Billboard's Hot 100

[davideduardo]

Of course, one of the things that Kasem did with AT40 was to provide background info on the artists and songs he played. It made listening to the "least popular" songs more interesting.

Keep in mind that AT40 was a production, not a DJ spinning the top songs.

There was a producer, along with writers and researchers. The whole thing was very skillfully staged, right down to the "long distance dedications" and the artist and chart trivia.

AT40 latched onto the knowledge that Americans love lists... still do... and they took a dry record chart and put meat on the bones quite admirably. They put evening gowns and tuxedos on the stiffs at the bottom of the chart and made the whole thing suspenseful and interesting.

 

[michael hagerty]

Drake's attitude: You're taking three hours, and the first two are spent playing the least successful records on your chart back to back.

That seems like a logical opinion but didn't Drake consider that "Your Hit Parade" had been a top-rated TV show for almost a decade and did the same thing?

"Your Hit Parade" ran half an hour, not three hours. By virtue of time constraints, they couldn't go much below #10 and do songs in their entirety.

 

[michael hagerty]

Or cash could be substituted with girls or powder. It happened. A lot.

I'm getting a horrible mental picture of the convention penthouse suite at the Century Plaza where Neil Bogart and Casablanca Records held a party following a showcase downstairs featuring Donna Summer (and, IIRC, Santa Esmeralda).

Trivia question: Who was the head of promotion for Casablanca at that moment in time?

Howard Rosen, wasn't it?

Sure snowed a lot in Century City that week.

 

[oldies76]

As for Soundscan preventing "deserving" records from becoming #1, I'd have to disagree. Soundscan (when not weighted with any other factor) gives a true, real-time picture of what people are buying. #1 isn't a race or an award, it's a measurement.

I should have been more clear, the new chart methodologies of late 1991 gave a "real-time picture of what people are buying" which translated into these monstrocity stays at #1 from 1992 onward, which prevented other deserving singles from reaching #1.

16 weeks at #1 for "One Sweet Day", prevented a song or two from reaching #1, like a log jam effect. The "Macarena" in 1996 (14 long weeks at #1), prevented a nice song by Donna Lewis "I Love You Always and Forever" (a much better song, 9 weeks at #2) from reaching the summit.

But I suppose, we can go back to 1981 and feel the frustration by Foreigner, trapped behind "Physical".

But how do you explain only seven number one songs in 2002, for example?

 

[davideduardo]

.
Howard Rosen, wasn't it?

Sure snowed a lot in Century City that week.

Scott Shannon!

... it also rained furniture from several record company suites. The idea was to try to get a balcony chair or table into the pool. Most crashed on the decking around the pool... quite loudly.

 

[michael hagerty]

Of course, one of the things that Kasem did with AT40 was to provide background info on the artists and songs he played. It made listening to the "least popular" songs more interesting.

Keep in mind that AT40 was a production, not a DJ spinning the top songs.

There was a producer, along with writers and researchers. The whole thing was very skillfully staged, right down to the "long distance dedications" and the artist and chart trivia.

AT40 latched onto the knowledge that Americans love lists... still do... and they took a dry record chart and put meat on the bones quite admirably. They put evening gowns and tuxedos on the stiffs at the bottom of the chart and made the whole thing suspenseful and interesting.

All true, but in fairness to Casey, Jacobs, Rounds and Don Bustany took things that Casey had been doing and polished them.

Casey at KEWB started out as a funny voices and wild tracks kind of jock. There's an aircheck of him from those days. Painful. He was that close to getting fired. The GM told him to can the comedy and find another gimmick or else. Casey says he found a bunch of artist bios that the station was about to throw away. He put them in a binder, started adding everything he could find about artists to it, and using that information on the air.

It saved his gig at KEWB, got him an offer from KRLA a year later, and became the second most identifiable element of AT40, after the countdown itself.

 

[michael hagerty]

As for Soundscan preventing "deserving" records from becoming #1, I'd have to disagree. Soundscan (when not weighted with any other factor) gives a true, real-time picture of what people are buying. #1 isn't a race or an award, it's a measurement.

I should have been more clear, the new chart methodologies of late 1991 gave a "real-time picture of what people are buying" which translated into these monstrocity stays at #1 from 1992 onward, which prevented other deserving singles from reaching #1.

16 weeks at #1 for "One Sweet Day", prevented a song or two from reaching #1, like a log jam effect. The "Macarena" in 1996 (14 long weeks at #1), prevented a nice song by Donna Lewis "I Love You Always and Forever" (a much better song, 9 weeks at #2) from reaching the summit.

But I suppose, we can go back to 1981 and feel the frustration by Foreigner, trapped behind "Physical".

But how do you explain only seven number one songs in 2002, for example?

