tool used to give a record exposure to the masses. Its purpose is get listeners into the stores buying the single. The more copies of that single flying off the shelves, the higher it will appear on the Hot 100. But If you end buying the album that record appears on, you are contributing to only the album's popularity on the Billboard 200.
If there was any record to complain about that should have charted higher than its actual peak, it's "Juicy Fruit" by Mtume, a track that topped the Soul Chart for 8 weeks (!) but stalled at #45 on the Hot 100. How does a record that was certified for over a million copies sold miss the Top 40 completely?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarobe on Jan 21, 2012 23:24:01 GMT -5
My guess is that it sold those millions of copies over an extended period of time, and that on any given week, at least 40 other records were outselling it. That, and limited airplay. Airplay certainly played a factor, and a lot of airplay could propel a single up the Hot 100 too. But sales were probably the main factor. Several singles I bought in the 70s like "The Streak" by Ray Stevens and "Sister Golden Hair" by America were #1 hits. A lot of other people were buying them. Others, like "Standing at the End of the Line" by Lobo, barely made the Top 40. NOT as many people were buying them.
You were certainly correct on what you said about LPs. I bought Paul McCartney's Band on the Run album instead of the single (and got "Helen Wheels" and "Jet" as a bonus), but my purchase did nothing to help the siong move up the Hot 100. It probably helped push the album back into the #1 slot on the Billboard 200.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarobe on Jan 21, 2012 23:33:20 GMT -5
One song I am really pissed about not charting higher is "Real Love" by the Beatles. When I first heard it on the second episode of "The Beatles' Anthology" in November 1995, I thought it was great. Much better than "Free As a Bird." I certainly bought the single in March 1996 when it was released and the song debuted at #11 on the Hot 100. Surefire number one, right? Hell no! The song never even made it into the top 10! It began to fall down the charts after that!
|
|
|
|
Post by 45rpmmike on Jan 21, 2012 23:48:12 GMT -5
Just a theory but is it possible in '83 Billboard gathered sales numbers from different sources for each chart. While Juicy Fruit's numbers were high for the r&b singles sales sources, maybe it's hot 100 numbers sources were low, that coupled with lack of airplay on pop radio led to it's poor performance ? Just a theory, that said it should've charted higher (I did buy the 45 back in the day) and I'm sure there were various reasons it didn't, but as i recall it was on Epic (cbs) records, the hot label at the time which makes it's poor perfomance on the hot 100 kind of curious.
As for the old chicken and the egg type argument of airplay and sales, you have two forces at work. Yes singles play on radio is promotion for the record company to increase album sales, and to a lesser degree singles sales. But more importantly, for the radio stations it means advertising sales. They want people to listen to increase ratings which lead to ad dollars. They're gonna play want people want to hear, listeners request help drive what's played (I wont get into the can of worms of payola).
One more theory on juicy fruit, the early 80's had great music but the hot 100 chart seemed like it got tougher on r&b songs not by the superstars (ie Michael, Diana, Stevie) to crossover. I think this could be attributed in part to the aftermath of the disco era.
