how big/important is the "black singles chart" in USA? Plus question about airplay.

[DuranDuran]

 

[DuranDuran]

 

[DuranDuran]

June 22, 1992

 

[DuranDuran]

 

[R1chard]

Nearly all J5/MJ singles were huge hits in this list but as a European I have no clue what it means. Jam for example was nr 3 in that chart while it only reached nr 26 (?) in the pop charts

I thought the answer was obvious.

If a song doesn't chart well on the proper chart, then just make up a minor chart, and be sure so exclude all the most popular songs. That way, you get to claim your song was a #3 hit somewhere...

 

[Spaceship]

It's an alt chart for a specific niche. A big niche, yes, but still niche. MJ prioritized the Hot 100.

 

[DuranDuran]

If a song doesn't chart well on the proper chart, then just make up a minor chart, and be sure so exclude all the most popular songs. That way, you get to claim your song was a #3 hit somewhere...

So you're saying a song is a "proper hit" if mainly a lot of white people listen or buy it? Because that's what the Hot 100 & Top 40 radio is mostly marketed to. R&B radio is primarily Black listeners. The USA is a big place, not everybody listens to the same music. So there's many radio formats. Top 40 stations have always only played certain types of music and/or artists. Until hip hop came along it was mainly white performers. That's how Eric Clapton, Elvis Presley, Rolling Stones sold way more than the Black blues/R&B artists they were influenced by. Pat Boone got bigger hits with Little Richard & Fats Domino songs than they did. New Kids On The Block records sold more than New Edition's.

There's a large Latino population in the USA, and many listen to music in the Spanish language. Non-English music is rarely played on Top 40 radio, which would be what is tracked on the Hot 100. So there's radio stations for Tejano, Salsa, Latin pop, etc. There's even a separate Latin Grammy Awards show. People who only listen to country music will listen to a country station. They did not want to listen to Madonna or Bon Jovi, they wanted to hear Conway Twitty, Alabama, or Reba McEntire. So there's a country chart in Billboard. Top 40 radio does not play blues, zydeco, rave, prog rock, new age, jazz, gospel, Contemporary Christian, techno, hard rock, polka, folk, etc. So obviously those artists would not chart on the Hot 100.

It's the same with television/cable. There's Telemundo for the Spanish audience, Vietnamese TV stations for them, BET for the Black audience, Lifetime for women, RFD for the rural/farmer audience, TNN for country music fans, VH-1 Soul for R&B listeners, and so on.

 

[filmandmusic]

The general billboard hot 100 chart is the one that is referenced usually though, the sub charts are only for the chart fanatics.

I understand how it works I still find it weird at times. Another Part of Me reached nr 11 in the main chart and nr 1 in the black singles chart. So in one department it must have underperformed quite a bit for it to fail to get the top 10.

 

[DuranDuran]

The general billboard hot 100 chart is the one that is referenced usually though, the sub charts are only for the chart fanatics.

I understand how it works I still find it weird at times. Another Part of Me reached nr 11 in the main chart and nr 1 in the black singles chart. So in one department it must have underperformed quite a bit for it to fail to get the top 10.

The mainstream media in the USA is majority white and has always been, so of course they are going to reference the "white" Top 40 radio chart before the other ones. It's like The Beatles will get way more magazine & TV coverage than Funkadelic. More money is spent on the promotion of Top 40 radio than the other radio formats. Michael Jackson on Epic got the Top 40 budget. The Jacksons did not. They got the R&B budget, so their records were not as well known with the mainstream audience.

 

[Spaceship]

"Enjoy Yourself", "Show You the Way to Go", "Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)", "Lovely One", "This Place Hotel", "State of Shock" and "Torture" were all hits on the Hot 100. The reason why the rest of their singles flopped wasn't because of budget; they flopped because they weren't appealing to the mainstream audience.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

As a European I simply cannot grasp how Americans think

You sound a lot like an American, very much the same sense of tribalism of stereotyping as the "Average American".

