AT40 and recurrents

[Hervard]

As implied by many of my posts on this board (as well as a few others), I vote yes.

(waits for Jeffster to chime in and tell me that I forgot to put in an option...)

[DougB]

The recent 'record' run in the Top 40 of 'Here Without You' by 3 Doors Down got me curious about other hits in recent years and how long they would've logged on the countdown had there not been a recurrent rule when they charted.
Fortunately in my backlog of old Bb/Airplay Monitor charts (used by AT40 in '93 and '94) were the recurrent Mainstream Top 40 charts complete with number of detections going back to 1999. From this I was able to determine the longest runs in the Top 40 had there not been a recurrent rule over the last five years.
I know many of you already did the math on 'In Da Club' by 50 Cent which would of tallied 57 weeks total on AT40. The biggest total weeks that I could find however were for two hits from 1999: 'Slide' by Goo Goo Dolls and 'Smooth' by Santana which each would have logged at least 60 weeks in the Top 40.
My old backlog of charts could not account for every week's plays so it's possible each song's run could've been a bit higher, but I can't be certain. What I can say is the 3 Doors Down guys gotta hang on into the fall if they really wanna set any longevity marks.
Keeping alive that once great AT40 feature: 'Everything you've ever wondered but dared not ask!"

[Hervard]

For some of these songs, you gotta take into account the fact that, had the recurrent rule not been in place, some of these songs would have debuted later than they did because, with so many recurrent songs charting below number 20, that would have pushed some songs down. "In Da Club" would have only been held off for one week, but, as I recall, "Smooth" had a rather slow climb at first, and I think "Slide" may have had one also (not sure, as I don't have my charts with me right now) so, unless you already took this factor into account, these songs would not have accumulated 60 weeks.

[DougB]

Yes I did take into account when each song would've actually debuted. Both songs would've entered the Top 40 about two weeks later (maybe one, I can't recall exactly). Thanks for the heads up anyway.

[Hervard]

Conversely, jad the recurrent rule been implemented earlier than it was, the song "Run-Around" wouldn't have logged anywhere near thirty-some weeks on the chart, since many of the weeks were below #20 on its way down.

[DougB]

And now despite the fact that it was purged (or something like it) off of the countdown in the fall of '04, the number of detections that 'Yeah' by Usher has been and still is getting would still have it in the CHR/Mainstream Top 40 some six months later, which means it would now have racked up more than 65 weeks on that chart. I'd have to say that if you don't believe in recurrents, 'Yeah' would be the record holder in this category, at least in the monitored chart era.

[Deleted]

I believe if you claim to be playing the 40 biggest hits in the USA, then THAT is what you should be playing. So, I persoanlly dont like recurrent rules.

[BrettVW]

I agree, but having a recurrent rule helps the shows have a fresh sound. If there were no recurrent rules....songs that are years old could make the charts. I read somewhere once that a year or so ago, had the AC chart not had a recurrent rule...."Every Breath You Take" by The Police would have been the 16th biggest hit of the week. The recurrent rule helps keep nothing but current songs on the charts.

[Deleted]

I guess I should qualify that statement of recurrent rule. I feel like when a song falls out of the survey the first time and it reached a peak of popularity , that should be it. THEN move it to recurrents so it doesn't show back up on the weekly chart anymore. I am not for purges or recurrent rules because for example, Doug mentioned the song "Yeah," whether you like it or not it is still I guess one of the most popular songs out there on the radio, so it should still be on the chart IMO as it remains in it's first chart run.

[Deleted]

disregard this, I pressed the wrong button, I meant to modify the above post, not reply to it..