Oldies:

Again, number one isn't an award. It's a statistic.

There's no such thing as a record "deserving" to be #1. It either is the best-selling record that week or it isn't. It's like saying the Honda Civic "deserves" to be the #1 selling vehicle in North America. Not as long as Ford sells one more F-150 pickup than Honda sells Civics, it doesn't.

The Soundscan numbers track actual sales. The Foreigner/Olivia comparison is from the days when the Hot 100 was tracking wholesale business mixed with airplay.

Seven number one songs in 2002? Simple. They sold more copies than any other record each week that they were number one. That's an average of a shade over 7 weeks at number one each. Given what we know about how few real hits there are and how long contemporary audiences keep current songs as favorites, that's not out of line.

 

[davideduardo]

.Given what we know about how few real hits there are and how long contemporary audiences keep current songs as favorites, that's not out of line.

One post away from "four of a kind".

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

Quote from Joel Whitburn Interview---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitburn also vouches for the integrity of the charts.

"I think today they're the most accurate in history," he says, citing Billboard's use of electronic monitoring of airplay and sales. "In the '60s, of course, there was payola, but even then, you can't force a hit song down the public's throat. Songs that were [promoted with] payola probably never got higher than 80 or 90. It affected some records but not that much."

In the end, Whitburn concludes, "Billboard stands by the charts--and I stand by them. They're a very reputable firm, and always have been."

 

[davideduardo]

Quote from Joel Whitburn Interview---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitburn also vouches for the integrity of the charts.

"I think today they're the most accurate in history," he says, citing Billboard's use of electronic monitoring of airplay and sales. "In the '60s, of course, there was payola, but even then, you can't force a hit song down the public's throat. Songs that were [promoted with] payola probably never got higher than 80 or 90. It affected some records but not that much."

In the end, Whitburn concludes, "Billboard stands by the charts--and I stand by them. They're a very reputable firm, and always have been."

And, if you ask any cop, every criminal they send to jail is "innocent" in their own mind.

Of course Whitburn will defend the chartist point of view. He dismisses the effects of manipulation, returns, etc., on all but the lowest charting songs. I tend to agree with Michael: unless a song gets well into the top 20 and stays there a few weeks, it was a stiff. A stiff that peaked at 99 is no different than one that peaked at 37.

Whitburn did a marvelous job on the books. I don't want to take away any credit for a tedious and painstaking effort done for the most part before computers could help. Kudos to him!

I just disagree on interpretation.

And of course, Billboard will defend the charts past and present. The fact remains that the charts prior to Soundscan and BDS et. al. are a tally of reports... first from self-interested record companies... and then from radio stations that frequently played songs in disproportion to any sales or even popularity (whether by accident, ignorance or malice). Those reports, tallied into a chart, are only as good as the underlying data.

Billboard always did its best to produce a chart that served its purpose: enabling retailers and jobbers to stock appropriately for consumer demand. But, as in the case of Superman, there is always a Lex Luthor working for the forces of evil.

 

[michael hagerty]

Quote from Joel Whitburn Interview---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitburn also vouches for the integrity of the charts.

"I think today they're the most accurate in history," he says, citing Billboard's use of electronic monitoring of airplay and sales. "In the '60s, of course, there was payola, but even then, you can't force a hit song down the public's throat. Songs that were [promoted with] payola probably never got higher than 80 or 90. It affected some records but not that much."

In the end, Whitburn concludes, "Billboard stands by the charts--and I stand by them. They're a very reputable firm, and always have been."

No disrespect to Joel, but to say otherwise would instantly and permanently devalue every book he's published in the past 45 years and cause Billboard to roast marshmallows over the lucrative contract that allows him to use their name and re-package their chart data.

I agree with him about Soundscan. I'll give him airplay. He's being disingenuous about payola only getting records to #80 or #90. If that's all the effect it had, record labels wouldn't have spent the time, money and energy and risked the Justice Department investigation.

Billboard can stand behind their old charts because they never said they were anything other than wholesale figures not including returns. They didn't correct the public when the assumption was made and furthered by AT40 that Billboard was the final word on what real people were buying with their own money pre-Soundscan, but they never actually said it themselves.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

And, if you ask any cop, every criminal they send to jail is "innocent" in their own mind.

Of course Whitburn will defend the chartist point of view. He dismisses the effects of manipulation, returns, etc., on all but the lowest charting songs. I tend to agree with Michael: unless a song gets well into the top 20 and stays there a few weeks, it was a stiff. A stiff that peaked at 99 is no different than one that peaked at 37.

Well this is lovely and all, but then the arguement could easily turn back to why the majority of even Top 20 hits over the course of 3 decades go unplayed. You'll insist they test all of them :

It was also brought up by Michael in one of the past threads (way back) that it would be worse for a station to play a song people recognize but dislike, rather than to play one they don't recognize. Those songs they wouldn't recognize would be, according to you, "stiffs" or "not Top 20".

