|
Post by pizzzzza on Apr 13, 2011 12:29:26 GMT -5
OK....the thread "#1 songs deprived of their show at the top" kind of got me thinking about something else.
I'm not sure if it's already been discussed on here, or if there's another thread, but...
How about the #1 songs that charted WAY too low for the year end charts?
In other words - songs that came out and peaked during the "cut-off' time for the year end charts, and it's "accumulated points" for its chart run were basically cut in half (into 2 years); therefore, it never got the "appropriate ranking" (in my humble opinion) for the year end charts.
I know that there are many examples of this, but for the life of me, I can't think of one right now off the top of my head.
But I know that you AT 40 'experts' can come up with a nice list of these particular songs.
|
|
|
Post by cdman71031 on Apr 13, 2011 12:58:58 GMT -5
I Think i Love You Patrage Family Tears Of A Clown - Smokey robinson / The Miracles i am woman - Hellen Ready Whatever Gets you Through The Night - John Lennon Can't Get Enough - barry White
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Apr 13, 2011 13:16:17 GMT -5
In 1974, Olivia Newton-John's "I Honestly Love You" only ranked at #97, and the following year Bachman-Turner Overdrive were at #97 with "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" and Neil Sedaka's "Bad Blood" at #93. For 1976, Rick Dees' "Disco Duck" was #97 and Elton John's "Island Girl" #65.
And fall 1974 #1's by Barry White, Stevie Wonder, and John Lennon never made the yearend charts at all; neither did Steve Miller's "Rock'n Me" (from fall 1976).
|
|
|
Post by chrislc on Apr 13, 2011 14:43:47 GMT -5
You Light Up My Life #51 for 1977 and #3 for 1978 but #1 for the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by pizzzzza on Apr 13, 2011 16:44:50 GMT -5
Maybe Pete B. can answer this question - was there ANY way that the AT 40 staff/Billboard publication could've somehow "altered" the charts to allow for #1 songs to deserve a better fate on the year-end charts?
In other words, put the TOTAL points accumulated on a song's chart run into ONE year - more like the 2nd year, since it would be a "guess" to put the ALL the points into the first half of the year - since you wouldn't know how a song would fare after the cut off period.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Apr 13, 2011 18:47:42 GMT -5
For those wondering where those songs would have ranked had they gotten full credit for their chart life, I have the answers courtesy of Fred Bronson.... I Think I love You....#3 in 1970 The Tears of a Clown........#11 in 1970 I am Woman............#15 in 1972 You Haven't Done Nothin......#12 in 1974 You Aint Seen Nothin Yet......#36 in 1974 I Honestly Love You..........#50 in 1974 Can't Get Enough of Your Love Babe.........#81 in 1974 Whatever Gets You Through the Night.......#82 in 1974 Bad Blood...........................#29 in 1975 Island Girl...........................#32 in 1975 Disco Duck.......................#7 in 1976 Rock'n Me.......................#27 in 1976 You Light Up My Life............#1 in 1977
Along the same lines, in the 70s using this chart tabulation policy, the highest peaking songs that did not make the top 100 of a year was #4. And 2 songs in 1975 peaked at 4 without making the top 100.....Mr. Jaws and Run Joey Run.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 13, 2011 18:53:29 GMT -5
And 2 songs in 1975 peaked at 4 without making the top 100.....Mr. Jaws and Run Joey Run. "Mr. Jaws" spent a grand total of 10 weeks on the entire Hot 100, and "Run Joey Run" only spent 13. I don't think those would've made the year-end Top 100 under any chart tabulation policy. For what it's worth, I'm inclined to think that the growing rate of high-charting songs that should have made a year-end chart but didn't would have influenced Billboard to amend their policy so that songs ended up deferred to the following year. It's really hard to compare one year's AT40 year-end chart to another's, particularly in the 70s, because they kept flip-flopping between compiling their own year-end chart and using Billboard's. At least in the 80s it was more steady: 1980-84 they compiled their own, then switched to Billboard in 85 and stayed with them through 89. Personally though, I don't think it's unfair to have a song rank low on a year-end chart if it was released late in the year; what's more unfair is to rank it higher based on speculation of what the rest of its run "might be". If a late release is a big enough hit, then it'll show up on both years' year-end charts, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Apr 13, 2011 19:21:33 GMT -5
Showing up on both years' year end charts happened for Wake Me Up before You go-go, I feel for You and Out of Touch. Did any other songs do that in the 80s? I looked up a few after hearing those on the top 100 of 1985 around new years but could not find any others.
