|
|
Post by briguy52748 on Sept 16, 2009 15:46:39 GMT -5
^ Indeed, it's almost 2 separate questions: which songs got caught in the wedge between survey periods? And, less commonly, which songs hit the top 10 but didn't accumulate enough points on their full chart run to make a 100-song countdown? The latter would include Pass the Dutchie, Harlem Shuffle, and Heartbeat, as well as a few others listed above. Pass the Dutchie is perhaps the most surprising, since 1983 was a slow-turnover year and thus the year-end countdown included several songs that didn't hit the top 10. The latter point is well taken — songs that did make the top 10 but did not accumulate enough points to make a 100-song countdown. This is particularly surprising for several of the No. 1 songs I listed above, as both reasons (the year-end wedge/carryover and "splitting the points") might have accounted for their apparently unusual low year-end finish, when a song was likely a very big hit during its full chart run. One song that comes to mind is Olivia Newton-John's "I Honestly Love You," which was only in the 90s despite a two-week No. 1 run (in early October, no less, more than enough time for its entire chart run to have been considered) and ended up in AT40's "Top 50 of the 1970s." Logically, one would think that all the No. 1 songs in a given chart year would be included, and ranked no lower than the position corresponding to the total number of said songs (e.g., if the 1974 chart period had 32 No. 1 songs — beginning with the Carpenters' "Top of the World" and ending with Stevie Wonder's "You Haven't Done Nothin'"), no No. 1 song would rank lower than 32. But as we all know, that is definitely not the case, as many times a song that peaked at only No. 2 would be much bigger than a No. 1 hit; in fact, we all know of several instances where a non-No. 1 hit was the top song of the year on Billboard's YE Hot 100 (e.g., "Wooly Bully" by Sam the Sham and the Pharahos in 1965, "Breathe" by Faith Hill in 2000, and "Hanging by a Moment" by Lifehouse in 2001). Looking at the No. 2 songs from the 1974 survey period, there were just five — Elton John's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" and "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me"; Eddie Kendricks' "Boogie Down"; the Stylistics' "You Make Me Feel Brand New" and the Jacksons' "Dancing Machine." Logically, you'd think they'd be ranked behind the No. 1 songs on AT40's year-end survey — Nos. 37 through 33. But instead on that year's AT40 year-end show, we had Elton ranked at No. 72 and 78, Eddie Kendricks at No. 30, the Stylistics way up at No. 14, and Michael and his brothers having one of the top 5 hits of the year (coming in at No. 5). The only one that is close to being ranked "where it should be" is ex-Temptation Kendricks. And it goes on from there. The question at hand is — given that the 1970s was before the age of computers as we know it — how long did it take to compile a year-end chart? Surely, they would have had the foresight even then to keep running totals of a song's performance on the charts during its regular chart run, and then refer to it in December when it comes time to compile the year-end charts, write the associated articles and publish the year-end issue. (Same goes for Casey and his AT40 staff). ------------ As far as American Country Countdown's year-end shows go, only a couple times can I remember where all (or almost all) of the No. 1 hits of a given survey period were ranked in order, from 1 through the number corresponding to the total chart-toppers in the survey period: • On the year-end 1988 show — based on ACC's own tabulation — the year's top 47 songs were all former No. 1s (the Judds' No. 2 hit " Give a Little Love," which ranked at No. 48, was the top ranked non-No. 1 hit in a year, in a year where there were 49 songs reaching the summit). • In 2000, there were 18 No. 1 songs in that survey period ... and the lowest ranked No. 1 song was No. 18 (Kenny Rogers' comeback smash " Buy Me a Rose"); the song at No. 19 was Vince Gill's No. 6 hit " Feels Like Love." I'm sure there were other years like that, but that gives you a general idea. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by Caseyfan4everRyanfanNever on Sept 16, 2009 17:11:35 GMT -5
Whether a #1 song ranks higher than all others depends upon weight given to a #1 song versus all others. Vince posted several messages here on chart figuring late last year or earlier this year and I'd suggest rereading them.
From my understanding, it is really hard to measure songs based on peak position in a year end or decade countdown. Some year end charts, especially those compiled for Casey's Top 40 and Modern AT40 with Casey (1998-Jan 2004) tend to base their calculations more on number of total weeks on the weekly charts. Joel Whitburn bases his charts on peak position with all #1s ranking above all #2s (ties broken by weeks at #1 and weeks in Top 100, Top 40, Top 10). There are other methods which could be found as well.
In my opinion, charts that take both number of weeks and peak position into account are more accurate. However, this leaves out a lot of songs that moved up the chart rather quickly or fell rather quickly. Finding a way to compensate for this would help make the year end chart more representative since these songs are not necessarily LESS popular (in many cases, the fast move upward of these songs shows that there had to be some reason for this). Also there are times when there are a large number of records competing and others when there are only a few (resulting in an unusually long time on the chart for songs that may not deserve to stay and would probably not if there were more songs out at that time). In short, there should be some way to take into consideration the number of songs that are available to chart at any given time.
|
|
|
|
Post by larryravenswood on Sept 16, 2009 21:54:49 GMT -5
we must remember that it wasn't always that AT40 and Billboard had exact year end countdowns.In the 70s, Billboard's year end survey were different than AT40 yearend 100 in 1972 and 1977. In the 80,s they were different from 1980-1984.