You think I had anything to do with this rando chart? Some person with money settled things long before we were born. Unless you're rich, you're not very different from I.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

"Enjoy Yourself", "Show You the Way to Go", "Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)", "Lovely One", "This Place Hotel", "State of Shock" and "Torture" were all hits on the Hot 100. The reason why the rest of their singles flopped wasn't because of budget; they flopped because they weren't appealing to the mainstream audience.

In America maybe.

Can You Feel It is one of their most popular songs.

 

[DuranDuran]

The reason why the rest of their singles flopped wasn't because of budget; they flopped because they weren't appealing to the mainstream audience.

Songs get on commercial radio stations such as Top 40 because of payola. It has little to do with the audience. College radio does not run from companies advertising on them & payola like Top 40, so college radio stations generally will play any kind of music, even classical. College radio is run from listener donations, just like the PBS TV network. More money is spent on certain types of music. In the past that was rock n roll. That's why if you look at the Top 50 highest record sellers in history, the majority of the artists are white male rock bands/singers. There's few non white, non rock, or women artists. Does that mean rock was better than all of the other genres or that men are better than women artists? In the USA, few if any Asian or Arab artists have had Top 10 hits on Top 40 radio. Because the money is not spent on them to get that airplay. They are mostly marketed to their own race/ethnicity. Shaggy said in an interview that Chris Blackwell, who ran Island Records, told him that he's not going to spend much money to promote reggae music or sign reggae artists. Bob Marley happened to get popular not because the record company promoted him to radio in the USA. It's because other popular acts like Mick Jagger & Stevie Wonder spoke about him. It also helped Marley when Eric Clapton remade I Shot The Sheriff. It was word of mouth. Reggae was also helped when The Police became popular because their music was based on reggae.

There's also the case that magazines like Rolling Stone & Creem mostly wrote about certain types of music, mainly rock. So that's another reason rock is considered more important. Just recently Jann Wenner, the founder of Rolling Stone put out a book of interviews of musicians. He was asked why there were only white guys in the book. He said that the white male musicians were more articulate than Black artists and female artists. He said the white musicians in the book had a "philosophy of rock n roll". This is a direct quote from R&B singer Bill Withers "I met my A&R guy (at Columbia Records), and the first thing he said to me was, ‘I don’t like your music or any Black music, period.’ I am proud of myself because I did not hit him. I met another executive who was looking at a photo of the Four Tops in a magazine. He actually said to me, ‘Look at these ugly niggers.’ ". That's the kind of folks who run the major record labels & mainstream media. Rolling Stone is also the main publication who made self-writing important. Pre-rock n roll, few artists wrote their own material. Many recorded the same songs, later called standards or Great American Songbook.

People in general are going to buy their own race over another, Madonna's debut album had the same producers as Stephanie Mills. Guess which one sold more, The songs of both Stephanie & Madonna albums sound similar, so you can't say that the mainstream did not dig Stephanie's songs. Madonna got the promotional budget that Stephanie didn't. Stephanie got the R&B budget, she did not get the money to crossover to the Top 40.

 

[R1chard]

So you're saying a song is a "proper hit" if mainly a lot of white people listen or buy it?

I'm just really glad I live in a place that doesn't have this nonsense. Back in the 90s, they tried to introduce an indie/rock/dance/classical chart here. It lasted a few weeks before they gave up on it because nobody was interested, and because it was completely unnecessary.

If you arbitrarily divide the market into small enough chunks, everything can be called a hit. It was just a way for labels to mumble something about a"top ten smash", when in reality the song wasn't popular enough to make the top 40.

Fact is, the chart is the chart. It's a list of the biggest selling songs. None of the other charts are real. You might not like it, and I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

The USA is a big place, not everybody listens to the same music. So there's many radio formats.

Listen to whatever you like. But don't pretend your favourite song is #1 when it wasn't. Stop encouraging racism.

There's even a separate Latin Grammy Awards show.

