|
|
Post by mkarns on Jan 14, 2017 23:57:54 GMT -5
Oh boy or should I say oh girl! Hailee said that "I Don't Wanna Live Forever" by Zayn and Taylor Swift moved 26 notches (40 to 14) and is the biggest mover since "You're So Vain" in 1972. So we have declared over the last few weeks as various chart achievements were mentioned that everything is based on R&R or Mediabase. With one exception, if it occurred before either existed. Well this one is from the 'before either existed' time frame. So that means we are talking the Hot 100. And "You're so Vain" moved 28 notches back then. I have to gather that no song on the R&R chart which started in October 1973 ever moved more than 26 notches and the same for Mediabase once that replaced R&R for AT40. That is the only scenario where they would have to go back to 1972 and btw, nothing moved more than 26 notches within the top 40 between December 1972 when YSV moved 28 notches and October 1973 when R&R debuted. You're apparently right. Pre-Oct. 1973 chart data is from Billboard, or Joel Whitburn's Record Research. Using the R&R/Mediabase data is consistent with past Seacrest countdowns as well as Casey's dating back to 1989, but it conflicts with earlier (1973-88) countdown data. In this case, AT40 in November 1978 registered an even bigger jumper, "Le Freak" by Chic, which surged 31 notches (from #37 to #6) in a week, but that was on the Billboard Hot 100 during R&R's existence and so isn't cited on the show now. |
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Jan 26, 2017 19:24:31 GMT -5
I appreciate Ryan trying to state musical history facts and honor Casey with a mention now and then. It's good to know the show is getting back towards what AT40 represents and not a radio "TMZ". However, I think he needs to stick to recent facts (like from 2000 or since he started hosting), and leave out contradictory things from the 60s-90s. I'd be good, if he has to go back that far, to do what Casey did. (25 years ago, the #1 song on AT40 was....etc) In the 1/21/17 show, Ryan mentioned a listener who stated that he has been listening to AT40 since the Casey Kasem era, and Ryan took the chance to mention that he did the same as a kid. Of course, in Seacrest's case that would likely mean the 1980s, while many current listeners who remember Casey hosting the show may have discovered it during his later tenure. Still, it's nice for Casey to get the occasional mention. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnywest on Jan 29, 2017 23:09:37 GMT -5
I appreciate Ryan trying to state musical history facts and honor Casey with a mention now and then. It's good to know the show is getting back towards what AT40 represents and not a radio "TMZ". However, I think he needs to stick to recent facts (like from 2000 or since he started hosting), and leave out contradictory things from the 60s-90s. I'd be good, if he has to go back that far, to do what Casey did. (25 years ago, the #1 song on AT40 was....etc) I completely disagree that Ryan needs to stick with facts from 2000 and later, as if that's when time began. There's more history prior to 2000 than in the past 17 years. The stats that mention The Beatles, Elvis, Madonna and occasionally obscure artists is what makes the show fun to listen to. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Jan 30, 2017 15:05:45 GMT -5
The HAC edition of AT40 often gives chart stats for this century only. On the rare occasions they go beyond 2000, they use the R&R HAC chart from its inception in 1994; otherwise it's the R&R CHR chart for before the HAC chart existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Feb 1, 2017 22:39:55 GMT -5
I appreciate Ryan trying to state musical history facts and honor Casey with a mention now and then. It's good to know the show is getting back towards what AT40 represents and not a radio "TMZ". However, I think he needs to stick to recent facts (like from 2000 or since he started hosting), and leave out contradictory things from the 60s-90s. I'd be good, if he has to go back that far, to do what Casey did. (25 years ago, the #1 song on AT40 was....etc) I completely disagree that Ryan needs to stick with facts from 2000 and later, as if that's when time began. There's more history prior to 2000 than in the past 17 years. The stats that mention The Beatles, Elvis, Madonna and occasionally obscure artists is what makes the show fun to listen to. A great instance of that is when Rihanna was about to hit the Top 40 with "Love On The Brain", and how "Brain" would put her up there with those three particular acts for most hits to ever hit the Top 40 (which obviously includes facts from even before the beginning of AT 40). For someone who has taken time off until recently to really listening to AT 40, it puts in perspective what an amazing 10 years Rihanna has had. |
