|
|
Post by freakyflybry on Nov 17, 2017 22:56:42 GMT -5
It may have been accidental, but several songs on R&R's CHR chart went beyond their allowed 26 weeks under the 25/26 recurrent rule. And during this time (mid 1995 to mid 1999), R&R didn't have a "weeks on" column, so it was difficult to notice unless you were keeping track yourself. It was speculated on another message board that perhaps "Because You Loved Me" was left on for another week or two to keep "Pepper" from debuting so Casey wouldn't have to introduce the artist behind that song. But then "Pepper" peaked at #42 so it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. However, as it was an alternative chart #1, Casey did acknowledge the song in its rundown of #1's from the other charts - but referred to them as the "B.H. Surfers". |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Nov 19, 2017 19:37:49 GMT -5
The flipside of the question about the latest in a countdown that the biggest dropper has been is what you guys are posting about. The highest position that the biggest dropper was the previous week. Taylor Swift may have that record. Has to be a #1 hit to be higher than that. Just checked all the weeks of the big drops from #1 in 1974 and nothing came close. "Rock Me Gently" came the closest when it fell from 1 to 12, the biggest dropper was "Who Do You Think You Are" dropping from 15 to 29. Interesting that the 14 notch drop that had would have tied those drops from 1 to 15 a few weeks later. Btw, after "Nothing From Nothing" fell from 1 to 15, the week after "Then Came You" did the same. What was the biggest dropper that week. Why, it was none other than "Nothing From Nothing" which fell from 15 to 39! And the biggest drop from #2 during the 70s and 80s was "Float On" dropping to 19. That 17 notch drop was barely topped by the biggest dropper which was "Higher and Higher". It fell from 20 to 38 and is also a #2 hit btw. Besides Mellencamp (Cougar), I think you're right. One interesting side note: The September 7, 1991 chart saw Roxette drop from 2 to 15 with "Fading Like A Flower". It was not the biggest dropper. The biggest dropper from that week, however, might be the second (third counting Mellencamp)biggest dropper from the highest position in AT 40 history. Lenny Kravitz dropped from 3 to 19 with "It Ain't Over ('Til It's Over). And one more side note: Dees doesn't get a ton of credit from us for keeping legitimate charts. However this week, "Look" dropped from 3 to 27. I've been listening to AT 40 since 1982, and Dees since 1984 and I can't remember another song tanking like that. Even more interesting to me though is that I think Dees is treating the "Look" run more accurately than AT. It debuted at 12 (reasonable, maybe a tad low), peaked at 2 (reasonable, maybe a tad high), and then today (honestly not that far off). Back at it as Look drops from 8 to 20 this week, making it the biggest dropper once again. So is this a first, having a song be the biggest dropper 2 weeks in a row. When something is the biggest dropper, it is usually so low in the survey after that drop, that there is no room for it to be the biggest dropper again. I suppose it has happened because a hit could drop from 8 to 20 like Look just did and then drop from 20 to 35 or whatever the next week and be the biggest dropper both weeks. So maybe next week is when Taylor Swift makes history and is the biggest dropper 3 weeks running. |
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 19, 2017 23:52:52 GMT -5
Besides Mellencamp (Cougar), I think you're right. One interesting side note: The September 7, 1991 chart saw Roxette drop from 2 to 15 with "Fading Like A Flower". It was not the biggest dropper. The biggest dropper from that week, however, might be the second (third counting Mellencamp)biggest dropper from the highest position in AT 40 history. Lenny Kravitz dropped from 3 to 19 with "It Ain't Over ('Til It's Over). And one more side note: Dees doesn't get a ton of credit from us for keeping legitimate charts. However this week, "Look" dropped from 3 to 27. I've been listening to AT 40 since 1982, and Dees since 1984 and I can't remember another song tanking like that. Even more interesting to me though is that I think Dees is treating the "Look" run more accurately than AT. It debuted at 12 (reasonable, maybe a tad low), peaked at 2 (reasonable, maybe a tad high), and then today (honestly not that far off). Back at it as Look drops from 8 to 20 this week, making it the biggest dropper once again. So is this a first, having a song be the biggest dropper 2 weeks in a row. When something is the biggest dropper, it is usually so low in the