Crazy Billboard / R&R peak differences

[jebsib]

Coming into AT40 in the mid 80s, I always felt that the Billboard and Radio & Records weekly charts were fairly harmonious: Just a max of two or three peak positions difference, usually. I never understood completely WHY, as Billboard's data incorporated sales (and had a different pool of stations reporting), but such was life, and it always seemed fairly consistent.

Obviously in the 1990's, technology, the music industry, R&R and the Hot 100 changed so radically that week-to-week comparisons were impossible. But BEFORE that, I have gathered a bunch of random songs, based on their r&R and Billboard peaks that are way off. Some may be explained as "Big Sellers / Low Airplay" (or vice versa), but it is interesting to see the disparities during the 'age of chart alignment'. (r&r positions taken from chartboy's very reliable site). Please feel free to add to this:

Late in the Evening (Paul Simon) - #1 r&r / #6 Billboard
Misunderstanding (Genesis) - # 3 r&r / #14 Billboard
Mickey (Toni Basil) - #11 r&r / #1 Billboard
Shadows of the Night (Pat Benatar) - #8 r&r / #13 Billboard
99 (Toto) - #5 r&r / #26 Billboard
Make Believe (Toto) - # 10 r&r / #30 Billboard
Winner Takes it All (Abba) - #19 r&r / #8 Billboard
Do It or Die (Atlanta Rhythm) - # 8 r&r / # 19 Billboard
Fight the Power (Isley Brothers) - #26 r&r / #4 Billboard
Let's Groove (Earth, Wind & Fire) - #13 r&r / #3 Billboard
Master Blaster (Stevie Wonder) - not charted r&r / #5 Billboard
This Time (Player) - not charted r&r / #10 Billboard

[jlthorpe]

I noticed this one recently and was surprised:

"It's Raining Again" by Supertramp - #11 in Billboard, #2 in R&R

Also, some other Supertramp songs were off:

"The Logical Song" - #6 in Billboard, #1 in R&R
"Goodbye Stranger" - #15 in Billboard, #7 in R&R
"My Kind Of Lady" - #31 in Billboard, #15 in R&R

In addition, these Fleetwood Mac songs were off:

"Gypsy" - #12 in Billboard, #1 in R&R
"Think About Me" - #20 in Billboard, #9 in R&R
"Love In Store" - #22 in Billboard, #9 in R&R

[woolebull]

One that numerically is not that far off, but I'll think you will understand why I add this song:

Physical - #2 R& R for two weeks, nine weeks in the top 10...number 1 for 10 weeks Billboard.

[jebsib]

Sadly without Hot 100 Airplay info prior to October 1984, it is hard to know the reasons behind some of these anomalies. Those Fleetwood Mac and Supertramp examples are incredible disparities.

Could it be that album-oriented acts failed to connect with singles-buyers?

I get the issue with Physical - although it did get pretty high (#2) on airplay...

[woolebull]

Dec 12, 2012 10:44:08 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Sadly without Hot 100 Airplay info prior to October 1984, it is hard to know the reasons behind some of these anomalies. Those Fleetwood Mac and Supertramp examples are incredible disparities.

Could it be that album-oriented acts failed to connect with singles-buyers?

I get the issue with Physical - although it did get pretty high (#2) on airplay...

I'm assuming that you mean because of the lyrics of the song? That's the only reason I can imagine.

I can't imagine that at any time in late 1982 "Mickey" only was the eleventh most played song in the country. The song, to me at least, was on every time I turned on a radio!

[mkarns]

Dec 12, 2012 9:38:59 GMT -5 woolebull said:

One that numerically is not that far off, but I'll think you will understand why I add this song:

Physical - #2 R& R for two weeks, nine weeks in the top 10...number 1 for 10 weeks Billboard.

And Olivia Newton-John's followup, "Make a Move on Me" did hit #1 in R&R but only #5 in Billboard.

