|
|
Post by woolebull on Nov 30, 2016 14:28:30 GMT -5
Does anyone know how AT 40 currently compiles their year end top 40? Do they have certain dates they use to compile points, more points for weeks at number one, etc?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:02:22 GMT -5
The last year or two it's been straight from Mediabase's yearly ranking. So I would assume they'll continue that route and it's whatever they do. Which I think is the overall spin count for the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Dec 1, 2016 15:28:43 GMT -5
There may not be a perfect way to measure year-end singles, but I think doing it by total spin count gives a not-entirely-fair advantage to songs that were hits earlier in the year, with a longer time to pick up more spins. Doing it by inverse chart position with bonuses for certain positions seems somewhat more equitable, though that too either advantaged some songs or required some mathematical guesstimation or imputation to equalize.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 18:23:20 GMT -5
Spin count method sucks, period. Always has. Always will.
|
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Dec 9, 2016 19:10:37 GMT -5
^Ryan seemed to forget about that spin count method when he said on this week's show that the Chainsmokers' "Closer" was a candidate for top song based on its 6 weeks at #1 and 3 weeks at #2. If they did it like the old days and based it on chart performance, that might be true. I think only songs from early in the year can be #1 based on spin count. Btw, the top 40 of 2016 is Christmas weekend which seems odd...instead of New Years weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Dec 9, 2016 20:17:59 GMT -5
^Ryan seemed to forget about that spin count method when he said on this week's show that the Chainsmokers' "Closer" was a candidate for top song based on its 6 weeks at #1 and 3 weeks at #2. If they did it like the old days and based it on chart performance, that might be true. I think only songs from early in the year can be #1 based on spin count. Btw, the top 40 of 2016 is Christmas weekend which seems odd...instead of New Years weekend. If they do as they've done since 2010, they'll play the same year end top 40 on both weekends, only changing the optional extras the second time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 21:48:10 GMT -5
^Ryan seemed to forget about that spin count method when he said on this week's show that the Chainsmokers' "Closer" was a candidate for top song based on its 6 weeks at #1 and 3 weeks at #2. If they did it like the old days and based it on chart performance, that might be true. I think only songs from early in the year can be #1 based on spin count. Btw, the top 40 of 2016 is Christmas weekend which seems odd...instead of New Years weekend. That's not really strange. Those are usually the two weeks you'd hear a special countdown. It only seems wierd because Christmas falls on the weekend. However, they usually run it twice as mkarns said. So itll most likely air both weekends. |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Dec 9, 2016 22:10:38 GMT -5
It is interesting how the year end shows and unpublished weeks have evolved over the years. In the 70s show, Casey talks about that year end show coming up. It took 2 weeks to countdown the top 100 and in the process, they missed 2 weekly charts. Next week, the 80s show will have Casey talking about that year end show in 1981 where they still took 2 weeks but only missed 1 chart week because by then, there was an unpublished week. In this week's 80s show, he talks about it and they are counting it down in 1 week and not missing any chart weeks. Next would be CT40 and back to 2 weeks for the year end show. But since R&R had 2 unpublished weeks, they still did not miss any chart weeks as in the 80s. Stayed that way through the 2000s. Then, the top 100 was reduced to the top 40 this decade. And with the 2 unpublished chart weeks, they have to repeat the year end to fill the time. I think I am right about all of the above.
|
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Dec 10, 2016 13:07:31 GMT -5
^Ryan seemed to forget about that spin count method when he said on this week's show that the Chainsmokers' "Closer" was a candidate for top song based on its 6 weeks at #1 and 3 weeks at #2. If they did it like the old days and based it on chart performance, that might be true. I think only songs from early in the year can be #1 based on spin count. Btw, the top 40 of 2016 is Christmas weekend which seems odd...instead of New Years weekend. Speaking of spin count...any idea if it is a song's total spin count or spin count through a certain time frame? While I agree "Closer" would have a hard time getting enough points just because of when it was released, songs like "Here", "Hello", etc. could have more or less points depending on what the spin criteria is. |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Dec 28, 2016 21:37:31 GMT -5
paul and I have already weighed in on the spin count method or whatever you want to call it for determining the #1 song of the year with thumbs down. And this year's show certainly explains why that method sucks as paul first said. When Ryan says after #28 that the song with the most weeks at #1 this year is coming up, there is a definite problem. Chainsmokers' "Closer" was at 26 and Ryan said it was #1 for 8 weeks. Which means btw that the preempted week (that I thought was an unpublished week) they held the top spot again. Because in the last regualar show of the year, he only gave them 7 weeks on top. Anyway, to have that many weeks at #1 and not even be in the same ballpark as the #1 song of the year is preposterous. Guess we need vince to turn in his resume to AT40 so they can hire someone to do the tabulations using the weekly charts. Because that is the only way to get a fair representation of the year's biggest hits.
