|
|
Post by beegee3 on Sept 6, 2013 14:14:13 GMT -5
I noticed something odd. Eight different times in 1988, the fourth Top 40 hit from an album went all the way to #1:
February 20: Expose's "Seasons Change" from EXPOSURE (following Come Go With Me, Point of No Return, and Let Me Be The One)
March 26: Michael Jackson's "Man In The Mirror" from BAD (following I Just Can't Stop Loving You, Bad, and The Way You Make Me Feel)
April 23: Whitney Houston's "Where Do Broken Hearts Go" from WHITNEY (following I Wanna Dance With Somebody, Didn't We Almost Have It All, and So Emotional)
May 4: Miami Sound Machine's "Anything For You" from LET IT LOOSE (following Rhythm Is Gonna Get Ya, Betcha Say That, and Can't Stay Away From You)
June 25: Debbie Gibson's "Foolish Beat" from OUT OF THE BLUE (following Only In My Dreams, Shake Your Love, and Out Of The Blue)
July 23: Richard Marx's "Hold On To The Nights" from RICHARD MARX (following Don't Mean Nothing, Should've Known Better, and Endless Summer Nights)
August 27: George Michael's "Monkey" from FAITH (following Faith, Father Figure, and One More Try)*
October 8, 1988: Def Leppard's "Love Bites" from HYSTERIA (following Animal, Hysteria, and Pour Some Sugar On Me)**
Three of those acts (Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, and George Michael) were on their fourth straight #1 hit from the same album. For the other five, none of their previous hits had hit #1.
It's weird that 10 years before in 1978 it was a chart feat just to get four Top 40 hits from one album, and in 1988 these eight albums not only did it, but pushed the fourth hit all the way to #1. I've having a hard time even coming up with eight other albums in chart history where the fourth Top 40 hit reached #1. I wonder why it happened so much that year.
*"I Want Your Sex" could be viewed as the first single from FAITH, but even so the fourth Top 40 release would still be a #1 hit, in this case "One More Try."
** "Love Bites" waas the fifth single from HYSTERIA, but only the fourth to make the Top 40. (Women" peaked at #80.)
|
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Sept 6, 2013 15:56:07 GMT -5
Great post. Way to connect the dots with this.
For me, what I find weird is how the fourth single on any album could be a number one (at that time) on the Hot 100. If it was based on sales and airplay, why would people still be buying the fourth single? Most people should have had the album at this point.
This was brought up before, and I remember someone said that they bought the single for "Monkey" because of the song being a different mix than the album. Some people will buy singles for B Sides, but for 8 times the fourth single hitting the top...that's crazy to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by beegee3 on Sept 6, 2013 16:21:07 GMT -5
Great post. Way to connect the dots with this. For me, what I find weird is how the fourth single on any album could be a number one (at that time) on the Hot 100. If it was based on sales and airplay, why would people still be buying the fourth single? Most people should have had the album at this point. This was brought up before, and I remember someone said that they bought the single for "Monkey" because of the song being a different mix than the album. Some people will buy singles for B Sides, but for 8 times the fourth single hitting the top...that's crazy to me. And if you look at Debbie Gibson, Richard Marx, and Def Leppard, each single actually charted HIGHER than the one before it: Gibson's hits went #4, then #4, then #3, then #1 Marx went #3, #3, #2, and then #1 Def Leppard went #19, #10, #2, and then #1 As far as other albums where the fourth Top 40 hit hit #1, before 1988 I can only think of two off the top of my head: Saturday Night Fever, and Madonna's True Blue (if you consider "Live To Tell" as the first single and not just a soundtrack single). And I think Milli Vanilli 's album did it, too in 1989. Any others? |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Sept 6, 2013 16:28:09 GMT -5
I would put SNF in a different category since it is a soundtrack. The first artist to accomplish this feat is actually Whitney Houston whose debut album produced "You Give Good Love", then "Saving All My Love for You", the third single "How Will I Know" and finally in May 1986, "The Greatest Love of All" as the first 4th single to hit #1. Ironically Madonna knocked that out of the top spot with the lead single from her album that produced a 4th single #1 in "Open Your Heart" ("Live to Tell").
|
|
jebsib
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by jebsib on Sept 6, 2013 16:30:27 GMT -5
1988 single sales were still very weak. Cassingle penetration hadn't really reached critical mass yet; A quick peak at a random Hot 100 from 1988 shows nothing much reached gold.
This meant that the Hot 100 was essentially an airplay-only chart (compare Radio & Records with Hot 100 peaks), unencumbered by novelty or extreme sounding unusual sales-driven singles.
This was of course right after the Thriller / Born In the USA eras, where the labels decided that multiple hit singles from one album was terrific continued promotion.
(Even a few years earlier, a smash album by, say, Hall & Oates, would have a fourth single unable to get into the top 40.)