Joel Whitburn has also researched Cashbox and Record World among dozens of local surveys, so his "dismissal" of manipulation over the course of decades of research would seem far more well grounded than the opinion of someone who was not involved in either the day-to-day chart operation, or even the research and analysis of the charts themselves. Fact is the majority of even Top 5 hits, are similarly ranked on all 3 trades, and that a fair consensus could be made regarding popularity.

And of course, Billboard will defend the charts past and present.

In the same way Arbitron will defend such data regarding commercial tune-out as it would be among their best interests.

 

[michael hagerty]

It was also brought up by Michael in one of the past threads (way back) that it would be worse for a station to play a song people recognize but dislike, rather than to play one they don't recognize.

Just to be clear, neither is as good an option as playing a song with high recognition and low negatives.

 

[Biondi4Mayor]

It was also brought up by Michael in one of the past threads (way back) that it would be worse for a station to play a song people recognize but dislike, rather than to play one they don't recognize.

Just to be clear, neither is as good an option as playing a song with high recognition and low negatives.

Never said it was the best option.

 

[davideduardo]

Well this is lovely and all, but then the arguement could easily turn back to why the majority of even Top 20 hits over the course of 3 decades go unplayed. You'll insist they test all of them :

Stations at some point have tested everything plus some.

Take a "chart topping Top 20" song from, let's say, 1963. 10 or 15 years ago, the song might have been tested often if it was still on the playlist. Or it might have been "what iffed" occasionally if it were not.

At some point, the song became "out of demo" even if it deserved play for those who knew it as a current. So the new 35-54 target for the most part did not care fore it or did not have any particular familiarity with it. The 55+ may have continued enjoying it, but that's irrelevant if those folks are out of the station target.

A few songs will hang on in the 35-54 demo due continued exposure because of frequent radio play or achieving icon status from a movie or TV show. Those are few...

It was also brought up by Michael in one of the past threads (way back) that it would be worse for a station to play a song people recognize but dislike, rather than to play one they don't recognize. Those songs they wouldn't recognize would be, according to you, "stiffs" or "not Top 20".

The target for a classic hits station likely recognizes most everything that got more than a few week's worth of spins. They recognize them, but don't want to hear them.

Gold based station play songs that are hits today. The status of the song two weeks, two years or two decades ago is irrelevant. "Old" is a draw for a museum. "Favorite" is a draw for a radio station.

Joel Whitburn has also researched Cashbox and Record World among dozens of local surveys, so his "dismissal" of manipulation over the course of decades of research would seem far more well grounded than the opinion of someone who was not involved in either the day-to-day chart operation, or even the research and analysis of the charts themselves.

Those of us who reported to the trades back then and used them know how the sausage was made. Which is why we didn't as a rule just follow one or more national charts. We looked at all kinds of data, and then looked at local sales and juke box play and made our own segmented playlists.

Fact is the majority of even Top 5 hits, are similarly ranked on all 3 trades, and that a fair consensus could be made regarding popularity.

No, those charts all monitored the shipment of inventory, not popularity. There was no "popularity" chart until stations started doing proprietary music testing.

In the same way Arbitron will defend such data regarding commercial tune-out as it would be among their best interests.

Actually, the tune-out data was extracted from raw PPM data and analyzed by two independent companies not affiliated with Arbitron.

As a matter of fact, if I had the time and patience I could derive the same data from the PPM data I have access too in 10 PPM markets... it's just an intensive job of synchronizing minute by minute PPM data with exact stopset times.

 

[michael hagerty]

Joel Whitburn has also researched Cashbox and Record World among dozens of local surveys, so his "dismissal" of manipulation over the course of decades of research would seem far more well grounded than the opinion of someone who was not involved in either the day-to-day chart operation, or even the research and analysis of the charts themselves. Fact is the majority of even Top 5 hits, are similarly ranked on all 3 trades, and that a fair consensus could be made regarding popularity.

No, as noted before, you are much more likely to get an objective yet educated opinion from someone who has worked with the chart folks for a decade (me) or five (David) than you are someone who has worked for one or more and has loyalties or grudges or an ongoing financial relationship (Joel).

The only consensus that could be made would be on wholesale orders for a record, not popularity. When you get to the top 3, the numbers should be big enough to eliminate statistical wobble. In other words, Billboard, Cash Box and Record World better have the top 3 in common, or someone's accounting procedures (and that's all we're talking about back then) were out of whack.

