Songs Holding position

[jg]

I have listened to American Top 40 since I was kid and I listen to the replays as much as I can.  As a result I have become quite a "chartnik" and am fascinated with any info I can get on the show or the chart.

One chart dynamic that I have always wondered about is the fact that most songs would hold position before they dropped.  I can understand the top 5 or 8 songs holding, but most songs would hold a position ( example, #12,#23, or #36)  before dropping.  How can that happen with such consistency?   If a song holds at #25 that means that an equal number of songs dropped below them and jumped ahead of them.   When you consider sales and airplay numbers, does it surprise anyone that it was the consistent?   

I often wondered if there was more to the chart makeup than just raw numbers.   I sure think it is easier to track the progress on songs this way, but I am not sure if the data that is used would support that consistency.

[torcan]

To be honest, when I first started listening to AT40 in the early '80s, I had never seen a Billboard chart and this always puzzled me too. I just thought it couldn't possibly be almost EVERY song would hold before falling. When I started subscribing to Billboard in Sept 1981, it became clear why this happened.

We've discussed this here before, but the chart director at the time had a rule where anything that had a "star" (or "bullet") could not fall down the chart the following week. It had to "hold" first, lose its star, then drop. This is why so many songs were held at their peak positions. It was very rare for a song to move up (especially within the top 20) and not earn a star, so it meant it had to hold in its peak position. Songs from 21-40 more frequently could move up a spot or two without a star, which meant they could drop the following week.

Maybe one thing the chart director did was "borrow" points from the following week so it all lined up. When songs dropped, they quite often made big plunges. This could have been the chart director taking off those "borrowed" points which lead to the big drops. Make sense? (I'm not saying this did happen, only speculating...)

[mkarns]

September 1981 was as good a time as almost any to discover the "star" rule, as 4 of the top 5 were the same for the whole month. I think spring 1983 was when that approach was abandoned.

[Deleted]

The star/bullet rule really is stupid. If you were #8 last week and were showing an increase thus have a bullet next to you, and next week you're 9th (and could STILL be showing an increase but was surpassed by a song rocketing up the chart) you should be #9. Why did people have to make things more difficult than need be?

[woolebull]

Nov 13, 2013 18:58:32 GMT -5 mkarns said:

September 1981 was as good a time as almost any to discover the "star" rule, as 4 of the top 5 were the same for the whole month. I think spring 1983 was when that approach was abandoned.

August of 1982 was even better. Top 5 was the same the whole month.