There was irony when Ryan said Justin Bieber was the first male soloist to have 4 #1 hits in a year since 1988. Just days after mentioning this feat that was last accomplished by George Michael, we lost him. But while George also got the #1 song of 1988, Justin did not in 2016. However having 2 out of the top 3 has to put him in the record books.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Dec 29, 2016 1:54:27 GMT -5
paul and I have already weighed in on the spin count method or whatever you want to call it for determining the #1 song of the year with thumbs down. And this year's show certainly explains why that method sucks as paul first said. When Ryan says after #28 that the song with the most weeks at #1 this year is coming up, there is a definite problem. Chainsmokers' "Closer" was at 26 and Ryan said it was #1 for 8 weeks. Which means btw that the preempted week (that I thought was an unpublished week) they held the top spot again. Because in the last regualar show of the year, he only gave them 7 weeks on top. Anyway, to have that many weeks at #1 and not even be in the same ballpark as the #1 song of the year is preposterous. Guess we need vince to turn in his resume to AT40 so they can hire someone to do the tabulations using the weekly charts. Because that is the only way to get a fair representation of the year's biggest hits. There was irony when Ryan said Justin Bieber was the first male soloist to have 4 #1 hits in a year since 1988. Just days after mentioning this feat that was last accomplished by George Michael, we lost him. But while George also got the #1 song of 1988, Justin did not in 2016. However having 2 out of the top 3 has to put him in the record books. "Closer" is/was actually #1 for 9 weeks if you count the two "frozen" weeks (ending Dec. 24 and 31) in which no regular AT40 was produced, with everything staying as it was on the Dec. 17 chart. (And those 9 weeks were nonconsecutive; it slipped behind DJ Snake/Justin Bieber's "Let Me Love You" for 3 weeks.) But since its #1 run was late in the year it got cut off; similarly some songs were docked because they got a lot of their counted spins in 2015. As I've said, I'm not sure if there is an entirely perfect way to do this, but the current system gives a somewhat unfair advantage to songs that peaked earlier in the year, particularly late winter, spring, and maybe early summer, as they have more time to accumulate recurrent spins without their chart runs getting cut off, but don't have a lot of plays that counted to last year's chart but not this year's. This year to me there is at least the saving grace of one of my favourite bands and songs of the year on top, with a hit that reached #1 in March and stayed there for four weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Dec 29, 2016 8:11:57 GMT -5
I would give "Closer" an 8th week at #1 but not necessarily a 9th week. Only if it is still #1 on the first chart of 2017 would I essentially fill in the gap like that. But if it is bumped from the top, I think the proper way to handle the 2 unpublished weeks is to give one week to each song because how does one know when the shift at #1 really occurs. Of course 21 Pilots bookend the top 40 of 2016 which may be a first for AT40/CT40 year end surveys.
|
|
|
|
Post by DJ Particle on Dec 29, 2016 11:35:50 GMT -5
Someone on Twitter was complaining that "Closer" didn't chart higher on the year-end chart. I tried to be my chart-geek self and explain to him how a song that spent so much time at #2 and #1 could get victimized by the year switch (like "You Light Up My Life" and "I Love You Always Forever" were...neither were #1 of any one year but were #1 for their decades), but alas, it was to no avail.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkarns on Dec 29, 2016 12:16:12 GMT -5
I would give "Closer" an 8th week at #1 but not necessarily a 9th week. Only if it is still #1 on the first chart of 2017 would I essentially fill in the gap like that. But if it is bumped from the top, I think the proper way to handle the 2 unpublished weeks is to give one week to each song because how does one know when the shift at #1 really occurs. Of course 21 Pilots bookend the top 40 of 2016 which may be a first for AT40/CT40 year end surveys. Actually, it isn't. I looked 47 of these up and found that it's happened at least twice before. In 2010 Ke$ha was at #40 with "Take It Off" and #1 with "Tik Tok" (this was the first year in which the year end countdown was just 40 songs played two weeks in a row, as it's been ever since.) And in 1986 (i.e. classic Casey era) Stevie Wonder was at #100 with "Go Home" and #1 as one of Dionne Warwick's "friends" in "That's What Friends Are For". |
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Dec 29, 2016 13:06:38 GMT -5
And the same thing happened on the HAC year end show. A song that spent 8 weeks at #1 representing the most weeks on top was nowhere near the top 10 let alone #1. Sia's "Cheap Thrills" ended up at 16. While I can understand "Closer" not having a chance at being #1 for the year because even if the old rules applied and they did it by chart performance, it's chart run would be still be cutoff too much. And it is after all, the #1 song on the last regular show of the year. When has such a song ever been even within shouting distance of the #1 song of the year? But in the case of Sia, she was last #1 on 10/22. So she has an "End of the Road" type chart run in the sense that EOTR spent its last week at #1 on 11/14/92 and was the #1 song of the year. Probably the latest in a year that a #1 song of that year has ever been #1. Anyway, if the survey were compiled using the weekly charts, "Cheap Thrills" would have to be the #1 song of the year. BTW, this survey almost had a non-#1 song be the #1 song of the year as James Bay's "Let It Go" was #2. Ryan said one of the reasons for that was it was on the chart for 47 weeks. Of course it is all about timing because if those 47 weeks started in August, for example, it would be a lot lower on the survey, and the 2017 year end.
|
|
