|
Post by pb on Nov 14, 2013 17:06:13 GMT -5
Chicago around this time in 1978 moved up 19 notches from 40 to 21 with, "Alive Again". The song, however, would not get past position 14. Has any other song had a jump like that and not hit the Top 10? That's crazy! If I remember correctly, "No Tell Lover" was charting, I thought, the first of 1979 so it wouldn't be far removed from the run for "Alive". Did they put out two songs near the same time and that caused "Alive" to stall or did it just lose its luster? Didn't one of their songs from 1975 ("Harry Truman" or "Old Days") also take a huge jump up the charts and then fall off almost as quickly?
|
|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Nov 14, 2013 18:54:48 GMT -5
The reason "U Can't Touch This" missed the top spot on the Hot 100 was because of HOW it was released. Capitol Records issued the track only as a 12" single. That's fine for urban releases, but most consumers were buying singles in the cassette configuration. But it was enough to place on the big chart. Its airplay was strong enough for it to reach the top 10, but without a cassette configuration, it had no chance.
|
|
|
Post by 80sat40fan on Nov 14, 2013 20:59:54 GMT -5
Chicago around this time in 1978 moved up 19 notches from 40 to 21 with, "Alive Again". The song, however, would not get past position 14. Has any other song had a jump like that and not hit the Top 10? That's crazy! If I remember correctly, "No Tell Lover" was charting, I thought, the first of 1979 so it wouldn't be far removed from the run for "Alive". Did they put out two songs near the same time and that caused "Alive" to stall or did it just lose its luster? Didn't one of their songs from 1975 ("Harry Truman" or "Old Days") also take a huge jump up the charts and then fall off almost as quickly? "Old Days" debuted on AT40 at #17. While it spent two weeks at #5, it only spent 7 weeks on AT40. One song which made a huge leap up the countdown in the early 80's without hitting the Top 10 and still gets airplay today is "Shadows Of The Night" by Pat Benetar. Her song jumped from #40 to #23 in its second week on AT40 but only reached #13. Another Rolling Stones song, like "Heartbreaker" mentioned on page 1 of this thread, which had a similar boom to fizzle run was "Fool To Cry" in 1976. Yes, the song peaked at #10 but it had an amazingly short run for a high debut. Its AT40 chart movement was: 20 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 21 - out. It had a strange fizzle once it dropped out of AT40... it plunged to 63, went back up to 53, held at 53, inched back up to 49, took a huge drop to 96, then moved back up to 89, then fell out. Some interesting chart movement for a Stones song.
|
|
|
Post by 1finemrg on Nov 14, 2013 21:13:44 GMT -5
Didn't one of their songs from 1975 ("Harry Truman" or "Old Days") also take a huge jump up the charts and then fall off almost as quickly? "Harry Truman" peaked at #13 during weeks 7 & 8 on the Hot 100, fell to #38, then out of the charts. The week it fell off, "Old Days" debuted at #68, and took a huge leap 25 notches to #43. It bettered that the following week debuting in the Top 40 at #17 (up 26). After peaking at #5, it fell to #17, then #41, #45, and out of the survey. The chart action of "Old Days" was also mentioned in the least number of positions thread.
|
|
|
Post by mga707 on Nov 14, 2013 21:48:54 GMT -5
Another Rolling Stones song, like "Heartbreaker" mentioned on page 1 of this thread, which had a similar boom to fizzle run was "Fool To Cry" in 1976. Yes, the song peaked at #10 but it had an amazingly short run for a high debut. Its AT40 chart movement was: 20 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 21 - out. It had a strange fizzle once it dropped out of AT40... it plunged to 63, went back up to 53, held at 53, inched back up to 49, took a huge drop to 96, then moved back up to 89, then fell out. Some interesting chart movement for a Stones song. "Fool To Cry"s odd late chart movement was probably due to the fact that the 'B' side, "Hot Stuff" (the Stones' first disco-ey tune, two years before "Miss You") was receiving some airplay by that time.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 15, 2013 1:27:21 GMT -5
The reason "U Can't Touch This" missed the top spot on the Hot 100 was because of HOW it was released. Capitol Records issued the track only as a 12" single. That's fine for urban releases, but most consumers were buying singles in the cassette configuration. But it was enough to place on the big chart. Its airplay was strong enough for it to reach the top 10, but without a cassette configuration, it had no chance. But wasn't that 12 inch version, or another version, released late? I understand what you are saying about it not selling well, but something happened for the single just to appear at number 27. A song (at that time) just didn't show up on the Hot 100 at 27 unless some significant event has happened. If there had been a 12 inch single the whole time, and wasn't selling well, then there is no way the song debuts that high.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2013 6:06:46 GMT -5
Yes. IIRC we had this discussion elsewhere and I mentioned how weird it was this song which was huge reached #1 on R&R and only I think #7 or #8 on the Hot 100. And it was because they didn't release the single immediately upon it going to radio. I guess they were trying to push album sales instead, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Nov 15, 2013 10:00:53 GMT -5