survey after that drop, that there is no room for it to be the biggest dropper again. I suppose it has happened because a hit could drop from 8 to 20 like Look just did and then drop from 20 to 35 or whatever the next week and be the biggest dropper both weeks. So maybe next week is when Taylor Swift makes history and is the biggest dropper 3 weeks running. Possibly, though the song has stabilized...at least compared to the free fall it was in. Currently it is #31 on Mediabase, which means that we shouldn't expect it to be in the 30's for a few weeks. What would be interesting is that it could possibly fall another seven or eight notches next week, and then drop a notch for the next couple of weeks after that. I am sure that has never happened: a song being the biggest dropper three weeks and then spends another month or two in the Top 40.  |
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 20, 2017 0:01:44 GMT -5
Not two weeks in a row but check this out: "Heart Attack" by Olivia Newton John was the biggest dropper during two weeks. The weeks just were not simultaneous. On 12/4/82 it dropped from 3 to 16, making it the biggest dropper. On 12/11/82 it held at 16. Then on 12/18/82, it dropped from 16 to 24 making it the biggest dropper. Gotta love 1982.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Nov 22, 2017 18:39:12 GMT -5
Today in 1975 Pete Wingfield’s “Eighteen With a Bullet” was just that. I’m not aware of any actual chart manipulation, but given all else we’ve talked about here one can’t help but wonder if that was entirely a neat coincidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by doofus67 on Nov 23, 2017 0:26:43 GMT -5
Today in 1975 Pete Wingfield’s “Eighteen With a Bullet” was just that. I’m not aware of any actual chart manipulation, but given all else we’ve talked about here one can’t help but wonder if that was entirely a neat coincidence. Hard to call it a coincidence. Consider the insanity of the charts in the fall of 1975, when there was so much disparity from trade to trade. Then consider the consistency with this song. It was also #18 with a bullet in Cash Box that week, #19 with a bullet in Record World. You gotta love this song. It's chock full of music biz references and cute plays on words like "be my A side, girl / be beside me." Then again, if it had any other title, I wouldn't care this much about it. I sure wouldn't get so excited to hear it on the radio. |
|
|
|
Post by OnWithTheCountdown on Nov 23, 2017 1:51:16 GMT -5
Currently listening to an AT40 show in the prime period of chart manipulation - 2/19/1983. Song #'s 17-10 all held their position from the previous chart of 2/12, some in their third week. Wonder what the record is for consecutive songs holding steady in the middle of a countdown (I know 8/19/1978 has the record set for the high end of the top 40). Probably happened in the 1982-early 1983 time frame.
One of these days, when I get more free time, I'll input these charts into an Excel spreadsheet, which will show movements and other stats based on formulas. The answers will come much quicker then.
|
|
|
|
Post by 80sat40fan on Nov 23, 2017 11:17:37 GMT -5
Wonder what the record is for consecutive songs holding steady in the middle of a countdown (I know 8/19/1978 has the record set for the high end of the top 40). Probably happened in the 1982-early 1983 time frame. I don't know if this is the record but I found a countdown from that era with five in a row from outside the Top 10 holding at their same position from the previous week... 10/2/82. Not only do #16 - #20 hold from the previous week but #22 - #25 and #28 - #31 hold... so there were three times in that countdown that four or more consecutive songs held at their same spot. I am not counting #3 - #8 which also all held steady. From a little later, #11 - #14 all held steady on the 5/23/87 chart. Three of those songs would become Top 10 hits while Glenn Medeiros' "Nothing's Gonna Change My Love For You" would later inch up to its peak position of #12. |
|
jebsib
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jebsib on Nov 24, 2017 15:48:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure how many of you guys know that there was a Holding Policy in place on the Hot 100 through 1983, which held songs at their peak for an extra week after losing their bullet? This is what artificially held certain songs at bay under said peaking song until that song had fallen bulletless for the second week. The policy was disclosed and well known at the time. It was orchestrated to give the heads up to national program directors to start pulling the stiffed song from their playlist rotation.
