|
|
Post by upland1425 on Oct 16, 2008 12:09:40 GMT -5
On the latest Billboard Hot 100 chart (October 25, 2008), Britney Spears' "Womanizer" leaps from #96 all the way to #1, which becomes the new longest jump record.
In fact, the previous record was set just last week (October 18) when "Live Your Life" by T.I. featuring Rihanna moved from #80 to #1, and the then previous record (and immediately preceding #1 hit) was T.I.'s "Whatever You Like" jumped from #71 to #1 in September.
Btw, Rihanna occupies 4 songs out of top 10 largest leapers:
96-1: "Womanizer," Britney Spears (Oct. 25, 2008)
80-1: "Live Your Life," T.I. featuring Rihanna (Oct. 18, 2008)
71-1: "Whatever You Like," T.I. (Sept. 6, 2008)
64-1: "Makes Me Wonder," Maroon 5 (Sept. 12, 2007)
53-1: "Take a Bow," Rihanna (May 24, 2008)
52-1: "A Moment Like This," Kelly Clarkson (Oct. 5, 2002)
51-1: "Love in This Club," Usher featuring Young Jeezy (March 15, 2008)
42-1: "Give It to Me," Timbaland featuring Justin Timberlake and Nelly Furtado (April 21, 2007)
41-1: "Umbrella," Rihanna featuring Jay-Z (June 9, 2007)
34-1: "SOS," Rihanna (May 13, 2006)
32-1: "This Is Why I'm Hot," Mims (March 10, 2007)
31-1: "SexyBack," Justin Timberlake (Sept. 9, 2006)
Source: Chart Beat by Fred Bronson (Billboard.com)
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Oct 16, 2008 12:17:38 GMT -5
Interesting, but we must keep in mind the differing ways in which Billboard puts together the Hot 100 as well as changes in how music is purchased, sales vs. airplay, etc.
Thus, comparing these post-2000 examples with the Hot 100 that Casey Kasem counted down in the 1970s and 80s is really comparing apples to oranges. It would be fun to imagine how counting down it now would sound ("leaping a record-breaking 95 notches, that's the new #1 song in the USA--Womanizer by Britney Spears"!) but neither the charts nor their methodology is the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Oct 16, 2008 14:49:01 GMT -5
AT40 during Shadoe's era compared apples and oranges from 1992 on since it compared feats from 3 different charts (Hot 100, Top 40 Radio Monitor, Top 40/Mainstream). During 1992, many chart "records" fell due to the change in charts. In fact, this week in 1992 is when the highest debut ever in AT40 history occurred, as Madonna's "Erotica" debuted at #2. At least Billboard is still comparing the "same" chart, the Hot 100.  In this new era, records seem to be falling fast. Personally, for the Hot 100, I divide the chart into 2 eras, the pre and post Soundscan/BDS era. I compare feats from each era to itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Hervard on Oct 17, 2008 0:12:29 GMT -5
It's unbelievable how, for years, the Beatles held the record for the longest leap to #1 - now, it's not even anywhere near the Top Ten.
For what it's worth, on the R&R chart, there's a tie for the biggest leap to #1, between two songs. Back in early 1975, Barry Manilow's "Mandy" jumped from 10 to 1. However, that wasn't all in a single week. It was after a two-week break and, had it not been for the break, the jump would likely have been different. However, the other song that jumped from 10 to 1 on the R&R chart DID do it in a single week. In July, 1992, Madonna's "This Used To Be My Playground" made the nine-notch move to the top. I think the Top Ten was very soft at the time, with many songs moving downward. I figured that maybe "Too Funky" by George Michael would take the gold, but his song was weakening as well.
Even more odd, before the spring of 1992, it had been over a decade since the last time a song jumped to #1 from outside the Top Ten, then it happened three times in the course of a little over six months. The other two were "My Lovin' (You're Never Gonna Get It)" by En Vogue (6-1) and "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston (9-1). The latter also set the record for the quickest climb to #1 on the R&R chart, making it in three short weeks.
But those jumps seem like small potatoes compared to the ones on BB, although, as mkarns points out, we're comparing apples to oranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjukebox on Dec 30, 2008 16:50:29 GMT -5
"Weird Al" Yankovic has recorded a parody of "Whatever You Like" & it will appear on his next album,which is due to be released sometime in 2009.
|
|
|
|
Post by jedijake on Dec 30, 2008 20:13:27 GMT -5
Wow, that list shows the complete irrelevancy of the Hot 100 these days-well actually for the past 16 years.
You almost have to look at pre-92 and post-92 as if the Hot 100 were completely different entities.