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Apr 13, 2011 19:28:18 GMT -5
Did Casey make mention on any of them for being on 2 year end shows? Out Of Touch is a great song, my favorite Hall & Oates song, but I'd rather hear it high on one chart than presumably lower on two shows.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Apr 13, 2011 19:32:30 GMT -5
No he did not and AT40 must have changed their policy regarding this after 1985 because a song that should have made the top 100 of 86 that was #50 in 85 was Separate Lives. It hit #1 on the last week of the survey year for 1985 but stayed on the chart well into 1986. However, it is not listed in the top 100 of 86. It is #3 for 1985 when given full credit.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 13, 2011 19:42:15 GMT -5
As I stated previously, AT40 compiled their own year-end chart in 84 and used Billboard's in 85, thus several songs showed up on both year-end charts.
As for "Separate Lives", that would be a Billboard policy that dictated what happened to that one, not AT40. Should it have been allowed to make both year-end charts? Probably. But Billboard probably had a strict policy whereby a song would only be considered for one year's year-end chart, regardless of circumstances.
How would it have been #3 for the year when given full credit, though? That, I don't quite understand.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Apr 13, 2011 19:53:33 GMT -5
Sorry I screwed up, the answer to your post is in the '70s and 80s #2 songs that should have fared better'.
|
|
|
Post by Caseyfan4everRyanfanNever on Apr 13, 2011 21:33:55 GMT -5
Did Casey make mention on any of them for being on 2 year end shows? Out Of Touch is a great song, my favorite Hall & Oates song, but I'd rather hear it high on one chart than presumably lower on two shows. Although I don't know of any time when Casey noted a song being in two year end countdowns in the 1970s and 1980s, I do remember that when "You Light Up My Life" came up in the 1978 year end, Casey explained why it didn't hit #1 that year despite having 10 weeks at the top. Also in the 1998 year end show he mentioned that "Semi Charmed Life" was "in a second year end show" (I always found that rather interesting--since "Semi Charmed Life" was in the last Casey's Top 40 year end show in 1997 and in the first year end of the "new" AT40 in 1998 and I thought that Casey wanted to mention CT40 at this time but held back)
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 13, 2011 22:48:06 GMT -5
Sorry I screwed up, the answer to your post is in the '70s and 80s #2 songs that should have fared better'. OK...and that might make sense had "Separate Lives" been placed in '86 instead of '85. But once it comes time to put together a year-end chart and the record is still charting, quite high at that...what, it should just be placed high up for the year just because people think, "oh, it might hold on for a little while longer"? No. I find that ridiculous. It's ranking the song based on pure speculation, and pure speculation alone, and that doesn't justify artificially adjusting its ranking. This is not the movie industry, where retroactive year-end rankings are the rule. What I'd still like to know, though, is what method you used to compute its ranking. (i.e. was it straight-inverse, where #1 on a weekly chart is equal to 100 points, #2 equals 99 points, and so on down?)
|
|
|
Post by marv101 on Apr 13, 2011 23:46:44 GMT -5
Billboard's most blatant act of year-end chart manipulation in the past fifty years came in 1968, when their year-end cutoff date was preposterously moved to December 21st in order to protect the Beatles by ensuring that 'Hey Jude' would wind up as their #1 single of the year.
Had they not done so, 'Hey Jude' would have had its chart run gutted by BB's traditional cutoff date, and wouldn't have sniffed the year-end top ten despite 9 weeks at #1.
As it turned out, Billboard's decision gutted the chart run of Marvin Gaye's 'I Heard It Through The Grapevine' which otherwise would have breezed to finishing as the #1 single of the year in 1969.
|
|