The Charts

One of the many things I keep track of is the current number one song. I started tracking this in 1991, way back when I had to look up the information in an actual paper version of Billboard magazine. Now, of course, I just check it out on line.
Some of my friends have commented that the songs that reach number one are generally lousy songs and the whole idea of tracking art based on popularity is a terrible thing to do. To an extent, I agree. But it is fun to see how songs that I like are doing on the charts, and, every once in a while, a song that I like actually ascends to the top spot. I think it also gives a nice snapshot of the music industry and pop culture at that particular time.
And that’s why I wanted to mention an interesting development in the Billboard charts and what it says about radio stations.
In the beginning, Billboard tracked songs based on their sales: both to individual customers and to juke box designers. Soon, the juke box portion was dropped and Billboard stuck exclusively with record store sales. For the most part, this was a good idea. But two problems developed. First, some songs became very popular but were never released as singles. Starting in the late 1960s, music acts would sometimes not release songs as singles, in an effort to keep the album “together”. Thus, songs like the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, Derek and the Dominoes “Layla” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” – which are among the most popular songs of that era – never appeared anywhere on Billboard’s 100 because they were never released as singles. The second problem was that, as CDs became more popular, the price of singles was no longer that much lower than a whole album. That is, people who liked only one or two songs of an album just figured they might as well buy the whole album since it was only a couple dollars more than the individual songs. Essentially, the idea of a single – which used to dominate record store – began to die.
In an effort to keep the charts relevant, Billboard decided to begin tracking radio airplay of songs. As singles became less and less popular, more weight was given to airplay than to actual purchases.
You probably know where this is heading. Radio stations, regardless of what they tell us, have no variety. They play a song over and over and over and over again. When they find an ‘artist’ they like, they play that ‘artist's’ songs over and over again. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Billboard charts. First, take a look at how many songs went to #1 each year from 1984 and 1991:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1984...19
1985...26
1986...30
1987...29
1988...32
1989...32
1990...25
1991...27
Look at that! Every year, there were at least 19 songs that became #1 hits, and in a few years there were more than thirty. Not one of these songs maintained the top spot for more than seven weeks. Some of these songs were hip-hop, others were rock, others were country. Once airplay began to be the deciding factor instead of the more democratic sales, look what happened:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1992...12
1993...10
1994...9
1995...11
1996...8
1997...9
1998...15
1999...14
Starting in 1992 (the year airplay began to be factored in), there were only a handful of songs that went to number one each year; with some years having less than 10 new number one songs. Every year there were songs that stayed at #1 for more than 8 weeks, with some songs staying at #1 for 12, 14 and even 16 weeks (that’s four months without turnover)! Worse still, almost all of these songs were hip-hop/rap – often with an ‘artist’ replacing themselves in the top spot. For example, 4 of the 11 songs that went to #1 in 2004 were by Usher. And after an Outkast song spent 9 weeks at #1 in 2003, they were finally replaced by...Outkast . The variety had ceased to exist.
Needless to say, I was bummed. Checking out the charts each year was getting boring. Week after week, I would check the chart and rarely see a change. Would it ever get better?
Indeed, it did. Thanks to iTunes, the idea of a ‘single’ once again became popular. Suddenly, people were once again buying only single songs. By 2005, Billboard took notice and decided it was time to factor digital sales into the equation. Finally, the popularity of a song would once again be dominated – not by a handful of radio execs – but by the masses.
Was there a change? Yep. In 2006 there have been 18 songs that have gone to #1. That’s more #1s than any year since 1991 (and there are still two weeks left of the year - so there could still be more #1s). No song this year has spent more than seven weeks in the top spot. For the first time in years, I have actually heard of some of these songs and their performers.
So, here’s a tip of the cap to Billboard for redefining popularity to coincide with the times. Also, check out this page. I wrote a brief email to Fred Bronson (a column writer for Billboard’s charts) and he posted it, along with his response, on this page.