Yes. It's called a participation award. Great that everybody can win something, huh?

Does that mean rock was better than all of the other genres or that men are better than women artists? In the

No. It means they sold more copies. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're trying way too hard to make this political. It doesn't matter about budget. It doesn't matter about column inches or TV coverage. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not. The chart tells you what song/movie/book/game sold the most.

 

[DuranDuran]

You're trying way too hard to make this political. It doesn't matter about budget. It doesn't matter about column inches or TV coverage. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not. The chart tells you what song/movie/book/game sold the most.

Really? Then why are McDonald's & Coca Cola the most popular restaurant & soda in the world? Why do companies spend millions of dollars to run ads during the Superbowl? Why did Pepsi pay Michael Jackson instead of Millie Jackson to make commercials for them? If artists like Stephanie Mills & Frankie Beverly are only promoted to R&B radio, and the mainstream does not listen to R&B radio, how would the mainstream know they are around? Jazz is not played on Top 40 radio, it was not on MTV so how was jazz supposed to sell as well as Madonna or Def Leppard? So the budget does matter. The labels do not spend as much to promote jazz or gospel music, so they are not mainstream. In the early 1990s labels spent more to promote gangsta rap over conscious rap. Top 40 radio was basically a commercial to get people to buy records. If something is not played on it, then people won't know about it to buy it and it won't make whatever chart it is on.

 

[R1chard]

Really? Then why are McDonald's & Coca Cola the most popular restaurant & soda in the world?

You misunderstood me. Of course having a big budget means you can promote/brainwash more people, and that will result in selling more copies.

I'm saying it doesn't matter. The budget doesn't matter. The skin colour doesn't matter. Whether rap is "conscious" doesn't matter. If something only gets played on a certain radio station in a certain town doesn't matter. The chart is the chart is the chart. It tells you which song sold more copies than all the other songs in that particular week. Sure, bigger budgets help, but that simply doesn't matter - the charts are not adjusted per promo dollar - they're based on absolute raw numbers.

Do other art forms do this? Of course not. It would be nonsense if there was a book chart that was only eligible to horror novels written by Chinese women. You'd get laughed out of town if you claimed your videogame was "the bestselling online role-playing game programmed by a team of teenagers with a budget paid in Doritos".

If something is not played on it, then people won't know about it to buy it and it won't make whatever chart it is on.

The part in italics. That's my point. If you want to know what is the biggest selling song, "the chart" is the only chart that matters.

Ok, so a song doesn't get played, so people don't know about it, so it doesn't sell. Boo hoo. Tough luck. That doesn't mean we can elevate it to the top 10 just because we want to restore social justice to the world or some nonsense.

Lol.

 

[DuranDuran]

Ok, so a song doesn't get played, so people don't know about it, so it doesn't sell. Boo hoo. Tough luck. That doesn't mean we can elevate it to the top 10 just because we want to restore social justice to the world or some nonsense.

What are you even talking about?. Billboard has always had multiple charts. It's not something that has just started a few years ago. It's like the Grammy Awards & American Music Awards have awards for multiple genres, not just the ones that are most popular. If there was only 1 chart, then Billboard wouldn't even be a magazine, it would be a pamphlet or something, lol. What's social justice about it? Country is mostly a white genre and so is new age. In the USA, there's separate radio formats for those and Billboard tracks the different formats. There were even some record stores that specialized in certain types of music, like a gospel music only record store. It's the equivalent of having different charts for different kinds of stores, such as a department store chart, a hardware store chart, a bookstore chart, an electronic store chart and so on. A store like Walmart is going to be more mainstream popular than a store like Hallmark which sells greeting cards or a store that only sales electric model train sets. A lot of people don't care about what's mainstream popular, they care more about their kind of entertainment. So they are going to want to see what is popular in their interests. Like if a person is not interested in Marvel movies, but only in "art films", they are going to want to read about that. But since Marvel is more mainstream popular, they are going to get more mainstream coverage.

