|
Post by dukelightning on Nov 13, 2013 13:25:50 GMT -5
woolebull, you have already mentioned probably 2 of the biggest songs that fit this category which is fitting since you started this thread. But "Alive Again" is the biggest climber of any song in the 70s and 80s that did not reach the top 10, 40-21 and "Tusk" is one of 3 songs in a third place tie for biggest climber not to reach #1 in the 70s and 80s, 40-15. The other 2 are "Old Fashioned Love Song", 39-14 and "Hurting Each Other", 38-13 (only a few weeks apart in late 71, early 72). Tied for first place however are "Got to be There" and "Heart Attack" which both made climbs of 39-13. Of the 5, "Tusk" was the furthest from hitting #1 so that is probably a bigger fizzle than the other 4 songs..
|
|
|
Post by OldSchoolAT40Fan on Nov 13, 2013 13:59:30 GMT -5
"Jam" by Michael Jackson debuted on AT40 in July or early August 1992 at #23, and never made the top 20.
"Rescue Me" by Madonna debuted on the Hot 100 at #15 in 1991, but barely made the top 10, peaking at #9, and spent only 6 weeks on the top 40. Shadoe even mentioned that this was one of the shortest-lived top 40 hits that made the top 10.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 13, 2013 13:59:38 GMT -5
woolebull, you have already mentioned probably 2 of the biggest songs that fit this category which is fitting since you started this thread. But "Alive Again" is the biggest climber of any song in the 70s and 80s that did not reach the top 10, 40-21 and "Tusk" is one of 3 songs in a third place tie for biggest climber not to reach #1 in the 70s and 80s, 40-15. The other 2 are "Old Fashioned Love Song", 39-14 and "Hurting Each Other", 38-13 (only a few weeks apart in late 71, early 72). Tied for first place however are "Got to be There" and "Heart Attack" which both made climbs of 39-13. Of the 5, "Tusk" was the furthest from hitting #1 so that is probably a bigger fizzle than the other 4 songs.. One of my favorite memories growing up was going to church on September 26, 1982 and hearing "Heart Attack" on the radio debuting. Because I was in church during the roughly 32 to 15 positions each week, it might take a while to hear songs I heard before church on AT 40 become "after church" songs. So when "Heart Attack" became an "after church" song in a week, I seriously thought that was the greatest thing ever. I never have connected, however, that the 26 notch jump was tied for biggest jumper in the countdown's first 20 years to not make number one. Thank you! Poor "Tusk". Jumps 25 notches, isn't the biggest mover within the 40 that week. And then can't get past 8. Crazy.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 13, 2013 15:03:24 GMT -5
"Jam" by Michael Jackson debuted on AT40 in July or early August 1992 at #23, and never made the top 20. "Rescue Me" by Madonna debuted on the Hot 100 at #15 in 1991, but barely made the top 10, peaking at #9, and spent only 6 weeks on the top 40. Shadoe even mentioned that this was one of the shortest-lived top 40 hits that made the top 10. "Rescue Me" definitely counts as a boom to fizzle song, at least in my opinion, because it happened before 11/30/91. That's a pretty crazy run, even for Madonna: 15-14-11-9-16-28- gone. "Jam" is one of the reasons I couldn't take AT 40 seriously after the chart change. As you said, the song debuted at 23 and never got past 21. Bizarre to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 13, 2013 21:37:56 GMT -5
Another great boom that did not fizzle from '79 was "No More Tears" by Donna and Barbara. 33-10-7-3-1. You would think that a song going like that could have had more than two weeks at the top, especially since it jumped three of the songs that would go to number one after it did.
|
|
|
Post by 1finemrg on Nov 13, 2013 21:44:30 GMT -5
Though it doesn't quite fit the "boom to fizzle" criteria, the chart action on Elton John's 2-sided single "Grow Some Funk Of Your Own"/"I Feel Like A Bullet (In The Gun Of Robert Ford)" comes close.
