|
|
Post by Ponderous Man on Feb 1, 2010 0:53:36 GMT -5
With all these topics about chart trivia reappearing, I have a chart question. In the history of the Billboard Hot 100, has there ever been a song that debuted on the Hot 100 at #100 that would later go on to hit #1?
|
|
|
|
Post by number39 on Feb 1, 2010 19:46:06 GMT -5
1950's (1958 to 1959):
(Debuted 4/19/59): WILBERT HARRISON - "Kansas City" (100-71-24-16-6-1) - #1 for 2 weeks.
(12/27/59): MARK DINNING - "Teen Angel" (100-50-29-14-7-4-2-1) - #1 for 2 weeks.
1960's:
(7/16/61): HIGHWAYMEN - "Michael" (100-69-41-23-10-6-3-3-1) - #1 for 2 weeks.
(11/10/63): STEVE LAWRENCE - "Go Away Little Girl" (100-85-54-41-20-10-7-4-2-1) - #1 for 2 weeks.
(4/9/66): PERCY SLEDGE: "When A Man Loves A Woman" (100-73-53-29-16-9-4-1) - #1 for 2 weeks.
1970's/1980's forthcoming! Hope I didn't miss any.
|
|
|
|
Post by number39 on Feb 1, 2010 20:18:43 GMT -5
1970's:
(2/10/73): VICKI LAWRENCE - "The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia" (100-90-80-59-47-30-16-10-1) - #1 for 2 weeks.
That's it for the '70's. For whatever reason, from the mid-70's on, the lowest debuting song was usually around #90.
|
|
|
|
Post by number39 on Feb 2, 2010 1:19:58 GMT -5
1980's:
NONE!!! In fact, in the entire decade, I could only find 5 songs that debuted at #100:
(5/21/88): THE SMITHEREENS - "Only A Memory" - Peaked at #92.
(10/1/88): BRITNY FOX - "Long Way To Love" - Peaked at #100!
(12/12/88): NEW EDITION - "You're Not My Kind of Girl" - Peaked at #95.
(8/12/89): TORA TORA - "Walkin' Shoes" - Peaked at #86.
(8/26/89): 1927 - "That's When I Think of You" - Peaked at #100 for one week!
|
|
|
|
Post by number39 on Feb 2, 2010 1:37:07 GMT -5
I don't have '90's or '00's or '10's handy, so someone else may be able to cover those decades. It was fun to research!
|
|
|
|
Post by coldcardinal on Feb 2, 2010 12:27:57 GMT -5
Could someone explain why debuts at #100 were so rare? For any given position higher up the chart (say, top 40), there's about a 50/50 chance that the song will be rising or falling. So why, when you get down to 100, are they only falling? Is it that a song, simply by virtue of being added to many radio playlists simultaneously, will garner enough points to debut higher?
|
|
|
|
Post by donwa001 on Feb 3, 2010 0:16:00 GMT -5
1990's:
(5/15/1993) UB40 - "Can't Help Falling In Love" (100-71-52-37-25-18-13-7-4-2-1) - #1 for 7 weeks
|
|
|
|
Post by pizzzzza on Feb 3, 2010 17:53:42 GMT -5
1990's:(5/15/1993) UB40 - "Can't Help Falling In Love" (100-71-52-37-25-18-13-7-4-2-1) - #1 for 7 weeks Strange coincidence - their 1990 hit, "The Way You Do The Things You Do" - ALSO DEBUTED at #100 - but only peaked at #6. Like mentioned before, debuting at #100 became a very rare feat after the 70s - but to have two songs debut at #100 by the same group within a few years seems very rare indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by bandit73 on Feb 5, 2010 4:25:35 GMT -5
Could someone explain why debuts at #100 were so rare? I think someone once mentioned here that (at least in the '80s), a song had to be played by at least 5 stations on Billboard's panel before it could enter the Hot 100. So by the time 5 stations added the song, it would be higher than #100 anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by torcan on Jul 2, 2010 18:15:51 GMT -5
Could someone explain why debuts at #100 were so rare? I think someone once mentioned here that (at least in the '80s), a song had to be played by at least 5 stations on Billboard's panel before it could enter the Hot 100. So by the time 5 stations added the song, it would be higher than #100 anyway. That's correct. I have a letter I wrote to chart director Thomas Noonan in 1985 asking him why nothing ever came on at No. 100. He basically said that songs had to have a certain number of stations and a certain number of points to enter the Hot 100. Songs at No. 100 rarely had enough of both. Considering those rules, at large number of songs debuted at No. 99 though. Personally, I would have liked to have seen an accurate chart rather than songs held off just because they didn't have the points criteria. I was glad when a song finally entered at No. 100 in 1988! |
|
|
|
Post by saltrek on Jul 3, 2010 11:58:08 GMT -5
I am guessing that the station criteria was used to create a more stable and credible chart.
One or two stations could not "make" a song get into the Hot 100 by listing it high on their playlists.
You would also avoid a song debuting at 100 or 99 one week only to drop to #103 the next, then back up to #98, etc. Once the station criteria was met, you had a more likely chance that a song would have a "normal" chart run once it debuted.
Unfortunately, I think determining song popularity is somewhat subjective. Let's look at radio station spin counts. That's pretty objective, right?
But, is a song really twice as popular in a city where the top-40 station plays its #1 song 130 times vs. a city whose station plays their #1 song 65 times? I say no.
This past Memorial Day weekend, a Hot AC station (KLLY) played all Justin Bieber songs the entire weekend. As a result, two songs generated over 300 spins each just from one radio station. Those two songs had less than 10 spins from all other reporting Hot AC stations. Those spins generated by just one radio station were enough to get those two songs into the top-40 of the Hot AC chart for that week. Did Justin Bieber really have two top-40 songs in the nation because of a stupid act by one radio station? Again, I say no.
|
|