|
|
|
|
Post by briguy52748 on Jan 22, 2012 0:48:35 GMT -5
You know, I read many posts about how song should have charted higher than its recorded peak position. However, what I never seen anyone say is that he or she BOUGHT the record in question. To my understanding, American Top 40 from 1970 to 1991 was using the upper portion of the Billboard Hot 100 from its show. From 1958 to 1998, this chart tabulated its list based on SINGLE SALES & RADIO AIRPLAY. So when someone complains a song released from a best-selling album did not perform well on the charts, I am not seeing anyone suggest the many record consumers actually bought the single SEPARATE from the album. Isn't this is what pushes a record up the chart? IMHO, radio airplay is not really a gauge to determine popularity. It is merely a promotion tool used to give a record exposure to the masses. Its purpose is get listeners into the stores buying the single. The more copies of that single flying off the shelves, the higher it will appear on the Hot 100. But If you end buying the album that record appears on, you are contributing to only the album's popularity on the Billboard 200. If there was any record to complain about that should have charted higher than its actual peak, it's "Juicy Fruit" by Mtume, a track that topped the Soul Chart for 8 weeks (!) but stalled at #45 on the Hot 100. How does a record that was certified for over a million copies sold miss the Top 40 completely? While I certainly think your facts about the use of sales (and radio airplay) of single records in determining a song's popularity, I also think you come off as a hypocrite. The way I read your comments, we have no right about complaining about a given song not peaking higher than it did on the chart -- such as us saying, "Oh, such and such a song" by Joe Artist only got to No. 5, it should have no doubt been a No. 1 hit, but I personally didn't bother to buy the 45 RPM single. But then you do the same thing by stating that a particular song didn't do better than it you believe it should have. Sure, we all have songs that we believe should have done better than they did when released as singles. I have some. I'm not going to list them, but what I am going to do is have you and others keep a couple of things in mind: * Some buyers prefer to simply buy the album rather than an individual 45 RPM single. The reasons vary, but one reason that I always bought an album is because they'd have the full, complete, unedited version of a song that was currently played on the radio. * Many of us are making the remark that a given song's less-than-expected performance in hindsight. I'd bet that many people who make that comment -- e.g., "Oh, 'X Song' by Y Artist should have been a No. 1 song, but it only barely made the top 40" -- more often than not were either not yet born (let alone a twinkle in their eye) or had no consumer buying power (i.e., were a young child) when said song was popular. Or, they tried to persuade their parents to buy the single but failed; after all, Mom's word is final. * Buying tastes vary, and many times a song's mainstream appeal will be limited to its own genre. For instance, Mtume's "Juicy Fruit" may have had a great following by R&B (i.e., black) audiences but few mainstream pop artists liked the soung well enough to feel compelled to buy the single or stay tuned in when Top 40 radio stations did play the song. And that's just one example -- yes, there were (aside from the countless ones that did) many country songs that could have made the pop chart that didn't. That's disappointing, but I realize that's life, and it goes on, despite us never getting to hear Casey Kasem's mellow voice introducing a given song. As far as radio not being a true gauge of a given song's popularity, I don't know about that. If a song is put in somewhat moderate rotation when new, but it gets little to no response, or negative response (i.e., no requests for the song, negative reviews from callers wondering what the hell the disc jockey was on when he even thought about playing that song, etc.), one could reason that ... it's because the song isn't very popular. And it's time for the disc jockey to dump it. Perhaps radio isn't the only gauge, but IMO it sure plays a major role. Just as important as sales. Finally, not everyone is going to go out and buy every song that is released. Given that more than 500 songs made the 40 in a given year from the 1950s-1990s, one could conceivably spend $500-well over $3,000 a year on just 45 RPM records. There isn't enough space to keep all those records, and that's a major part of one's income that is also spent on taxes, housing, food, clothing, various bills, gasoline and so forth. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by chrislc on Jan 22, 2012 7:27:24 GMT -5
Juicy Fruit was 1983, and 1983 was a much different sounding year on pop radio than was 1982. Songs with popular videos and British Invasion songs displaced many would-have-been crossover Urban hits and Country hits in 1983.
The days of songs like Bobbie Sue and American Music making the Top 20 were over - thank God. But it also was sad because 1982 really was the end of pop radio as we had known it (after all, WABC switched to talk in the spring - which would have been unthinkable five years earlier, let alone back in the 1960s) - hey maybe it was really Bobbie Sue and American Music that killed the radio star!