So several things at play: The late 80s was the "Radio making a superstar out of everyone new" era; there was a clear strategy to save the superior ballads to the 'end of the line' to keep the project alive (and appeal to AC radio) - Note all were ballads except Monkey; And it was a period of very little recurrent airplay, meaning the hits of the day competed with less, rose faster, were gone faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by beegee3 on Sept 6, 2013 18:18:18 GMT -5
I would put SNF in a different category since it is a soundtrack. The first artist to accomplish this feat is actually Whitney Houston whose debut album produced "You Give Good Love", then "Saving All My Love for You", the third single "How Will I Know" and finally in May 1986, "The Greatest Love of All" as the first 4th single to hit #1. Ironically Madonna knocked that out of the top spot with the lead single from her album that produced a 4th single #1 in "Open Your Heart" ("Live to Tell"). I completely blanked on Whitney Houston doing it. Good call! And SNF probably is a special category. It might be the only soundtrack that applies. |
|
|
|
Post by rayshae3 on Sept 6, 2013 19:27:19 GMT -5
1988 single sales were still very weak. Cassingle penetration hadn't really reached critical mass yet; A quick peak at a random Hot 100 from 1988 shows nothing much reached gold. This meant that the Hot 100 was essentially an airplay-only chart (compare Radio & Records with Hot 100 peaks), unencumbered by novelty or extreme sounding unusual sales-driven singles. This was of course right after the Thriller / Born In the USA eras, where the labels decided that multiple hit singles from one album was terrific continued promotion. (Even a few years earlier, a smash album by, say, Hall & Oates, would have a fourth single unable to get into the top 40.) So several things at play: The late 80s was the "Radio making a superstar out of everyone new" era; there was a clear strategy to save the superior ballads to the 'end of the line' to keep the project alive (and appeal to AC radio) - Note all were ballads except Monkey; And it was a period of very little recurrent airplay, meaning the hits of the day competed with less, rose faster, were gone faster. By and large you are correct. Actually Billboard’s chartbeat column at the time addressed the issue in detail. (Billboard issue dated May-21-1988; Chartbeat columnist Paul Grein). I’m afraid the issue is not available on GoogleBooks, and I don’t have access to it either, because my local ProQuest account is acting up. The article itself is titled: “Artist, Labels Finding Four’s A Charm When Releasing Singles From Albums” if you’re interested to find it in your local library. From what I remember when I read it, it actually was the declining of the singles sales that led to those fourth-single high-charted-hits take reign and become commonplace; in other words the declining of the single sales didn’t translate and actually had opposite effect on the Hot 100 numbers!! And that’s even despite the fact most fans by the release of the fourth single, already owned the parent album, so they didn’t need to buy that 4th or 5th single. |
|
|
|
Post by seminolefan on Sept 6, 2013 21:28:04 GMT -5
Great post. Way to connect the dots with this. For me, what I find weird is how the fourth single on any album could be a number one (at that time) on the Hot 100. If it was based on sales and airplay, why would people still be buying the fourth single? Most people should have had the album at this point. This was brought up before, and I remember someone said that they bought the single for "Monkey" because of the song being a different mix than the album. Some people will buy singles for B Sides, but for 8 times the fourth single hitting the top...that's crazy to me. And if you look at Debbie Gibson, Richard Marx, and Def Leppard, each single actually charted HIGHER than the one before it: Gibson's hits went #4, then #4, then #3, then #1 Marx went #3, #3, #2, and then #1 Def Leppard went #19, #10, #2, and then #1 As far as other albums where the fourth Top 40 hit hit #1, before 1988 I can only think of two off the top of my head: Saturday Night Fever, and Madonna's True Blue (if you consider "Live To Tell" as the first single and not just a soundtrack single). And I think Milli Vanilli 's album did it, too in 1989. Any others? Mariah Carey and Wilson Phillips both did it in 1991 with "I Don't Wanna Cry" and "You're In Love", respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by beegee3 on Sept 6, 2013 22:06:37 GMT -5
And if you look at Debbie Gibson, Richard Marx, and Def Leppard, each single actually charted HIGHER than the one before it: Gibson's hits went #4, then #4, then #3, then #1 Marx went #3, #3, #2, and then #1 Def Leppard went #19, #10, #2, and then #1 As far as other albums where the fourth Top 40 hit hit #1, before 1988 I can only think of two off the top of my head: Saturday Night Fever, and Madonna's True Blue (if you consider "Live To Tell" as the first single and not just a soundtrack single). And I think Milli Vanilli 's album did it, too in 1989. Any others? Mariah Carey and Wilson Phillips both did it in 1991 with "I Don't Wanna Cry" and "You're In Love", respectively. Two more good ones! And if you go even further out, Paula Abdul hit #1 with the fifth Top 40 hit from FOREVER YOUR GIRL (Opposites Attract), and Janet Jackson hit #1 with the seventh Top 40 hit from RHYTHM NATION (Love Will Never Do Without You). |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Sept 7, 2013 9:01:31 GMT -5