Debuted at #55, leaped into the top 40 at 31, then 22, 17, 15, peaked at 14, out of the 40 at #42, held at #42, 54, 67, 98. 11 weeks on the chart, but only 5 in the Top 40.
|
|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Nov 13, 2013 22:32:24 GMT -5
woolebull, you have already mentioned probably 2 of the biggest songs that fit this category which is fitting since you started this thread. But "Alive Again" is the biggest climber of any song in the 70s and 80s that did not reach the top 10, 40-21 and "Tusk" is one of 3 songs in a third place tie for biggest climber not to reach #1 in the 70s and 80s, 40-15. The other 2 are "Old Fashioned Love Song", 39-14 and "Hurting Each Other", 38-13 (only a few weeks apart in late 71, early 72). Tied for first place however are "Got to be There" and "Heart Attack" which both made climbs of 39-13. Of the 5, "Tusk" was the furthest from hitting #1 so that is probably a bigger fizzle than the other 4 songs.. I do recall Donny Osmond's version of "Puppy Love" making a top 40 leap from 38 to 11 in March 1972. The song got no higher than #3.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 13, 2013 22:47:16 GMT -5
Though it doesn't quite fit the "boom to fizzle" criteria, the chart action on Elton John's 2-sided single "Grow Some Funk Of Your Own"/"I Feel Like A Bullet (In The Gun Of Robert Ford)" comes close. Debuted at #55, leaped into the top 40 at 31, then 22, 17, 15, peaked at 14, out of the 40 at #42, held at #42, 54, 67, 98. 11 weeks on the chart, but only 5 in the Top 40. Nice call on "Grow". Certainly did some simmering after booming! A great example in the late 80's of a song that simmered while others boomed and eventually fizzled: The second run for "What About Me" by Moving Pictures from 1989: 93-80-69-60-58-53-50-46-49-52-55-54-57-66-71-81-92. 17 weeks for a song that got as high as 46. To put it in perspective: it spent more time in the Hot 100 in 1989 than #2 "Express Yourself" and #1 "Batdance". Add the 26 weeks it had in its initial run and you have 43 weeks for a song that never got past 29 on the charts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 23:01:56 GMT -5
I don't know if you'd classify this in this category (or even care) but I was looking at the 90's Hot 100's and those "Hot Shot Debuts" and "Say You'll Be There" by the ever so talented Spice Girls debuted at 5 the week ending May 24, 1997. The following week it moved to 3, the next week....3, and the week after....3. And then it began it's descent off. Meteoric debut although not head turning by 97 on the Hot 100, but for all it's initial power it only made it to 3.
|
|
|
Post by 1finemrg on Nov 13, 2013 23:19:00 GMT -5
Though it doesn't quite fit the "boom to fizzle" criteria, the chart action on Elton John's 2-sided single "Grow Some Funk Of Your Own"/"I Feel Like A Bullet (In The Gun Of Robert Ford)" comes close. Debuted at #55, leaped into the top 40 at 31, then 22, 17, 15, peaked at 14, out of the 40 at #42, held at #42, 54, 67, 98. 11 weeks on the chart, but only 5 in the Top 40. Nice call on "Grow". Certainly did some simmering after booming! A great example in the late 80's of a song that simmered while others boomed and eventually fizzled: The second run for "What About Me" by Moving Pictures from 1989: 93-80-69-60-58-53-50-46-49-52-55-54-57-66-71-81-92. 17 weeks for a song that got as high as 46. To put it in perspective: it spent more time in the Hot 100 in 1989 than #2 "Express Yourself" and #1 "Batdance". Add the 26 weeks it had in its initial run and you have 43 weeks for a song that never got past 29 on the charts. How about this one for chart action from the late 70s? This one didn't even simmer while others boomed then fizzled. This one bubbled...under. I don't have the chart action for this song, and the first time I read it I thought it was a misprint. In a time where 7 or 8 weeks was considered an eternity on the Bubbling Under charts, the Village People's first charting single "San Francisco (You Got Me)" peaked at #102 in a 30 week chart run beginning October 15, 1977.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 13, 2013 23:32:17 GMT -5
Nice call on "Grow". Certainly did some simmering after booming! A great example in the late 80's of a song that simmered while others boomed and eventually fizzled: The second run for "What About Me" by Moving Pictures from 1989: 93-80-69-60-58-53-50-46-49-52-55-54-57-66-71-81-92. 17 weeks for a song that got as high as 46. To put it in perspective: it spent more time in the Hot 100 in 1989 than #2 "Express Yourself" and #1 "Batdance". Add the 26 weeks it had in its initial run and you have 43 weeks for a song that never got past 29 on the charts. How about this one for chart action from the late 70s? This one didn't even simmer while others boomed then fizzled. This one bubbled...under. I don't have the chart action for this song, and the first time I read it I thought it was a misprint. In a time where 7 or 8 weeks was considered an eternity on the Bubbling Under charts, the Village People's first charting single "San Francisco (You Got Me)" peaked at #102 in a 30 week chart run beginning October 15, 1977. I just checked it out, and I saw 24 weeks. But whether 30 or 24 that might be the single greatest run for a song ever. And it didn't even hit the Hot 100. That's absolutely insane. Does anyone have any explanation why a song would spend a half a year bouncing around position 109 and 102?