Also if mainstream radio in the 1980s was still run like it was before rock n roll in the late 1950s, then the success of Thriller & Purple Rain wouldn't have happened. So how something is promoted does matter. Hollywood would probably still be making Stepin Fetchit style movies from the Jim Crow era. Sidney Poitier refused to do that.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

@R1chard It's really ironic you're saying all this. You don't even use the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart. Being Australian, You use the ARIA Charts. Which is entirely irrelevant to every single life on earth not in Australia. So if you wanna talk niche and participation trophies, it gets no smaller.

 

[R1chard]

I'm just saying, the only reason to consult a chart is because you want to know what the biggest selling song is.

So... If I want to know what the biggest selling song is, I will consult the chart. It would be dishonest if they tried to correct the listing according to some supposed bias. What I DON'T want is for some suit to turn up and say "this week's chart doesn't have enough jazz or nu-metal music, let me fix that for you".

Imagine you were doing some research to find out how much music in each genre was being sold. You'd do that by looking at the chart and counting how many songs from each genre. Maybe even examine the change over time (ie when did R&B start outselling jungle). If the chart doesn't tell you that then it failed at its only purpose.

What are you even talking about?. Billboard has always had multiple charts. It's not something that has just started a few years ago.

Again, it doesn't matter how long it's been going on.

The fact is, only ONE chart tells you which are the most popular songs.

the Grammy Awards & American Music Awards have awards for multiple genres, not just the ones that are most popular

By definition, the songs at the top of the chart are the ones that sold the most copies. It's literally a popularity contest. That's what the chart means. It's a measure of sales success. If you don't sell enough copies, you don't make the chart. Sorry about that.

Country is mostly a white genre and so is new age.

And that's fine. If they sell enough copies, they get in the chart, and if they don't, they don't.

The chart doesn't exist to make you happy.

In the USA, there's separate radio formats for those and Billboard tracks the different formats. There were even some record stores that specialized in certain types of music, like a gospel music only record store.

Of course. That makes sense. Each radio and store is trying to make as much money as they can.

But regardless of these "formats", a chart exists to tell you the biggest selling songs in the country.

It's the equivalent of having different charts for different kinds of stores, such as a department store chart, a hardware store chart, a bookstore chart, an electronic store chart and so on.

And that would be incredibly dumb. Billboard would go out of business if they did that, because nobody cares what music people might have bought at a hardware store.

Again, I can't stress this enough, a chart is supposed to tell you which song sold more copies than all the other songs. Regardless of the race of the singer, regardless of the ethnicity of the person who bought it, regardless of what neighborhood they grew up in, regardless of what TV show they watch, and regardless of the shop they go in.

A store like Walmart is going to be more mainstream popular than a store like Hallmark which sells greeting cards or a store that only sales electric model train sets.

And that's fine.

And when you add up all those copies, you end up with the chart listing.

Surprise surprise, Walmart has lots of customers and is therefore usually quite a good indication of mainstream success.

A lot of people don't care about what's mainstream popular, they care more about their kind of entertainment. So they are going to want to see what is popular in their interests.

Yes, and that's fine. I'm not dictating what you can and can't listen to.

Again, you don't have to like the mainstream, but you have no choice but to accept that the song that sold the most copies will appear at #1 in the charts.

Also if mainstream radio in the 1980s was still run like it was before rock n roll in the late 1950s, then the success of Thriller & Purple Rain wouldn't have happened. So how something is promoted does matter.

And that's fine.maybe if thriller wasn't promoted then it wouldn't have sold, and we'd have a different biggest selling album of all time.

Again - that's fine. It doesn't matter.

End of the day: I expect the chart to tell me what the biggest selling song is. Period.

It's really ironic you're saying all this. You don't even use the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart. Being Australian, You use the ARIA Charts.

UK. I'm from the UK, where they use the UK chart. At least, they used to. People stopped buying music, and shops stopped selling it and record companies have virtually stopped making it, so they can't produce a sales chart any more.