1988 single sales were still very weak. Cassingle penetration hadn't really reached critical mass yet; A quick peak at a random Hot 100 from 1988 shows nothing much reached gold. This meant that the Hot 100 was essentially an airplay-only chart (compare Radio & Records with Hot 100 peaks), unencumbered by novelty or extreme sounding unusual sales-driven singles. This was of course right after the Thriller / Born In the USA eras, where the labels decided that multiple hit singles from one album was terrific continued promotion. (Even a few years earlier, a smash album by, say, Hall & Oates, would have a fourth single unable to get into the top 40.) So several things at play: The late 80s was the "Radio making a superstar out of everyone new" era; there was a clear strategy to save the superior ballads to the 'end of the line' to keep the project alive (and appeal to AC radio) - Note all were ballads except Monkey; And it was a period of very little recurrent airplay, meaning the hits of the day competed with less, rose faster, were gone faster. This makes for an interesting observation. The turnover at #1 is very much intertwined with how much sales or airplay was a factor in tabulating the Hot 100. In this late 80s, early 90s period with single sales down, there was high turnover at the #1 position. But as soon as Soundscan was utilized, obviously the turnover went down and the long stays at #1 ensued. Going back in time, there was a period from 1968 to mid 1973 when the Hot 100 was allegedly based solely on sales and there was not as much turnover at the #1 position. But before and after that period, turnover was high with 1966 and 1973 being tied for the most #1s in a year until 1974 (and it happened in 1973 despite the first half of the year still being based on sales only). Airplay was introduced again in mid-1973 and the second half featured no song spending 3 weeks at #1 and then 1974 and 1975 had the record with 35 #1s in each year. Something must have happened either with tweaking the methodology or with single sales increasing in early 1976 because longer stays at #1 started occurring and would continue until 1985. That has to be the point that single sales started declining leading to the aforementioned period with a high turnover at #1. So the more sales was a factor, the longer songs would stay at #1. The more airplay was a factor, the higher the turnover at #1, which would seem to indicate that stations were always changing their playlists. |
|
|
|
Post by artsmusic on Sept 7, 2013 14:12:06 GMT -5
Adding to dukedeb's answer:
As I've mentioned before, any time you are dealing with a chart where "reported" figures represent the chart factor (sales or airplay), there is a lot less difference between the reported 1 and 2 any week. This would allow for a carousel effect of the next song's "turn" coming up to be #1. All it would take is for a few stores who reported something "1" one week to not report it at all the next week.
Manufactured volatility. Actual scanned sales figures allow for less obvious kinds of reporter distortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayshae3 on Sept 9, 2013 19:43:43 GMT -5
1988 single sales were still very weak. Cassingle penetration hadn't really reached critical mass yet; A quick peak at a random Hot 100 from 1988 shows nothing much reached gold. This meant that the Hot 100 was essentially an airplay-only chart (compare Radio & Records with Hot 100 peaks), unencumbered by novelty or extreme sounding unusual sales-driven singles. This was of course right after the Thriller / Born In the USA eras, where the labels decided that multiple hit singles from one album was terrific continued promotion. (Even a few years earlier, a smash album by, say, Hall & Oates, would have a fourth single unable to get into the top 40.) So several things at play: The late 80s was the "Radio making a superstar out of everyone new" era; there was a clear strategy to save the superior ballads to the 'end of the line' to keep the project alive (and appeal to AC radio) - Note all were ballads except Monkey; And it was a period of very little recurrent airplay, meaning the hits of the day competed with less, rose faster, were gone faster. By and large you are correct. Actually Billboard’s chartbeat column at the time addressed the issue in detail. (Billboard issue dated May-21-1988; Chartbeat columnist Paul Grein). I’m afraid the issue is not available on GoogleBooks, and I don’t have access to it either, because my local ProQuest account is acting up. The article itself is titled: “Artist, Labels Finding Four’s A Charm When Releasing Singles From Albums” if you’re interested to find it in your local library. From what I remember when I read it, it actually was the declining of the singles sales that led to those fourth-single high-charted-hits take reign and become commonplace; in other words the declining of the single sales didn’t translate and actually had opposite effect on the Hot 100 numbers!! And that’s even despite the fact most fans by the release of the fourth single, already owned the parent album, so they didn’t need to buy that 4th or 5th single. I ended up finding the article I was referring to, on p. 6 of the Billboard issue (May-21-1988). In addition to the declining singles sales, this is what Paul Grein wrote in the last paragraph of that article, as to reason why this was so, and I quote it here word-by-word: “Another reason for the change: Today, artists take more time between albums. If a superstar delivers only one album every three years or so, his label has no choice but to milk it for all it’s worth.” BTW the change this chartbeat article is talking about was in reference to previous blockbuster acts whose 4th single from the parent album (like Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumours” or Hall & Oates' “Private Eyes”) traditionally didn’t made significant higher in-roads on Hot 100 like the first singles. |
|
|
|
Post by artsmusic on Sept 10, 2013 11:11:59 GMT -5
I agree with the premise that Mr. Grein stated regarding the labels needing to sell what's already been produced. It does no harm to milk the hit artist rather than go through all the effort to push material by a new artist for that same airplay/chart position. An easier sell.
There would be no benefit to, or reason to state, in the pages of Billboard what actually was responsible for the volatile chart position.
|
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Sept 12, 2013 15:44:13 GMT -5
bump
|
|
