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

[zinniabooklover]

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.

Strictly speaking, back in the day, a maxi single was a 7" single that had two songs on the B side instead of just one. At some point that changed. A song would be released in two formats - the 7" with one song on the B side and the 12" with 2 or 3 songs on the B side. Can't remember when the term 'maxi' stopped being widely used but it was definitely around in the early 70's in the UK.

Maxi singles with dance / disco remixes must have been a bit later although I don't really remember bc dance music is not my thing.

We don't use that terminology in the UK [...]

We used to, though, back in the 70's.

This has gone on for way too long, so I'm gonna bring it to a close, [...]

Fair enough but you guys got me going all nostalgic. That's my excuse, lol.

 

[DuranDuran]

Strictly speaking, back in the day, a maxi single was a 7" single that had two songs on the B side instead of just one. At some point that changed. A song would be released in two formats - the 7" with one song on the B side and the 12" with 2 or 3 songs on the B side. Can't remember when the term 'maxi' stopped being widely used but it was definitely around in the early 70's in the UK.

In the USA a 7" with more than 2 songs was usually called an "EP", short for "extended play". Those were more common before the mid-1960s when songs were on average 2½ minutes. A really short album was also called EP like the David Lee Roth record Crazy From The Heat.

 

[zinniabooklover]

In the USA a 7" with more than 2 songs was usually called an "EP", short for "extended play". Those were more common before the mid-1960s when songs were on average 2½ minutes. A really short album was also called EP like the David Lee Roth record Crazy From The Heat.

Yeah, I know all this. I was trying to remember when we started to use EP instead of 'maxi' in the UK. I associate EP's with punk but that doesn't mean that's when it came into use.

In any case, I was merely pointing out what the situation was in the UK in the early 70's. Maxi singles were already a thing back then.

 

[R1chard]

The Hot 100 is not a sales only chart and never has been. I keep telling you it was a sales & airplay together chart.

Well then, categorically, the Hot 100 is not a sales chart.

But it's still a better chart than one that excludes other genres on the whim of the person compiling it.

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.

Yeah, that's just really weird. It does not make sense. You can't buy half a single.

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.

And that's also something completely different. Plays on a jukebox aren't sales. They're more like rentals, actually very similar to streaming. You're paying for a service, not a product.

Maxi singles with dance / disco remixes must have been a bit later although I don't really remember bc dance music is not my thing.

I've been talking more about the CD era (ie 80s, 90s). More or less, dance remixes were a big thing from about 1991-1999.

Really, this whole conversation is just historical, rather than current. They stopped making CD singles in 2009 in the UK (earlier in the USA?) Then you had a short period of people buying downloads, and that stopped in about 2013. So there is no longer a sales chart.

In the USA a 7" with more than 2 songs was usually called an "EP", short for "extended play".

Yeah, they were known as EPs in the UK too. Generally 4 to 6 different songs (ie not multiple remixes of the same song).

The UK is fairly unique in that there was a period where a lot of the time, the single was actually split across 2 CDs, sometimes even 3 CDs. It was a way to make fans buy everything twice, so the song could get a higher chart position.

 

[DuranDuran]

Well then, categorically, the Hot 100 is not a sales chart.

But it's still a better chart than one that excludes other genres on the whim of the person compiling it.

Top 40 radio & the Hot 100 excludes most genres. Top 40 is not even a genre in the first place, it isn't a type of music like ragtime or heavy metal are. The Hot 100 only has what is played on Top 40 radio. If Top 40 does not play jazz or bluegrass music, then those artists can't chart on it. A jazz artist can only be featured on a jazz chart if jazz radio stations are the only place they are played. I don't see how that is hard to understand. If an R&B artist had to "crosssover" to Top 40, then it's segregated in the first place. Top 40 is a radio format just like R&B, country, alternative rock, etc. In the 1920s & 1930s big band jazz was "pop music". Then they stopped playing it and went to the next craze "crooner pop" like Bing Crosby. Which was later called "easy listening". Top 40 also stops playing artists when they get a certain age, whether or not they still release music. Top 40 in the USA has always been primarily marketed to a teen & young adult audience. Who do you think all of those girls were screaming & crying over The Beatles & Elvis Presley? It's also the case that in general, whatever was mainstream popular on Top 40 & adult contemporary was driven by the female audience.

Rock radio was majority a white male audience, and it didn't play many female or non-white artists. Rock bands often sold more albums than singles, because a lot of them didn't get Top 40 airplay. Led Zeppelin & Pink Floyd have very few hit singles. They were huge album sellers in the US. The Supremes were more popular with singles than albums. So you could say that rock radio was more powerful in some ways that Top 40 wasn't. Dark Side Of The Moon still sells today, which is not always the case with whoever was popular on Top 40. Not many folks today are checking for old Partridge Family or Samantha Fox albums.

Also, on the album chart, with a multiple CD album, each CD is counted separate. So with the RIAA, if a 2 CD album sold 1 million in actual copies, then it is counted as 2 million sold "double platinum". This would be higher on the chart than a single CD album, even if both sold 1 million that week, because the single album did not "sell" 2 million.

 

[R1chard]

Top 40 radio & the Hot 100 excludes most genres.

It doesn't systematically exclude them. It's just that country and bluegrass don't sell enough copies to enter the chart. There's a difference.