But yeah, if I want to know what is the biggest selling song in Australia, I'll look it up in the Australian chart. If I want to know what is the biggest selling song in America, I'll look it up in the American chart (ie, I won't look up the "black chart" or the "white chart" or the "yellow chart").

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

I'm from the UK, where they use the UK chart. At least, they used to. People stopped buying music, and shops stopped selling it and record companies have virtually stopped making it, so they can't produce a sales chart any more.

But yeah, if I want to know what is the biggest selling song in Australia, I'll look it up in the Australian chart. If I want to know what is the biggest selling song in America, I'll look it up in the American chart (ie, I won't look up the "black chart" or the "white chart" or the "yellow chart").

My mistake then. I got you confused with someone else.

But still, it's basic statistics. You track multiple formats. We have a main chart and sub charts in addition, because Jazz, Gospel, Orchestra, are sub-genres. They appear on the Hot 100, but obviously they're gonna list what's playing most often on Sirius XM watercolors, Real Jazz, The Groove, etc. That's not false positivity or whatever. It's literally just tallys.

 

[DuranDuran]

So... If I want to know what the biggest selling song is, I will consult the chart. It would be dishonest if they tried to correct the listing according to some supposed bias. What I DON'T want is for some suit to turn up and say "this week's chart doesn't have enough jazz or nu-metal music, let me fix that for you".

But Billboard was never really for the general public anyway. The average person does not care how many records something sold or what the #1 song is. Billboard was primarily for people who worked in the music industry, That's why it had often had interviews and/or articles with radio disc jockeys, record company A&R, artist managers, recording engineers, film/TV behind the scenes people (because Billboard also tracked sales of videotapes/DVD, film scores, & video games too), concert promoters, and other people the general mainstream audience would have little or no interest in. It was expensive to subscribe to and most stores did not sell it. Some public libraries carried it.

The labels are going to want to know what artists are popular on R&B, AOR, & country radio because they are spending money on them, even if it is less than what they spent on rock & Top 40. Billboard was not the only chart publication in the USA, there were also a few others like Cashbox, The charts in the different magazines were never really identical.

Plus if people knew how Billboard got their info, they would probaly see it as not that reliable anyway. Same with the RIAA. Reporting sales to the RIAA is voluntary, it's not required, and the labels have to pay for certifications. That's why the charts completely changed when Soundscan started in the early 1990s although not every store that sold records had the Soundscan equipment. The way charts are today is also different. Before the 1990s, the Hot 100 was based on sales of 45s plus radio airplay. Only a song released on 45 (or a 78 in that era) and its B-side could chart. An album track could not chart even if it got radio airplay. So the chart position did not necessarily tell the popularity of a song. Isn't She Lovely never charted, because it was never released as a single. But it is one of Stevie Wonder's most known songs in the USA. Today all of the songs on an album can chart at the same time, radio single or not. That's how Drake, Taylor Swift, & Nicki Minaj got so many songs on the Hot 100, more than anyone else in history. Pre-streaming, Elvis Presley had the most songs on the Hot 100 and James Brown was second place. Aretha Franklin was the most for female artists. A song can also chart now from going viral on TikTok or being featured in a TV show/movie, which is what happened with old songs by Fleetwood Mac & Kate Bush.

 

[R1chard]

But still, it's basic statistics. You track multiple formats. We have a main chart and sub charts in addition, because Jazz, Gospel, Orchestra, are sub-genres

Exactly. You have a main chart. And the other charts are a consolation prize, used by labels if a song didn't do as well as they wanted. "Look everyone, we missed the top 10, but at least we got to number 6 in this minor chart!"

That's not false positivity or whatever. It's literally just tallys.

Exactly. The chart is a simple tally. And when you add up all the sales, there is only one #1.

But Billboard was never really for the general public anyway.

It's fine. It doesn't matter who compiles the chart, it doesn't matter if they publish a magazine, and it doesn't matter who buys the magazine.