And interestingly enough, songs reaching #1 on R&R charts (CHR and HOT AC) take forever to reach #1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adrian on Dec 30, 2008 20:46:59 GMT -5
Wow, that list shows the complete irrelevancy of the Hot 100 these days-well actually for the past 16 years. You almost have to look at pre-92 and post-92 as if the Hot 100 were completely different entities. And interestingly enough, songs reaching #1 on R&R charts (CHR and HOT AC) take forever to reach #1. Of course, you do realize that R&R only calculates radio airplay, as opposed to Billboard's combined sales and airplay. However, even airplay charts have changed over time. Before the BDS/PPW era, music directors would just submit their list of songs that is current on their rotation list. In actual fact, they played "recurrents" as well, except that these were never tabulated on the final rankings. So songs on the R&R charts back then were moving faster, thanks to "inaccurate" tabulations. |
|
|
|
Post by jedijake on Dec 31, 2008 9:15:47 GMT -5
In the 90's, sales took on a much larger role in the charts than previous decades. But it wasn't because more singles were being sold. It was because of the separation of sales and airplay. The move toward a computerized method was partly to blame for that. In addition, the move toward a more "business" approach in the 90's, rather than being consumer driven.
Once the hardcore rap was "let out of the cage" (so to speak), sales figures represented success of songs that weren't being played on the radio due to the subject of the music. As that happened more and more, the "mainstream" artists released less and less singles because they just weren't lucritive.
The irony is that people just didn't buy singles. Hence the reason why they downgraded the level of gold and platinum singles in the 90's. So, while the charts were theoretically based on equal sales/airplay influence, the reality was that sales figures of singles were WAY down. So, proportionally, sales were given a MUCH bigger influence than airplay.
With the inception of download music, sales completely fell off the face of the planet. Still, sales are considered for the Hot 100 (or is it-I am not even sure). Single sales are completely obsolete. There's a major cultural / socioeconomic influence on what has happened in regards to sales of singles as well, but I am not sure whether this is the place to get into that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Dec 31, 2008 11:11:18 GMT -5
I think actual singles sales are still calculated as part of the Hot 100, although they are given little weight--about the only ones that have sold in large quantities lately were from "American Idol" performers. But one could say that downloads are in effect the new 45's, so it makes sense to factor them in.
I remember that the Hot 100 until 1998 (I think) ruled that a single must be physically available in stores to qualify; as a result that chart became practically irrelevant for a while as, in those pre-download days, many of the most popular songs were not being released as singles (though they were helping sell a lot of albums) and so never made the Hot 100.
|
|
|
|
Post by jedijake on Dec 31, 2008 13:07:50 GMT -5
Very good point. I keep forgetting the fiasco of the 90's when songs like "Ironic", "Iris", and "Don't Speak" made little impact on the Hot 100 while being among the most popular songs of the entire decade.
It's because Alanis, No Doubt, and Goo-Goo Dolls (or rather their managers) knew it to be a waste to release singles in the midst of the urban singles that were selling like hot cakes at the time. Then, by popular demand I guess, they finally released those hits as singles (except Don't Speak which was never released).
You can see the impact in the book by Joel Whitburn-Billboard Book of Top 40 hits. As the most prominent chart guru in history, even he knew the changes had to be referenced.
It's the old "does the horse lead the carriage or the other way around" syndrome.
When songs came out, DJ's would push certain hits. That generated popularity based on what was heard on the radio. Then, people would buy the 45's to listen to the songs when they wanted without DJ interuptions. At the record stores, the singles section would have 90-95% new/current hits and a few scatterings of older songs. But mostly, it was very difficult to find older songs once they fell out of regular circulation. Therefore, radio was inundated with newer stuff only and the turnover was quick.
The 90's were a transition due to music that wasn't getting played because of the controversial lyrics. So, the singles sections of stores had a mix of current radio hits and songs you could not hear on the radio because stations would not play them (nor would popular countdown shows). That, along with the fact that CD singles were more expensive than the vinyl versions made buying singles less attractive. Seeing this pattern, mainstream artists released singles less and less. Still, however, it was the current/new stuff that was mostly being marketed.
In the 2000's, it seems that only some urban music is released on singles. Can you find a singles section at a record store? Downloading music made it MUCH easier to access older stuff so therefore, older music became more and more popular. You didn't have to hunt the record stores for them. Re-currents were as popular as newer stuff. In addition, good music didn't fade as easier since it could still be accessed online for, well, forever.
Still, a record-breaking jump on the HOT 100 (what this topic is actually about) is kinda like Barry Bonds' homerun record. It almost has to have an asterisk next to it due to a change in times.
|
|
|
|
Post by upland1425 on Jan 29, 2009 11:52:07 GMT -5
This week (February 7, 2009), the record set by Britney Spears in October 2008 ("Womanizer" leaped from #96 to #1) was finally broken by Kelly Clarkson.
Her new single, "My Life Would Suck Without You", leaped from # 97 all the way to #1.
|
|
|
|
Post by upland1425 on Feb 14, 2009 12:43:52 GMT -5
|
|
In this new era, records seem to be falling fast. Personally, for the Hot 100, I divide the chart into 2 eras, the pre and post Soundscan/BDS era. I compare feats from each era to itself.