In the music industry it's hard to be successful. Like, I'm friends with many musicians, from goth and NIN clones to Britpop and GNR covers bands. Only one of these bands ever got signed to a label, and even after appearing a handful of times on national TV, they never broke the top 20 of the singles chart. You know what I did about it? Nothing. What's the point? It doesn't matter. I didn't sit there crying about it, I didn't launch a campaign to equalize the charts so there was more goth stuff on the radio.

If Top 40 does not play jazz or bluegrass music, then those artists can't chart on it. A jazz artist can only be featured on a jazz chart if jazz radio stations are the only place they are played.

You're basically reinforcing my original point.

1. They compile a chart that has the most popular songs.
2. Inevitably, some genres will have more songs than other genres, for a variety of reasons, including airplay/exposure
3. If jazz doesn't get in, fans of jazz (and jazz label executives) will complain it's not fair, they will want a chart especially for them, with more jazz
4. Before you know it, a plethora of superfluous charts get created, which only serve to create confusion, as shown by this thread

I don't see how that is hard to understand. If an R&B artist had to "crosssover" to Top 40, then it's segregated in the first place.

Some people say crossover. Some people say break through. Whatever. It's a fact of life that some music will be more popular than others. It's unfortunate for you if you happen to like a minority genre, but you'll live with it.

Again, if somebody wants to know about/listen to the most popular songs, an unbiased chart is what they need. If somebody wants only R&B, then an R&B station is what they need, same with rock or anything else. The only people who need a rock chart are those in the industry who want to claim their rock song is more popular that it actually is.

Rock radio was majority a white male audience, and it didn't play many female or non-white artists.

I just feel like you're trying to racialize everything. Sure, some music appeals more to different races, but that's just the way it is. There are more white people, therefore "white music" is higher in the chart. It's not some big conspiracy, or something that needs to be fixed.

Rock bands often sold more albums than singles, because a lot of them didn't get Top 40 airplay. Led Zeppelin & Pink Floyd have very few hit singles.

Fully aware of if all this. Last year I bought a Zep album on Blu-ray because it was released in 5.1, 96/24. I also have Dark Side on SACD in 5.1, and The Wall in Dolby Atmos. Plus a friend recently came to visit, and he brought a bunch of Beatles/Floyd/Oldfield stuff with him because it was in Atmos. They were all albums where you had to sit and listen for the full 45 mins (and which, to my knowledge, never even had any singles).

And if they released an MJ album in Dolby Atmos, I'd buy that too. Too bad they won't.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

If jazz doesn't get in, fans of jazz (and jazz label executives) will complain it's not fair, they will want a chart especially for them, with more jazz

No, we won't. We don't care just because you say so.

The only people who need a rock chart are those in the industry who want to claim their rock song is more popular that it actually is.

It's literally the largest genre.

There are more white people, therefore "white music" is higher in the chart.

There's more Chinese people in the world than any other ethnicity.


Taylor Swift literally hit the cultural zenith doing country music. Then she took over as Pop Genre. These genre charts you're claiming divides people does no such thing.

 

[DuranDuran]

1. They compile a chart that has the most popular songs.

You don't understand. The Hot 100 has the most popular songs on Top 40 radio stations. Top 40 is a radio format. The R&B chart is the most popular songs on R&B radio stations. The AOR chart is the most popular songs on rock radio format. A jazz artist can have a Hot 100 hit if they are played on Top 40 radio. In the 1980s Kenny G was on the Hot 100 because he got some airplay on Top 40. So did other jazz artists like George Benson & Al Jarreau. It is impossible to have a hit with something that is not played on a particular format. Like Johnny Mathis will never have a hit on rock radio because he is not played there.

That's how the Hot 100 is airplay & sales chart. How can a polka artist be as popular as Madonna, if the polka artist is not played on Top 40 radio? The same way Madonna would not be on a polka chart because she is not played on a polka station. Songs getting played on Top 40 (or any other radio format) is how the songs become popular in the first place. Because people listen to the radio and hear it, they can't be aware of something if it is not played there. Top 40 radio stations in the USA report to Billboard of what they play the most and record stores report what they sell the most. They can't report what they do not play. Then Billboard averages them out, because some songs can be more popular in some areas of the US and not others. These are called "regional hits". An individual radio station will report to Billboard that they played a particular song 100 times that week & another song 15 times that week. It's sort of like voting, the songs that get the most "votes" (airplay) from DJs + the most sales from the stores become #1 or whatever. Not every single station or store reports to Billboard or Cashbox. There's thousands of radio stations in the USA & stores that sold records, that would be impossible to do every week. It's also not a big secret that the charts are sometimes spiked. Major record labels have paid DJs and stores to tell Billboard that a record is more popular or less popular than it really is. That is part of the payola, it's not only to get DJs to play the records more often. Labels have also released albums to fail on purpose, especially if they know an artist is planning to leave the label or just to keep them in the hole so they can avoid paying out royalties or to teach an artist who makes too many demands a lesson.

Songs do not become popular on their own. Madonna's newer records are nowhere near as popular as her 1980s records because Top 30 do not play her current songs. They play Drake & Cardi B & Bruno Mars. I remember a few years ago Beyoncé songs were literally played 3 or 4 times in an hour on one local radio station. That's how Beyoncé remained popular with the public. When conglomerates like Clear Channel bought up a lot of the radio stations, they started these identical playlists on all of them.