I feel like I'm saying this a lot... You raise a lot of interesting points, but ultimately none of them matter. We should just get back to the subject. There cannot be two sales charts.

The average person does not care how many records something sold or what the #1 song is.

That's as maybe. Although looking at this board, lots of people would disagree.

other people the general mainstream audience would have little or no interest in. It was expensive to subscribe to and most stores did not sell it. Some public libraries carried it.

Maybe you've hit on something. All of these charts that they have manufactured are probably, from Billboard's point of view, just there to fill up space in the magazine.

Billboard was not the only chart publication in the USA, there were also a few others like Cashbox, The charts in the different magazines were never really identical.

That's fine, I guess. Let's just pick the best one and stick with it. It doesn't have to be Billboard, but that's who everybody goes with.

Plus if people knew how Billboard got their info, they would probaly see it as not that reliable anyway.

You mean all these weighting factors?

Yeah, you're probably right. But as I said before, sales charts simply aren't relevant any more anyway. These days people have completely stopped actually buying music, ergo there is no chart.

Same with the RIAA. Reporting sales to the RIAA is voluntary, it's not required, and the labels have to pay for certifications.

Well, that's up to the label. If they don't wanna be counted they don't have to be I guess.

That's why the charts completely changed when Soundscan started in the early 1990s

Exactly. It changed into a different world overnight.

And then it changed again overnight when streaming took over. The democratisation of data.

Before the 1990s, the Hot 100 was based on sales of 45s plus radio airplay. Only a song released on 45 (or a 78 in that era) and its B-side could chart. An album track could not chart even if it got radio airplay.

That's fine. A song is either released as a single or it isn't. If it isn't, it should never appear on a singles chart. That much is very clear. Although I'm at a loss to know how you can buy one side of a 7" record.

And, like, airplay is completely separate. It's not a part of this conversation.

So the chart position did not necessarily tell the popularity of a song.

And that's fine. As I said before, it should tell you which single sold more copies, nothing else.

Today all of the songs on an album can chart at the same time, radio single or not.

Yeah, the single died. So did the album. It doesn't exist any more. We're in a different world, where people can buy any song they want. You can literally just pick any song from a list, old or new, single or not.

A song can also chart now from going viral on TikTok or being featured in a TV show/movie, which is what happened with old songs by Fleetwood Mac & Kate Bush.

Yeah, a different world. We need to remember that these aren't sales charts though.

 

[DuranDuran]

I feel like I'm saying this a lot... You raise a lot of interesting points, but ultimately none of them matter. We should just get back to the subject. There cannot be two sales charts.

That's as maybe. Although looking at this board, lots of people would disagree.

Maybe you've hit on something. All of these charts that they have manufactured are probably, from Billboard's point of view, just there to fill up space in the magazine.

It's not to fill up space. As I mentioned Billboard is mainly for music business people. If somebody runs a concert hall or club that only plays country music, looking at a chart that has all music or one that features little or no country is useless to them. It's also how the singer/band can ask for how much money they get paid to perfom at a place. The different charts also give information to a record store of how many copies to order of a particular artist's albums/singles. In an area with a larger ethnic population such as a Mexican population instead of a white one or a Black one, what would be the point of a store in that location looking at the Hot 100, since Spanish music does not chart there. But it does chart on the different Latino charts for Latino radio stations. It's like a sushi restaurant is more likely to be in a Japanese neighborhood than a Black one. Jazz rarely had singles, maybe some smooth jazz artists did. But there was a jazz airplay chart that has what was popular on jazz radio stations. The songs that get more listener requests on the radio will get played more often than one that get less requests.

And that's fine. As I said before, it should tell you which single sold more copies, nothing else.