Larry Ravenswood
|
|
|
|
Post by dougray2 on Sept 17, 2009 0:44:55 GMT -5
we must remember that it wasn't always that AT40 and Billboard had exact year end countdowns.In the 70s, Billboard's year end survey were different than AT40 yearend 100 in 1972 and 1977. In the 80,s they were different from 1980-1984. Larry Ravenswood I can think of 2 examples of this from 1983. Pass The Dutchie (which was mentioned earlier) and Straight From The Heart both peaked at #10 and neither one overlapped into the previous or following year. However, both these songs missed the AT40 Top 100 of 83, but made billboards top 100. Dutchie was #91 and Straight was #71. I think Straight should have made the AT40 top 100 instead of Far From Over which was #100 on AT40's YE even though Straight had more weeks on the top 40 (11 to 10) and more weeks on the Hot 100 (19 to 16) Dutchie had 10 weeks in the top 40 and 18 on the Hot 100, so that's a close call. |
|
|
|
Post by briguy52748 on Sept 17, 2009 8:00:07 GMT -5
From my understanding, it is really hard to measure songs based on peak position in a year end or decade countdown. Some year end charts, especially those compiled for Casey's Top 40 and Modern AT40 with Casey (1998-Jan 2004) tend to base their calculations more on number of total weeks on the weekly charts. Joel Whitburn bases his charts on peak position with all #1s ranking above all #2s (ties broken by weeks at #1 and weeks in Top 100, Top 40, Top 10). There are other methods which could be found as well. In my opinion, charts that take both number of weeks and peak position into account are more accurate. However, this leaves out a lot of songs that moved up the chart rather quickly or fell rather quickly. Finding a way to compensate for this would help make the year end chart more representative since these songs are not necessarily LESS popular (in many cases, the fast move upward of these songs shows that there had to be some reason for this). Also there are times when there are a large number of records competing and others when there are only a few (resulting in an unusually long time on the chart for songs that may not deserve to stay and would probably not if there were more songs out at that time). In short, there should be some way to take into consideration the number of songs that are available to chart at any given time. Total sales and impact during the song's pouplarity peak could be one way to take this into effect. For instance, take " Elvira," the smash hit by The Oak Ridge Boys from 1981. On the Hot Country Singles chart, the song spent just nine weeks in the top 40, including one week at No. 1. I was only 9 years old at the time, but I remember this song was a smash hit, getting played over and over. Later, I learned this song became the first platinum-certified single by the RIAA (sales of 2 million singles). The song did not rank in the top 50 of Billboard's year-end chart for 1981, and was only rated at No. 53 on American Country Countdown's Top 100 of 1981. Should it have been ranked higher, like in the top 10 for the entire year? You be the judge. (On a side note, "Elvira" was a No. 5 hit on the Hot 100, and on AT40's year-end 1981 show, it appears it ranked at No. 47, a fairly reasonable rank given its peak.) Brian |
|
|
|
Post by Caseyfan4everRyanfanNever on Sept 17, 2009 11:32:24 GMT -5
In some cases, the year end charts include songs that are ranked far higher than they should, given their peak position and weeks on the chart, top 10, etc. At the same time, songs that peak higher or chart longer are sometimes lower than songs that didn't do as well in this regard. Makes you wonder if someone involved at some stage of chart preparation had a personal bias that somehow crept in or if there was some sort of error in the calculations or presentation of results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Red Machine on Sept 17, 2009 14:14:04 GMT -5
Yeah, like in 1976, Why was "If You Leave Me Now" in the 40s? It spent two weeks at #1, 17 weeks in the Top 40, and entered the charts in July (not too late in the year)?
And "Why Me Lord" was #2 in 1973 just because it spent so many weeks on the chart? Is longevity more important than hitting #1?