So really, despite there being much suspicious behavior on the charts in the 70s and 80s, these early 80s situations of songs holding for several weeks are often less chart manipulation and more terrible chart policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by 80sat40fan on Nov 25, 2017 5:54:34 GMT -5
^^ jebsib... I'll both agree and disagree with you. There were some terrible chart policies in effect from mid '81 through early '83 but if you think about it... isn't that chart manipulation in a way? A perfect example... the week Quarterflash's "Harden My Heart" was spending its 4th consecutive week at #3, it had already fallen out of Radio & Records Top 30 (it was #25 the previous week). If the purpose of one of those chart rules was to speed up the charts, then allowing songs to spend multiple weeks at their peak position may have had the reverse effect.
Another example is Bob Seger's "Shame On The Moon". The songs spends four weeks at #2 and then plunges to #12. But for the next two weeks, the song then slips to #16 and then to #17. I have to think that some radio programmers may have thought the song was still wildly popular for holding that long at #2 that they were reluctant to drop the song from their playlist which meant a somewhat slower fall over a number of weeks.
I wonder what the mid '81 through early '83 Hot 100 charts would look like if the star rules were not in effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by torcan on Nov 25, 2017 12:23:54 GMT -5
One of the weirdest charts in this era has to be from 2/19/83.
Billie Jean moved up from 23 to 6
Do You Really Want to Hurt Me moved up from 18 to 8
Hungry Like the Wolf moved up from 19 to 9
Nos. 10-17 all held in place, some for the third or fourth week
Sexual Healing dropped from 3 to 23
Maneater dropped from 6 to 25
Rock the Casbah dropped from 8 to 31
Seriously?
I've heard stories over the years (and I don't know which one to believe) that Bill Wardlow either quit, or was fired in April 1983. I wonder if the publisher was starting to get fed up with these rediculous charts he kept churning out.
I, too, wonder what the charts would have looked like if these "superstar-star-no star" rules hadn't been put in place. I think it's a lot more than a notice to radio programmers. What's the difference if a goes *4, 4, drop or *4, then drops immediately to 6 or something. Either way radio programmers will know it's peaked.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnywest on Nov 25, 2017 13:05:27 GMT -5
Just having a recurrent rule in effect is a chart manipulation, especially with albums.
And I believe AC stations are removed from the AC panel once they go all Christmas. That definitely affects the charts.
|
|
|
|
Post by doofus67 on Nov 25, 2017 20:30:33 GMT -5
To get at least a vague idea of what the charts of the early 80s would have been like without the star and holding pattern rules...
First I would say let's not be too quick to bring Radio & Records into it. At that point in time, R&R was more of a pop/AC hybrid. And, of course, it never factored in sales.
For a chart with similar methodology to BB that wasn't bound by the same rules as BB, look no further than Cash Box. Take torcan's example of 2/19/83.
Billie Jean moved up 9 to 7
Do You Really Want to Hurt Me went 6 to 5
Hungry Like the Wolf went 11 to 9
Sexual Healing dropped 14 to 17, after peaking at 5
Maneater dropped 4 to 10; it had spent 5 weeks at #1
Rock the Casbah slipped 23 to 24, after peaking at 13
Conclusion: The popularity of that many songs doesn't change that dramatically in the same seven-day period! It just doesn't happen! It's simple common sense!
As for 10 through 17, not one of them held. The only songs that held were the top 3 (and they were all peaking): Down Under, Baby Come to Me, and Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by lasvegaskid on Dec 4, 2017 12:35:07 GMT -5
Check out the out of the blue massive spin increase this week for the Garthster on the country chart to get to #1.
|
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Dec 4, 2017 13:39:43 GMT -5
He was #2 on ACC this past weekend. I doubt if any move from 2 to 1 can be attributed to chart manipulations. But stranger things have happened.
|
|