|
|
|
Post by adam31 on Feb 2, 2017 11:03:34 GMT -5
I appreciate Ryan trying to state musical history facts and honor Casey with a mention now and then. It's good to know the show is getting back towards what AT40 represents and not a radio "TMZ". However, I think he needs to stick to recent facts (like from 2000 or since he started hosting), and leave out contradictory things from the 60s-90s. I'd be good, if he has to go back that far, to do what Casey did. (25 years ago, the #1 song on AT40 was....etc) I completely disagree that Ryan needs to stick with facts from 2000 and later, as if that's when time began. There's more history prior to 2000 than in the past 17 years. The stats that mention The Beatles, Elvis, Madonna and occasionally obscure artists is what makes the show fun to listen to. Being a child of the 70s and 80s, of course I'm with you that musical time did not start with 2000. I would very much enjoy finding out how artists now compare with artists of the past and if they are breaking records. My point is the "facts" presented by Ryan are not correct (through no fault of his own) AND CANNOT be with at least three different historical sources (Billboard, R&R, and Mediabase). He simply cannot be accurate, and therefore think he would be better off either mentioning only records since he took over, or for the entire history of AT40 (whether it be Billboard up to 1988 or 1994, and then R&R/Mediabase since. Surely there is some room to not get sued by Billboard for stating something that happened in AT40 history. For example, he could say the #1 song on AT40 for 1980 was "Call Me" By Blondie, but it wasn't in R&R and should not use that fact. I believe Casey has done this on his shows and it was fine. He should definitely NOT be cross referencing R&R for the 1980s. The precedent there is he and Casey have freely mentioned historical facts before 1973 which can ONLY come from Billboard, and they don't call him out for it. EDIT: A better example would be if he's talking about Foreigner - Wf*gLY as most weeks at #2, instead of saying it hit #1, which it did not on AT40. |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Feb 2, 2017 11:56:20 GMT -5
I think it should be all about AT40. And so for all the years that AT40 was broadcast, it should reference whatever happened on it. So if "The Sign" spent 14 weeks at #1 and that is the most weeks that any record was at #1, then it should be referred to that way. For anything prior to July 1970, use Billboard since it was the most accurate chart then. For the 3+ years AT40 was on hiatus between 1995 and 1998, use R&R since that was the chart used when AT40 was reincarnated. Makes it a lot simpler and it makes the whole history of AT40 to be of similar importance and stature.
And now onto this week's shows. Wow, is all I can say after this statement from Seacrest. 'Fitz and the Tantrums were on track to land on the countdown until the Chainsmokers caught fire; they passed everybody up'. Ok so let me get this straight. The Chainsmokers did not land at #40 or anything close to that. So how can their performance have ANY impact on what happens with Fitz and the Tantrums? Is there some kind of limit on how many debuts are allowed? I have to assume and yes I know what happens to you and me when you assume!....that Seacrest was making some kind of rhetorical statement. Otherwise the whole thing is a bit of a fraud is it not?
Also wondering how many songs have rebounded to #1 after not hitting #1. During Casey's days, he indicated that the most popular question they got was about #1 songs rebounding back to the top. Well Alessia Cara rebounds to #1 after going 6-2-2-3 the past 4 weeks. This type of rebound is a 21st century thing because it never happened in the 20th century. At least on the Hot 100. Not sure about R&R although I don't think it happened while Casey or even Rick was using the chart which would cover 1985 on. Surprised Ryan did not shed any light on that.