With many artists, like the aforementioned Supertramp, Fleetwood Mac, and others like Journey and Foreigner ("Waiting for a Girl Like You" led "Physical" on R&R while the reverse was true in BB), their albums were topping the charts, often for months, so I think most people were buying them rather than the singles, which hurt them in the Billboard rankings.

[woolebull]

Dec 12, 2012 11:23:10 GMT -5 mkarns said:

Dec 12, 2012 9:38:59 GMT -5 woolebull said:

One that numerically is not that far off, but I'll think you will understand why I add this song:

Physical - #2 R& R for two weeks, nine weeks in the top 10...number 1 for 10 weeks Billboard.

And Olivia Newton-John's followup, "Make a Move on Me" did hit #1 in R&R but only #5 in Billboard.

With many artists, like the aforementioned Supertramp, Fleetwood Mac, and others like Journey and Foreigner ("Waiting for a Girl Like You" led "Physical" on R&R while the reverse was true in BB), their albums were topping the charts, often for months, so I think most people were buying them rather than the singles, which hurt them in the Billboard rankings.

I've always thought that. And that's why the years 1987 and 1988 puzzle me on the Hot 100. How could Whitney Houston, George Michael, and Michael Jackson rack up massive album numbers and still have four to five number ones off that album When "Dirty Diana" hit number one, "Bad" had been out almost a year and had sold million. I didn't understand how people could still be buying the single. "Thriller" having two number one singles makes sense to me..."Bad" having five on the Billboard chart does not.

[jebsib]

Single sales around 1986 - 1989 were reportedly terrible, with only one or two 500,000 sellers. Perhaps this is why the MJ, GM and Whitney songs performed so well; the Hot 100 was essentially a radio chart with only nominal sales impact (until the full force of cassette singles format was felt)?

[woolebull]

Dec 12, 2012 13:44:04 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Single sales around 1986 - 1989 were reportedly terrible, with only one or two 500,000 sellers. Perhaps this is why the MJ, GM and Whitney songs performed so well; the Hot 100 was essentially a radio chart with only nominal sales impact (until the full force of cassette singles format was felt)?

I could go with that, but even if sales were down, those songs were outselling other songs. Supposedly, "Monkey" was the best selling song for two weeks, even though most people would have already bought the "Faith" album. It's possible that people bought the single that didn't have the album. But two weeks at number one on the sales side for the fifth release off an album that sold 9 million and spent three months at number one is amazing to me.

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2012 14:04:09 GMT -5 woolebull said:

Dec 12, 2012 13:44:04 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Single sales around 1986 - 1989 were reportedly terrible, with only one or two 500,000 sellers. Perhaps this is why the MJ, GM and Whitney songs performed so well; the Hot 100 was essentially a radio chart with only nominal sales impact (until the full force of cassette singles format was felt)?

I could go with that, but even if sales were down, those songs were outselling other songs. Supposedly, "Monkey" was the best selling song for two weeks, even though most people would have already bought the "Faith" album. It's possible that people bought the single that didn't have the album. But two weeks at number one on the sales side for the fifth release off an album that sold 9 million and spent three months at number one is amazing to me.

By this point wasn't airplay figured in? So, I wouldn't call it the best selling song in America. There's also the fact that like airplay in those days, if sales figures weren't kept track of meticulously they could be less than accurate too.

[woolebull]

Dec 12, 2012 14:19:12 GMT -5 @paul said:

Dec 12, 2012 14:04:09 GMT -5 woolebull said:

I could go with that, but even if sales were down, those songs were outselling other songs. Supposedly, "Monkey" was the best selling song for two weeks, even though most people would have already bought the "Faith" album. It's possible that people bought the single that didn't have the album. But two weeks at number one on the sales side for the fifth release off an album that sold 9 million and spent three months at number one is amazing to me.

By this point wasn't airplay figured in? So, I wouldn't call it the best selling song in America. There's also the fact that like airplay in those days, if sales figures weren't kept track of meticulously they could be less than accurate too.