(If you happen to like one or both of those songs there are many many others from 1982 that could be mentioned as substitutes - I believe only 1974 rivals 1982 for "WTF" songs in the Top 40 - until we got into the late 1980s of course when it all went down the toilet forever - and get off my lawn.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Jan 22, 2012 13:33:17 GMT -5
Though I like soul and funk, those country tunes were great to hear as well. Especially making top 40 radio a lot more enjoyable as there was different styles playing. That also may be way I prefer 80-82 AT40's to the later 80's with exceptions...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2012 13:58:49 GMT -5
IMHO, radio airplay is not really a gauge to determine popularity. It is merely a promotion tool used to give a record exposure to the masses. I disagree. I think radio AirPlay is the best way to judge popularity. People don't always have the $$$ to go buy a 45, casette, LP, etc. but they can always call and request what they want to hear. |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Jan 22, 2012 14:00:36 GMT -5
I understood the backlash toward disco but could never figure out why when the disco era ended, the top 40 did not revert back to the way it was prior to disco where you had a lot of soul songs...talking about the early 70s and back into the 60s. The mention above of MTV may be the answer to that riddle. MTV was a game changer and so not only did video kill the radio star but it severely injured the soul star who was not featured on MTV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2012 14:17:13 GMT -5
Well now it's "Reality television playing to the lowest common denominator of our society killed the video star". We should write a song about that. However, it doesn't sound as catchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by doomsdaymachine on Jan 22, 2012 14:46:21 GMT -5
Well now it's "Reality television playing to the lowest common denominator of our society killed the video star". We should write a song about that. However, it doesn't sound as catchy. Actually, there is a song called "Reality Killed The Video Star." I saw the video on YouTube several months ago, but unfortunately can't find a link to post here. |
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jan 22, 2012 16:35:42 GMT -5
One song I am really pissed about not charting higher is "Real Love" by the Beatles. When I first heard it on the second episode of "The Beatles' Anthology" in November 1995, I thought it was great. Much better than "Free As a Bird." I certainly bought the single in March 1996 when it was released and the song debuted at #11 on the Hot 100. Surefire number one, right? Hell no! The song never even made it into the top 10! It began to fall down the charts after that! I was really surprised that my local oldies station wasn't all over those 'new' Beatles songs, but that was the problem - they were 'new' songs, and oldies stations don't play new stuff. No exceptions, not even the Beatles. And the stations playing new stuff don't care about an old group like the Beatles. Both reunion singles did much better on the sales chart than the airplay chart. |
|
|
|
Post by Sforzando on Jan 27, 2012 13:46:13 GMT -5
From 1967-1973 the top 50 of the Hot 100 was a sales only chart. Airplay was a factor from positions 51-100 but this was removed once a record got to #50 or higher. Billboard's policy was to eliminate payola and chart manipulation that was easier to do on the airplay side than sales. Starting in 1973 when sales of singles at the retail level began to decline the chart became the 50/50 formula.
Regarding "Juicy Fruit" and other million selling singles that did not make the top 40 or charted low, this is due to both lack of airplay plus the fact by this time some retailers were purposely genre separating their retail reports. A song like Juicy Fruit or Meet Me In Montana would be strong retail sellers but since they weren't pop a retailer may ignore them when submitting them to Billboard. This was especially true on the album chart and the reason once the Billboard 200 went to soundscan suddenly country albums which were nowhere to be found on the album chart in 1989 suddenly were debuting in the top 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by doomsdaymachine on Jan 27, 2012 16:09:50 GMT -5
I understood the backlash toward disco but could never figure out why when the disco era ended, the top 40 did not revert back to the way it was prior to disco where you had a lot of soul songs...talking about the early 70s and back into the 60s. Because the mid to late '70s saw a re-fragmentation of radio programming that the rock 'n' roll explosion of the mid 1950s had previously obliterated. To give you an idea: in 1967, the average pop-chart peak of a #1 soul single was #9. By 1979, the average had dropped to #22. |
|
|
|
Post by lasvegaskid on Jan 27, 2012 16:19:07 GMT -5
It is my understanding retailers used to be given points. #1 got a certain number of points whether it sold one or one thousand units more than #2 at that outlet. So a huge seller at a limited number of retailers (Super Bowl Shuffle) didn’t fare well nationally. That all changed with Soundscan which gives points based upon every unit sold.
|
|