On the HAC show, he does say that Maroon 5 has eclipsed Rob Thomas for the most weeks at #1 on AT40 this century. 72 weeks which I presume is on the HAC chart and includes the years before AT40HAC started.
|
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Feb 10, 2017 16:08:05 GMT -5
So Ryan says that Alessia Cara was #1 a year ago with the first single from her album, "Here". Not trying to be specific there but if he was, he would have said that she fell out of the #1 spot a year ago this week. Anyway, with Alessia hitting the top last week, she has done something unusual. She was at #1 exactly a year apart with 2 singles from the same album. Not sure how many times this has been done but the first time it was done in AT/CT40 history was by Janet. In October 1989 and 1990 a year apart, she had hits from her Rhythm Nation 1814 Lp at #1..."Miss You Much" and "Black Cat".
Glad to see that Fitz finally debuted. No more flimsy excuses from Ryan in that regard!
|
|
|
|
Post by DJ Particle on Mar 4, 2017 14:11:40 GMT -5
I think it should be all about AT40. And so for all the years that AT40 was broadcast, it should reference whatever happened on it. So if "The Sign" spent 14 weeks at #1 and that is the most weeks that any record was at #1, then it should be referred to that way. For anything prior to July 1970, use Billboard since it was the most accurate chart then. For the 3+ years AT40 was on hiatus between 1995 and 1998, use R&R since that was the chart used when AT40 was reincarnated. Makes it a lot simpler and it makes the whole history of AT40 to be of similar importance and stature. Which is why it always drove me nuts on the first few years of the revival's year-end specials, when Casey would say, for example, "Back in 1989, the #1 song of the year was 'Miss You Much' by Janet Jackson", after which I'd yell at the radio, "No it wasn't! #1 on AT40 for 1989 was 'Look Away' by Chicago!!" |
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Mar 9, 2017 12:37:31 GMT -5
Sia just spent her 44th week in the 40 with "Cheap Thrills" this past week. Is that the new record? All I can find for that particular chart record is that "Run-Around" spent 43 weeks on CT 40.
|
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Mar 9, 2017 13:30:55 GMT -5
Still there this week so make it 45 weeks. Funny I just heard a 1990 AT40 and Shadoe answered that same question. Answer then was 27 weeks for an early 50s record. Said to myself that the Hot 100 record was 26 weeks, set by "How Deep is Your Love". But this is one of those records that needs 2 categories....one before monitoring and one for the monitoring era.
|
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Mar 9, 2017 22:57:32 GMT -5
Still there this week so make it 45 weeks. Funny I just heard a 1990 AT40 and Shadoe answered that same question. Answer then was 27 weeks for an early 50s record. Said to myself that the Hot 100 record was 26 weeks, set by "How Deep is Your Love". But this is one of those records that needs 2 categories....one before monitoring and one for the monitoring era. I need to check what "Here" had last year. Alessia was getting close to 45. Posner I think had 42. If Sia broke the record, you would think they would mention it. She debuted May 7 of last year. Amazing she is still hanging in there. |
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Mar 10, 2017 19:31:49 GMT -5
Sia just spent her 44th week in the 40 with "Cheap Thrills" this past week. Is that the new record? All I can find for that particular chart record is that "Run-Around" spent 43 weeks on CT 40. The all time record for AT40 was 72 weeks for Taio Cruz' "Dynamite", in 2010-11. |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Mar 10, 2017 20:15:20 GMT -5
That is preposterous, that many weeks. So in keeping with the theme of just looking at records for AT40, with the pre-monitoring record being "How Deep is Your Love" at 26 weeks, wondering where that ranks in all of AT40 history. 10th? 20th? 100th? Can we throw out the monitors and go back to the old way of calculating the charts?!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Mar 17, 2017 19:38:10 GMT -5
Oops. Ryan said up in Fargo, North Carolina when introing an extra. No such place. And even if there was, it is not 'up in' from the standpoint of Los Angeles.
Btw, those 2 songs jlthorpe posted about yesterday by Chainsmokers and Coldplay and by Lorde made their first appearance on AT40 this week, the former as a debut record and the latter as a breakout.
|
|