See a bigger variance in what the three have listed between #11 and #20 in a given week? That's where the sales numbers are getting smaller. Below #20? If all three magazines have 35 songs that week that each sold 150 copies, they have to rank them somehow. If they call each other, that's collusion. So they flip coins, throw darts, whatever. One record gets to be #20 that week. One gets to be #54. And the rest go in between.

 

[OldNumber7]

He's being disingenuous about payola only getting records to #80 or #90. If that's all the effect it had, record labels wouldn't have spent the time, money and energy and risked the Justice Department investigation.

Exactly. Payola in the modern era is about turning likely hits into mega hits, not junk into something. Labels are only placing their bets on the stuff that will payoff big. It's always about "Did it have a great first week?" The bandwagon effect relies primarily on a big first week, no matter how good the record is.

 

[Fastphilly]

This has been some interesting read and I'll put my input on this.

Alot of these Top 20 records and I will use the 60's and 70's as an example first. Alot of those songs that peaked between #10-#20 on the Hot 100 were never recurrents on CHR after their initail chart runs so over time as younger folks started tuning into CHR for the first time they had no knowledge of those songs. So to all of the sudden bring these records out and subject them to listeners who many fit in the current Classic Hits demo that were too young to remember those tunes will tune out. Sure the audience thats at the older age of the demo spectrum will enjoy hearing those lost hits but the younger group of the demo will not relate to those records in the same way. The only way to integrate alot of those lost tunes (#top 20) is to keep them out of the cellar and keep them somewhat fresh.

How is that done? Well my only guess is to integrate alot of the 80's (top 20's) into classic Hits playlists now. I'm 41 and right smack in the middle of that target demo . But to integrate records that havn't been played in over 40 years that would benefit at best a small percentage of the demo is suicide for any PD/MD IMO.

 

[Fastphilly]

Joel Whitburn has also researched Cashbox and Record World among dozens of local surveys, so his "dismissal" of manipulation over the course of decades of research would seem far more well grounded than the opinion of someone who was not involved in either the day-to-day chart operation, or even the research and analysis of the charts themselves. Fact is the majority of even Top 5 hits, are similarly ranked on all 3 trades, and that a fair consensus could be made regarding popularity.

No, as noted before, you are much more likely to get an objective yet educated opinion from someone who has worked with the chart folks for a decade (me) or five (David) than you are someone who has worked for one or more and has loyalties or grudges or an ongoing financial relationship (Joel).

The only consensus that could be made would be on wholesale orders for a record, not popularity. When you get to the top 3, the numbers should be big enough to eliminate statistical wobble. In other words, Billboard, Cash Box and Record World better have the top 3 in common, or someone's accounting procedures (and that's all we're talking about back then) were out of whack.

See a bigger variance in what the three have listed between #11 and #20 in a given week? That's where the sales numbers are getting smaller. Below #20? If all three magazines have 35 songs that week that each sold 150 copies, they have to rank them somehow. If they call each other, that's collusion. So they flip coins, throw darts, whatever. One record gets to be #20 that week. One gets to be #54. And the rest go in between.

Speaking of wholesale figures. I have heard that Casablanca Records would press an over abundance of copies and send them out which result to some of those records being certified gold even though not that amount of units were actually sold. Ever hear of that rumour or was it fact?

 

[michael hagerty]

Joel Whitburn has also researched Cashbox and Record World among dozens of local surveys, so his "dismissal" of manipulation over the course of decades of research would seem far more well grounded than the opinion of someone who was not involved in either the day-to-day chart operation, or even the research and analysis of the charts themselves. Fact is the majority of even Top 5 hits, are similarly ranked on all 3 trades, and that a fair consensus could be made regarding popularity.

No, as noted before, you are much more likely to get an objective yet educated opinion from someone who has worked with the chart folks for a decade (me) or five (David) than you are someone who has worked for one or more and has loyalties or grudges or an ongoing financial relationship (Joel).

The only consensus that could be made would be on wholesale orders for a record, not popularity. When you get to the top 3, the numbers should be big enough to eliminate statistical wobble. In other words, Billboard, Cash Box and Record World better have the top 3 in common, or someone's accounting procedures (and that's all we're talking about back then) were out of whack.

See a bigger variance in what the three have listed between #11 and #20 in a given week? That's where the sales numbers are getting smaller. Below #20? If all three magazines have 35 songs that week that each sold 150 copies, they have to rank them somehow. If they call each other, that's collusion. So they flip coins, throw darts, whatever. One record gets to be #20 that week. One gets to be #54. And the rest go in between.

Speaking of wholesale figures. I have heard that Casablanca Records would press an over abundance of copies and send them out which result to some of those records being certified gold even though not that amount of units were actually sold. Ever hear of that rumour or was it fact?

Fastphilly, it was fact and it was more than Casablanca. It was widespread. I know it's a long thread, but if you go back to my original post, I cover it there