Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2013 16:23:20 GMT -5
When I listened to 8/28/93s edition of AT40 last week, "Two Princes" was #19. Now here it is a week later (9/4/93) and the song is off the chart. Was there a recurrent rule on the radio airplay chart of some kind then? Seems odd that it would just disappear that way if there wasn't based on how sssssslllloooooowwww songs falling off were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hervard on Sept 6, 2013 16:29:12 GMT -5
I believe the rule was 20/26. Apparently, "Two Princes" dropped below #20 and had been on for longer than 26 weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2013 19:48:54 GMT -5
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 6, 2013 20:50:31 GMT -5
Chris (Hervard) is correct.
Anyone know what week Billboard started using this? The closest I've been able to pinpoint this to is sometime in May or June of that year. (Actually, the "26 weeks" provision means that it couldn't have kicked in any earlier than the April 3 chart, as that was the 27th week of the chart's existence.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Sept 8, 2013 14:43:01 GMT -5
Chris (Hervard) is correct. Anyone know what week Billboard started using this? The closest I've been able to pinpoint this to is sometime in May or June of that year. (Actually, the "26 weeks" provision means that it couldn't have kicked in any earlier than the April 3 chart, as that was the 27th week of the chart's existence.) My guess is that the rule was established when the chart began (although as you said, it wouldn't have come into play until 4/03/93). It just wasn't explicitly notated on the chart itself until May/June. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 8, 2013 20:13:07 GMT -5
My guess is that the rule was established when the chart began (although as you said, it wouldn't have come into play until 4/03/93). It just wasn't explicitly notated on the chart itself until May/June. That would've been my guess too...except that "Do You Believe in Us" by Jon Secada, which was on the initial 10/3/92 chart, spent 30 weeks total on the chart, and was already out of the Top 20 before 4/3/93 - so it should've been pulled that very week. So that means the rule wasn't "implemented" until a few weeks after April 3, or it can be chalked up to not being executed perfectly during those initial weeks. Snap's "Rhythm is a Dancer" (29 weeks on the chart) did this around the same time. Only difference there is that debuted two weeks later (10/17). |
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Sept 8, 2013 21:40:51 GMT -5
Ah, I see. In that case, I have no clue.  |
|
|
|
Post by rayshae3 on Sept 9, 2013 21:23:03 GMT -5
Chris (Hervard) is correct. Anyone know what week Billboard started using this? The closest I've been able to pinpoint this to is sometime in May or June of that year. It looks it was with the issue dated June 12, 1993 (available thru GoogleBooks). The last line of the caption below the chart reads “Records below the top 20 are removed from the charts after 26 weeks.” This sentence was put in the captions on that issue for the first time. I’ve looked at both of the previous 2 issues (May 29, ’93 on p. 98 & Jun. 5, ’93 on p. 92) which AREN’T on the GoogleBooks. None of those couple chart have this line. BTW, that magic number of 26 weeks (and this is just pure speculation) might have got something to do with the very last chart of June 5 before the 20/26 rule went into effect. If you examine not Top 40/Mainstream but its sister chart, Top 40/Rhythm-Crossover (that also debuted on Oct-3-1992 with identical chart rules) for June 5, ’93 issue, “Sweet Thing” by Mary J. Blige was on its 26th week at #30 on the Rhythmic list (in fact longer than any other title on either of the Top 40 charts.) Would she have made to the 27th week the following week on that rhythmic chart? We never know. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 10, 2013 10:34:48 GMT -5
I think what mstgator said is possible, that there were some weeks where it was in effect and just not printed below the chart. But it still helps that that was the first week it was printed. As to 26 weeks - I doubt that figure was picked by Billboard at random. A year is 52 weeks; what's half of that?  |
|
|
|
Post by rayshae3 on Sept 10, 2013 12:32:20 GMT -5
I think what mstgator said is possible, that there were some weeks where it was in effect and just not printed below the chart. But it still helps that that was the first week it was printed. As to 26 weeks - I doubt that figure was picked by Billboard at random. A year is 52 weeks; what's half of that? I thought they could do a round number like 25weeks; since they had a 20/20 rule for their Rock chart, the main airplay chart (which was 75 positions), main Top 75 country(another radio airplay chart), Top 75 R&B Radio Monitor. But probably I’m thinking too much… and explanations of the real recurrent mechanisms as to when and why, might be buried somewhere inside “Billboard Airplay Monitor” (a trade publication at the time that had expanded radio charts and coverage.) |
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Sept 11, 2013 18:41:32 GMT -5
Yeah, 26 weeks seems to have been picked since it's half a year... note that when R&R finally introduced an official recurrent rule in 1996, they used 26 weeks as well (although their cutoff was the Top 25 instead of the Top 20... possibly since that was the midpoint of their chart, which was Top 50 instead of Top 40).
|
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Sept 12, 2013 15:37:22 GMT -5
bump
|
|