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Nov 14, 2013 9:21:03 GMT -5
Well, one person that does not is Casey. The one time that song was played on AT40 was in the disco special. So I checked it out just now to try to get you an explanation. Casey actually said in addition to this song spending 7 weeks on top of the disco chart that it was not released as a single. Obviously that is a mistake. Even though it never made the Hot 100, the fact that it bubbled under means it WAS released as a single. (No, the bubbling under chart is not made up partly or fully of album tracks as some people may infer). To give you my explanation, since this song was about San Francisco, I think it was the prototypical regional hit that was massive in the Bay area but nowhere else. That said, with 7 weeks at #1 on the disco chart, it is still surprising that it did not make the lower reaches of the Hot 100.
blackbowl, thanks for the correction. That makes it 6 records which climbed 25, 26 or 27 notches without hitting #1 and 4 of them come from late 71 and early 72.
|
|
|
Post by lasvegaskid on Nov 14, 2013 9:57:51 GMT -5
Elt's Nobody Wins would pole vault 40-27 but peter out at #21.
|
|
|
Post by Hervard on Nov 14, 2013 15:28:00 GMT -5
"Jam" by Michael Jackson debuted on AT40 in July or early August 1992 at #23, and never made the top 20. "Rescue Me" by Madonna debuted on the Hot 100 at #15 in 1991, but barely made the top 10, peaking at #9, and spent only 6 weeks on the top 40. Shadoe even mentioned that this was one of the shortest-lived top 40 hits that made the top 10. "Rescue Me" definitely counts as a boom to fizzle song, at least in my opinion, because it happened before 11/30/91. That's a pretty crazy run, even for Madonna: 15-14-11-9-16-28- gone. Actually, the reason that "Rescue Me" tanked so fast on the Hot 100 is that its single release was delayed for nearly two months after it became a radio hit. Thus, it was already peaking on most station playlists, as well as the R&R chart and, since it fell relatively fast on the R&R chart, it was charting on the Hot 100 based on mainly sales points, which is why it peaked so fast and then fell like a rock.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 14, 2013 16:46:07 GMT -5
"Rescue Me" definitely counts as a boom to fizzle song, at least in my opinion, because it happened before 11/30/91. That's a pretty crazy run, even for Madonna: 15-14-11-9-16-28- gone. Actually, the reason that "Rescue Me" tanked so fast on the Hot 100 is that its single release was delayed for nearly two months after it became a radio hit. Thus, it was already peaking on most station playlists, as well as the R&R chart and, since it fell relatively fast on the R&R chart, it was charting on the Hot 100 based on mainly sales points, which is why it peaked so fast and then fell like a rock. The same goes for "U Can't Touch This". While "Touch" did not fizzle by any means on the Hot 100, the stars were aligned for the song to be the first number one rap song (if you don't count "Rapture): the movement to more weight to urban songs as of the 5/12/90 show, the huge radio hit that it was, all of the things were in place, except they released it as a single late. It didn't even appear on the Hot 100 until 4/28/90 (at #27) while simultaneously it was just one week away from the top 10 on R and R. Of course, we don't know what would have happened, but Hammer definitely would have been higher than 8 if the single had been released the month or so earlier when it started its Top 40 R and R march. I think sales were definitely hurt by releasing it late. The song never did go up the chart leaps and bounds after debuting at 27. Of all the "what if"'s , that one is one of my favorite to ponder: could Hammertime have gone #1 on Billboard if they had released the single earlier. For the record, it did go #1 on R and R making it without a doubt the first number one rap song to hit the top of the chart on R and R. "Rapture", coincidentally, made like Hammer on the Billboard chart and went to #8 on the R and R chart.
|
|