But that has never been the case. Even in the 45rpm days, part of the chart position was based on radio airplay. Some singles sold more than they got airplay, but the songs that got more airplay but sold less would would usually chart higher than the less played song. It went by the ratio of the airplay + sales together. There's a chart for maxi singles, which for different periods was called either the disco chart, dance music, or club music. A maxi single often contained several remixes and so would not count on the regular singles chart. Because a maxi is 12" and a 45 is 7", 2 different things. Top 40 stations did not generally play the longer remixes, which can be up to 10 minutes or more. But a club would play them. AOR (rock) radio stations did not only play singles, they also played album tracks. When they did play a single, it was mostly the longer album version and not the 45 edits. R&B would often play the album versions too or a remix that would not be on the album.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Exactly. You have a main chart. And the other charts are a consolation prize, used by labels if a song didn't do as well as they wanted. "Look everyone, we missed the top 10, but at least we got to number 6 in this minor chart!"

More like you have the pop chart, the biggest most popular chart. And every other chart for every other genre.

Because the point is tracking what's "popular". It used to be opera. Then jazz. Blues. Rock. Now Hip Hop and the 21st century stuff.

Jazzy albums don't top the pop charts anymore. If ever. George Benson crossed over to pop, that's why he did get so successful. Prince explicitly made music that was against the charts. It still got counted for something.

It's not for success. Most music CDs are a "success", otherwise they wouldn't have put it out. Thats the point, not if we engage in consumerism.

 

[librariangirl:)]

"Black charts" - sounds like 1967, "radio" - like 2005... Do you people still listen to the radio? And I'm really confused about "black charts" you mean R&B? Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, so maybe you already had this discussion...

 

[MonkeyCheater]

Wow. that's really sad. it's really goes to show you nothing much changed. though, i can say nowadays it seem more people of different races are listening to all kinds of music.

i could be wrong because like I said I don't look at the charts only it's mention.

I am pleased to say a lot has changed!
In addition to ‘black’ acts now doing just fine on ‘top 40’/‘pop’, there is also the fact that these days the main Billboard 100 and its airplay component capture radio play beyond the ’pop’ statuons.

Prior to the early 90s, the Billboard 100 was based on sales and radio airplay on Top 40/Pop stations.
This massively disadvantaged RnB acts and hard rock acts, as much of their airplay didn’t count.
Since, the early 90s the airplay component of the chart captures other radio formats (E.g rock, adult, etc…)

Naturally, some formats are bigger than others.
But those J5 hits on the ‘black’ charts were reflective of a pretty big demographic, and the airplay was significant - but not counted on the main Hot 100. In other words, when I Want You Back hit number 1 on the billboard 100, it do so on the strength of its sales and ’pop’ airplay - the airplay on non-pop formats did not count (though obviously helped sales).

The pre-90s system probably hurt J5, but was more mixed for MJ who had greater crossover success to pop.
Indeed, arguably, some of his hits (Human. Nature, Dirty Diana) probably benefited, whilst others didn’t.

On the whole though, I think Billboard are an awful representation of US music tastes, and their chart methodology has been a mess over the decades. Thankfully, most of the rest of the world has followed the UK model for chart compilations - indeed, I think it is one reason why the UK is so successful as a music exporter.

 

[R1chard]

This has gone on for way too long, so I'm gonna bring it to a close, but-

If somebody runs a concert hall or club that only plays country music, looking at a chart that has all music or one that features little or no country is useless to them.

Sure, there will always be people needing to do that sort of research. But that's neither here nor there. Popular artists get onto the pop chart, and unpopular ones don't. The clue is in the name.

It's also how the singer/band can ask for how much money they get paid to perfom at a place.

Yeah. If you've had a top 10 chart hit, you'll probably get paid 100 or even 1000 times more than if you haven't.

The songs that get more listener requests on the radio will get played more often than one that get less requests.

Actually, you'd be surprised at how much this doesn't make a difference. The radio station plays what they were going to play anyway. They just put people on who request whatever is on their playlist.

But that has never been the case. Even in the 45rpm days, part of the chart position was based on radio airplay.

No no no. That is not a sales chart. That's something else.