|
|
|
|
Post by briguy52748 on Sept 17, 2009 15:02:34 GMT -5
Yeah, like in 1976, Why was "If You Leave Me Now" in the 40s? It spent two weeks at #1, 17 weeks in the Top 40, and entered the charts in July (not too late in the year)? And "Why Me Lord" was #2 in 1973 just because it spent so many weeks on the chart? Is longevity more important than hitting #1? Apparently, it can be. "Why Me" must have been one of those songs that was really popular when you look at the whole picture, just not everywhere at the same time. For instance, Kristofferson's signature tune may have been at one point popular in the southeast (while getting minimal to no airplay elsewhere), then really catching on in the Midwest while at the same time getting modest-at-best airplay elsewhere ... and so on, with the region where it was currently popular ever changing throughout its chart run. I can't recall if Casey mentioned it in essence, but that's my best guess. And because it accumulated so many points over that long period of time (19 weeks), it easily made the top 5 on the 1973 AT40 year-end show. ------------ On the country side, " Amanda" by Don Williams had the same phenomenon — lasting very long on the chart, despite a low peak. "Amanda" peaked at just No. 33, but consider the rest of the story. This song was a double-A-sided hit, with the flip side being " Come Early Morning," which peaked at No. 12. I looked at the printed Hot Country Singles charts from the summer of '73 recently, and noticed that "Come Early Morning," when it was the A-side, bounced around quite a few weeks inside the top 20, mainly between 12 and 18, before this two-sided hit briefly fell out of the top 40 in late August. By Labor Day weekend, "Amanda" was now being shown as the A-side and returned to the Hot Country Singles chart's top 40; in mid-September, it made its individual peak at No. 33, before the single finally fell out of the top 40 for good on Oct. 6, 1973. Apparently, what Billboard did in this case is count the entire chart run of both "Come Early Morning"/"Amanda" (23 weeks total, an impressive run in the 1970s) and determined that it had enough points to rank the song at No. 5 for the entire year — although for some strange reason only "Amanda" was listed. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by Big Red Machine on Sept 17, 2009 15:40:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I was always intrigued by how songs stayed in the chart for so long. One of my favorites to watch was Paul Davis "I Go Crazy" just slowly and slowly and slowly kept climbing up the charts back in 77-78 and wouldn't budge for more than 20 weeks. But it never took that drastic leap to the Top 5.
Another amazing note was the Bee Gees "Stayin Alive." If it wasn't their own fault with "Night Fever," Stayin Alive would've spent 9, 10, or 11 weeks at #1, maybe tying the all-time record. It spent #2 for many many weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Sept 17, 2009 16:42:26 GMT -5
It is interesting looking at how songs on AT40 tended to follow different patterns of movement, which were often influenced by chart methodology. In the 1970s, the chart life of songs varied, but some tended to build up slowly and hang around a while, which even if they didn't hit #1 or come very close still increased their total number of points and their position on the year end list.
In the early 1980s, Billboard experimented with a system in which songs were not allowed to drop until they stopped gaining for three weeks; this resulted in lots of songs slowly moving up, sticking to the same position for several weeks, and then plummeting. (The September 1982 countdowns we just heard have a lot of good examples of that.) So a lot of non-top 10 hits ended up in the year end top 100. By contrast, the late 1980s had a lot of chart turnover, as I mentioned, and there were too many short-term top 10 hits for all of them to make the year's top 100.
In later years, the Radio and Records charts used by Casey in Casey's Top 40 and most of his second AT40 run tended to have less turnover as they went from playlists to actual airplay, with some songs ending up on two years' lists; that was eventually corrected with a recurrent rule in which hits that fell below a certain position after a certain number of weeks were cut from the chart. By the time we get to the Ryan Seacrest/Mediabase era, there was no recurrent rule and so now we have less turnover than ever, with hits hanging around for months past their peak and the yearend top 100 with many songs that didn't even make the top 20.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Red Machine on Sept 17, 2009 17:49:45 GMT -5
Yeah, September 1982 was crazy!! Fleetwood Mac's "Hold Me" spent 7 weeks at #4 (I believe it's a record at #4), Steve Miller's "Abracadabra" spent 4 weeks at #3 before reaching #1, and Chicago's "Hard To Say I'm Sorry" spent 4 weeks at #5 before climbing again....Really crazy back then...lol..
|
|
|
|
Post by Hervard on Sept 19, 2009 9:04:10 GMT -5
From late 1974, "You Haven't Done Nothin'" by Stevie Wonder and "Whatever Gets You Thru the Night" by John Lennon were not among the year's top 100 hits in either 1974 and 1975. Interestingly, the song that came between those two songs reaching No. 1 — Bachman Turner Overdrive's "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet" — was on the 1975 year-end survey (at No. 97). That would be due to its resurgence in late 1974, due to the release of "Free Wheelin". As a result of this, it was propelled back into the Top Ten while "Whatever Gets You Thru The Night" continued to free fall. |
|
|
|
Post by artsmusic on Sept 20, 2009 21:46:39 GMT -5
Hello, the first platinum single for sales of 2 million units was "Disco Lady" by Johnnie Taylor. The RIAA introduced platinum in 1976.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shannon Lynn on Sept 20, 2009 23:58:21 GMT -5
Don Bustany's 4 page memo on how they Top 100 was determined is a pretty interesting read.
|
|
|
|
Post by vince on Sept 21, 2009 0:57:58 GMT -5
Don Bustany's 4 page memo on how they Top 100 was determined is a pretty interesting read. Shannon, is this memo posted anywhere on the Internet? Or could it be scanned and posted? I think a lot of us AT40 / record chart fans would like to read it. I am curious as to what the official AT40 policy was for breaking ties, handling frozen weeks, estimating points for records still on the chart after the cut off week, and determining whether or not to holdover a record until the next year. |
|
