|
|
Post by jedijake on Jan 7, 2009 17:22:38 GMT -5
If there are no recurrents, people complain because songs are dropped due to "arbitrary" rules about longevity and songs are automatically dropped from within the top 20.
If there are recurrents, people complain because songs hang around too long.
Not sure what is better.
And no, you are not an old fart. The more movement-the more interesting the chart. The less movement, the less purpose there is to look at the chart weekly.
|
|
|
|
Post by pzimm7700 on Jan 7, 2009 20:37:36 GMT -5
I dont like the recurrent rule because I like things in a no nonsense old school way...I want what is classified as the (insert number here) top songs in the USA. If you are removing songs that fall below a certain number after a certain number of weeks, then another song enters that really shouldn't be there because the song removed should still be.
|
|
|
|
Post by jedijake on Jan 7, 2009 21:05:26 GMT -5
That certainly makes sense.
But when you think about it, they must have cut off recurrents back in the 80's. I would remember going to the local record store and seeing the Hot 100 posted and songs like "Every Breath You Take" falling from the 30's to the 50's to the 90's and thinking "wait a minute, I still hear that song all the time". Meanwhile there would be many songs in the top 40 that I would never ever hear.
And that was in the #1 market NYC.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Jan 10, 2009 11:13:07 GMT -5
That certainly makes sense. But when you think about it, they must have cut off recurrents back in the 80's. I would remember going to the local record store and seeing the Hot 100 posted and songs like "Every Breath You Take" falling from the 30's to the 50's to the 90's and thinking "wait a minute, I still hear that song all the time". Meanwhile there would be many songs in the top 40 that I would never ever hear. And that was in the #1 market NYC. True... while that wasn't a set-in-stone recurrent rule, the charts back then were based in part on ranked playlists from radio stations. Most stations tended to report only songs that were actively being promoted; once a song peaked on their playlist, they would drop it like a rock (or remove it entirely) regardless of whether they were still playing it or not. Which of course made for a fresher chart turnover, at the expense of accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by jedijake on Jan 11, 2009 9:15:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure if anything will be totally accurate.
There was a bigger turn around in the 80's because there was more music to listen to.The fragmentation of radio caused a more narrow range of music per station.
With pop really being split between adult and rhythmic, songs will now spend twice as long on the chart because half of their competition is cut.
Over the past few years, there have been a LOT of Hot AC songs which should have been MUCH higher on the CHR chart.
There really should be a combined Hot AC/Pop chart. I'm thinking if there was more competition, songs which now spend 40 weeks on the chart might spend 20-25.
There just isn't a lot of music being made in the first place.
|
|