Like, in the UK there used to be 2 charts - the official chart, and... another one, that included airplay. But nobody used to listen to that chart. And really, the only reason it was invented was because some (most) radio stations didn't want to play Slipknot or Marilyn Manson, so it was a convenient excuse to filter it out and pretend it didn't exist (ie the don't play it because it's not in the chart, and it's not in the chart because they don't play it).

Regardless, sales charts never have airplay in them.

A maxi single often contained several remixes and so would not count on the regular singles chart. Because a maxi is 12" and a 45 is 7", 2 different things.

We don't use that terminology in the UK, but it was similar. They eventually brought in a rule that said a CD wasn't eligible to chart if it had more than 15 minutes of music. Overnight, CDs went from 4-5 songs down to 2-3. Just was just before singles died out.

Interesting fact - over the last year I've been buying up old singles just to get the remixes of stuff like Jam and Who is it, because I didn't bother at the time of release

's not for success. Most music CDs are a "success", otherwise they wouldn't have put it out.

Just to point out, this is wrong. Something like 20% of music covers the recording costs. The other 80% of music fails to make a profit.

Most CDs were put out in the hope they'd be a success, but most never actually were a success. The success of the whole industry is carried by a small number of megastars.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Just to point out, this is wrong. Something like 20% of music covers the recording costs. The other 80% of music fails to make a profit.

Most CDs were put out in the hope they'd be a success, but most never actually were a success. The success of the whole industry is carried by a small number of megastars.

This is not what I'm talking about when I say success but I guess technically, this is correct.

But the world doesn't revolve around pop music, anyway. So, that's it.

 

[DuranDuran]

No no no. That is not a sales chart. That's something else.

Like, in the UK there used to be 2 charts - the official chart, and... another one, that included airplay. But nobody used to listen to that chart. And really, the only reason it was invented was because some (most) radio stations didn't want to play Slipknot or Marilyn Manson, so it was a convenient excuse to filter it out and pretend it didn't exist (ie the don't play it because it's not in the chart, and it's not in the chart because they don't play it).

The Hot 100 is not a sales only chart and never has been. I keep telling you it was a sales & airplay together chart. The only charts in Billboard that are sales only are the album charts & the VHS/DVD/video game charts. Any Billboard singles charts are either airplay & sales (Hot 100, R&B, country, etc.) or airplay only (jazz, Adult R&B, gospel, etc.) No singles charts are sales only and that is the way Billboard has been since it has existed. Even the maxi single chart is partly what songs are popular in clubs, but not radio airplay. If a 45 has a remix, then that will chart on the Hot 100 or R&B chart, That's why I said the B-side of a single could chart separately from the A-side if the B-side got airplay. People didn't buy the single twice for the B-side to chart. Even if they did, Billboard would have no way to know that. This happened with a lot of Beatles singles. It was called a double side hit.

There used to be a jukebox chart decades ago when those were popular. Since people had to put in a quarter to listen to whatever music was on the jukebox, I guess technically that could be considered a "sale" only.

What the UK does is not relevant to the USA & vice versa. Like platinum in the USA is 1 million sold, gold is 500,000. Later they came up with diamond which is 10 million sold. I think diamond started in the late 1990s or early 2000s. The US is the only country where these numbers are used. In other countries gold/platinum is a lower number

 

[DuranDuran]

Here's an old Hot 100 singles chart. Every week at the bottom it has the same message and so does the other singles charts for the other radio formats. If it's too small to read, it says this:

"Bullets are awarded to those products demonstrating the fastest airplay and sales gains this week (Prime Movers)."

All of the different album charts has this:
"Bullets are awarded to those products demonstrating the fastest sales gains this week (Prime Movers)."

Album Oriented Rock (AOR) chart has this:
"A compilation of Rock Radio Airplay as indicated by the nation's leading Album oriented and Top Track stations"

Adult Contemporary:
"Bullets are awarded to those products demonstrating the fastest airplay gains this week (Prime Movers)."