Airplay was figured in. However, there were also specific sales charts and it was at the top of that chart for two weeks (I don't know if it was the same two weeks as when the song went to number one...but it was two weeks) it was number one. It was number one airplay two weeks, number one sales two weeks which helped it to go to number one.

Another example at that time a year ago: "I Want Your Sex"was also number one sales for two weeks, but number five in airplay, which led to the song going to number two.

[jebsib]

"Monkey" is an interesting example, though, because it was remixed by Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis for its radio and video versions and sounded very different from the album version. Many people (myself included) bought the single to get the more aggressive single version played at Top 40. This also might explain the # 1 Paula Abdul singles (all remixed - the last several quite dramatically with raps added). But you got me on songs like "Where Do Broken Hearts Go" and "Dirty Diana" outselling everything else...

[woolebull]

Dec 12, 2012 15:11:11 GMT -5 jebsib said:

"Monkey" is an interesting example, though, because it was remixed by Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis for its radio and video versions and sounded very different from the album version. Many people (myself included) bought the single to get the more aggressive single version played at Top 40. This also might explain the # 1 Paula Abdul singles (all remixed - the last several quite dramatically with raps added). But you got me on songs like "Where Do Broken Hearts Go" and "Dirty Diana" outselling everything else...

That is a great example I hadn't thought of. I personally didn't buy "Faith" until 1991 and was disappointed because of the "Monkey" version. I wish I had bought the single!

Maybe there were some "B" sides that people wanted...I know Prince and U2 would always throw interesting "B" sides on...usually different than another track off their current album.

[dukelightning]

This is a great discussion you guys have going here. And it is calling into question my contention that the Hot 100 was the most accurate chart for determining the most popular songs. Actually, it probably still is for SINGLES but maybe not for SONGS. Because if there were remixed versions for the single or unique B sides, then the single had an artificial boost. So for the most popular song in a given week, it sounds like R&R is the way to go. A song has to go to #1 based on the song itself and not other factors that come into play when looking at singles. And I suppose Cashbox could also be more accurate than the Hot 100 in that regard.
BTW, stations tended to play established artists more often so to see the examples of songs by Supertramp, F. Mac, ON-Jand others hitting #1 on R&R and not the Hot 100 does not surprise me.

[mkarns]

Dec 12, 2012 13:33:26 GMT -5 woolebull said:

Dec 12, 2012 11:23:10 GMT -5 mkarns said:

And Olivia Newton-John's followup, "Make a Move on Me" did hit #1 in R&R but only #5 in Billboard.

With many artists, like the aforementioned Supertramp, Fleetwood Mac, and others like Journey and Foreigner ("Waiting for a Girl Like You" led "Physical" on R&R while the reverse was true in BB), their albums were topping the charts, often for months, so I think most people were buying them rather than the singles, which hurt them in the Billboard rankings.

I've always thought that. And that's why the years 1987 and 1988 puzzle me on the Hot 100. How could Whitney Houston, George Michael, and Michael Jackson rack up massive album numbers and still have four to five number ones off that album When "Dirty Diana" hit number one, "Bad" had been out almost a year and had sold million. I didn't understand how people could still be buying the single. "Thriller" having two number one singles makes sense to me..."Bad" having five on the Billboard chart does not.

Especially as several "Thriller" singles did better at R&R than Billboard. "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" and "Human Nature" hit #2 and the title track #1 in R&R, while in BB they reached #5, 7, and 4. The clearest explanation is that everyone was buying the album, but I don't see why the "Bad"-era singles more often hit #1 in BB when probably most people bought that album as well. Maybe Billboard changed its formula to rely more on airplay?

Another interesting MJ quirk is that neither of his two 1979-80 "Off the Wall" #1's, "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" and "Rock With You", topped the R&R list.

And while we're talking about the Jackson family, how about Jermaine Jackson's 1980 hit "Let's Get Serious", which hit #9 in Billboard but never reached R&R's top 30 at all? (OTOH, his 1984 "Tell Me I'm Not Dreaming" was #6 in R&R and didn't chart in BB, but that's easily explainable in that there was no commercial single release.)