But wasn't that 12 inch version, or another version, released late? I understand what you are saying about it not selling well, but something happened for the single just to appear at number 27. A song (at that time) just didn't show up on the Hot 100 at 27 unless some significant event has happened. If there had been a 12 inch single the whole time, and wasn't selling well, then there is no way the song debuts that high. That was its ranking when the 12" got issued. The track was getting top 40 airplay for at least a month before it became a single. It was closing in on the top 10 airplaywise when it debuted on the Hot 100.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 15, 2013 16:39:31 GMT -5
But wasn't that 12 inch version, or another version, released late? I understand what you are saying about it not selling well, but something happened for the single just to appear at number 27. A song (at that time) just didn't show up on the Hot 100 at 27 unless some significant event has happened. If there had been a 12 inch single the whole time, and wasn't selling well, then there is no way the song debuts that high. That was its ranking when the 12" got issued. The track was getting top 40 airplay for at least a month before it became a single. It was closing in on the top 10 airplaywise when it debuted on the Hot 100. I wish we could get the Billboard issue from 4/27/90 because I want to reread just how crazy it was. I remember,as you say the single being released as the hold up. It being just a 12 inch obviously hurt its sales So maybe never number 1 because of how the single was issued and the time it was issued. I wonder how many positions "Touch" lost because of the late release (and the mix) of the single. Guess we will never know.
|
|
|
Post by Hervard on Nov 16, 2013 12:42:22 GMT -5
^As I recall, "U Can't Touch This" was peaking on the airplay chart around the time "Hold On" by Wilson Phillips was #1 on the Hot 100. "Hold On" was Billboard's #1 song of the year. That would have been interesting if that song had been shut out of the top spot by Hammer - would have been the first time in 25 years that a song topped the BB year-end Top 100 without having hit #1 on the weekly chart.
|
|
|
Post by doomsdaymachine on Nov 17, 2013 3:29:27 GMT -5
In February 1982, Skyy's "Call Me" moved a respectable nine points from #42-33. The next week, it was at #29. It spent the following two weeks peaked at #26, and then dropped to #50.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 11:09:28 GMT -5
That was its ranking when the 12" got issued. The track was getting top 40 airplay for at least a month before it became a single. It was closing in on the top 10 airplaywise when it debuted on the Hot 100. I wish we could get the Billboard issue from 4/27/90 because I want to reread just how crazy it was. I remember,as you say the single being released as the hold up. It being just a 12 inch obviously hurt its sales So maybe never number 1 because of how the single was issued and the time it was issued. I wonder how many positions "Touch" lost because of the late release (and the mix) of the single. Guess we will never know. I believe it cost the song the #1 spot and the distinction of being the first rap song ever to hit #1. Considering who earned the distinction, Hammer would have been much better.
|
|
|
Post by doomsdaymachine on Nov 18, 2013 1:40:53 GMT -5
Has anyone mentioned "Thriller?" It rocketed onto the Hot 100 at #20, and topped out at #4.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Nov 18, 2013 9:05:10 GMT -5
"Thriller" is in the same category as "Imagine", "U Can't Touch This" and "Rescue Me". All were released long after they had been getting significant airplay and thus debuted very high on the Hot 100 with the head start they got as a result. So the boom turning to a fizzle was inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 19, 2013 10:35:45 GMT -5
^As I recall, "U Can't Touch This" was peaking on the airplay chart around the time "Hold On" by Wilson Phillips was #1 on the Hot 100. "Hold On" was Billboard's #1 song of the year. That would have been interesting if that song had been shut out of the top spot by Hammer - would have been the first time in 25 years that a song topped the BB year-end Top 100 without having hit #1 on the weekly chart. I looked it up in Bronson's 1991 book and "Hold On" was the number three song of the year. Bronson, for those who do not know, went back every year and gave full credit to a song in the year they peaked, so the top two songs, "Love Takes Time" and "Because I Love You" would not have been the number one song or two song when Billboard did its rankings at the end of 1990 because their run came at the end of 1990/early 1991, so you are probably right that "Hold On" was the number one song of 1990 according to Billboard. It would then be interesting to see how many points were between "Hold On" and "It Must Have Been Love", which comes in his book at 4 so I'm assuming 2 on the year end 1990 Billboard chart. If "Touch" indeed holds out "Hold On" wouldn't "Hold On" lose bonus points? I'm thinking Roxette could have possibly had the number one song of the year if "Hold On" did not go to number one for that one week. There couldn't have been much difference between those two songs, along with two songs that spent 4 weeks at the top during the same calendar year, "Nothing Compares 2 U" and "Vision Of Love". Of course, I'm assuming bonus points were given for being number one. I actually do not know and would love for someone to clarify that.
|
|