I often ponder how lucky we are to have streaming music available at our fingertips. I spent the first 30 to 40 years of my life being very limited as to what I could choose to listen to. I believe this is why I appreciate streaming so much. In another 30 or 40 years there will be very few people alive who will know what it's like to not have anything you want at the push of a button.
I realize that statement was a little off subject.
I could go on about music, charts, and radio for ever.
Thanks for your great further research into my question. You mention some interesting facts. If there is more turnover in the lower rungs of the chart why can't more of these songs move in to the Top 40? I think part of it has to do with the allowance of album cuts today. When major acts release new albums the tracks tend to take over and then disappear once the initial interest wears off. I'd be curious as to how varied the artists are in that lower sixty. It seems there may be a lot of new songs there but not by a lot of different artists.
Of course, I say all of this as I lament the loss of pre-Soundscan Billboard! Whether the change made the charts more legitimate or not could be debatable. I recently re-discovered the weekly Top 40 surveys I kept from my local Chicago radio station, WCFL, in the 1970s. I loved how the chart was constantly changing and there were new songs every week replacing those that were played out. There also seemed to be much more diversity in terms of music genres back then. In the end, I still think Billboard should cap the number of weeks songs remain on their Hot 100. Really? 99 weeks for Teddy Swim?! That definitely signals some stagnation.
In New Zealand the charts were calculated for many years from a few select record stores, who would send their "sales" data through. As it's 30years ago I doubt I'lll get in any trouble, but I did exploit the hell out of my job as the charts return guy at ECM in St Lukes, Auckland. Back when label reps had expense accounts and endless promo material I was fairly shameless... the things a Sony rep would do to ensure Michael Jackson debuted at #1 (as if that wasn't going to happen anyway!). I suspect being a label rep is a pretty depressing job these days... doubt any company credit cards are being used to keep venue bar tabs open in 2025!
Supposedly, "payola" disappeared here in the U.S. in the 1960s but I'm sure a lot of what you describe was still going on here too well into the 90s (perhaps on some level it's still happening today.)
Yeah, at the time it seemed normal and ok… a rep would give you all the new releases so you could confidently talk with the consumers about the fabulous new stuff that was coming (You know that popular band? Well this band is like that, but totally watered down!). They’d clip the bar code, or even better hot wire the side of the CD case, thus making that CD completely unsellable! And every Saturday I’d lug my pile of promo down to Real Groovy and Nick would count off crisp $ bills. Payola is such a dirty word! Eventually I got to know the Groovy staff so well it was now me buying the Cd’s off the (rather hilarious carbon copy of me) ECM hired… someone should have done a book traveling around photgraphing and interviewing record store guys… or even easier, just copy and past the first interview/photo, cos we are the same freakin’ dude. Well ok… some guys have more Sebadoh 7” singles than Guided by Voices, but that’s about the only difference!
Yeah I can't even imagine what the job would be now... the label can just fire off an email with a list of their new releases, links to reviews and attatched sound files (which I doubt a 2nd hand record store is going to pay you much for!)
I guess I wonder how realistic those streaming numbers are. My cynical side thinks a label could pay off Spotify, or Billboard for that matter, to report numbers that are false to promote certain artists over others. Just a thought!
I suspect one huge factor in the slowdown in new "hits" is that with the consolidation in everything from radio to music labels to streaming, the mechanisms for discovery have been wrung out of the system.
That's one reason why you're seeing random songs become at least mid-sized hits from Tik Tok or other social media. It's one of the few places where people can hear something unexpected and fall in love with the track.
It's sad, but there is a near zero chance that the modern equivalent of an odd song like "Rock Me Amadeus" could become a hit in 2025.
Interesting how the methodology changes have had such drastic effects in some cases and more subtle effects in others. I'm assuming that Soundscan has evolved over time as well? It seems unlikely that they're relying exclusively on record store sales these days.
I was going to push back on your criticism of Paula Abdul, but then I considered how many of her songs do I have on my playlist for that era. Exactly zero. So I can't really say I disagree with your assessment.
I think Paula Abdul benefitted from more than just the pre-Soundscan data collection. That time period when she peaked was also when music videos were really starting to take off. Back then when channels like MTV and VH1 showed (almost) exclusively music videos 24/7, she got a lot of airtime. Paula may not have been a great vocalist, but she was a good dancer. My guess is her visual appeal helped her get a lot more attention than just the music alone. As the novelty of videos faded and their importance started to wear off, so did her career. That's my guess anyway. Not the whole reason, but possibly one factor.
Allowing any and all album tracks to be eligible for the chart has created some wild results... as much as I've grown to love Talyor Swift (I was one of those rock snob guys who needed Ryan Adams to hip me to her talent as a song writer... something that went from just embarrassing to kind of icky and gross if you have followed his career/creep behaviour the past half decade). I don't know if allowing a major artist to just take the entire top 10 is a good thing:
The first 5 or 6 tracks almost certainly deserve their chart position, but by the mid-point of the album I suspect tracks are charting because people have left the album playing. Maybe it's just a reflection of my lack of stamina but I'll often be listening to albums I've owned for years and realise... wow, track 9 is great, never really actively engaged with it before!
Looking forward to your book Mr. Chris... big fan of nerdy chart stuff!
I often ponder how lucky we are to have streaming music available at our fingertips. I spent the first 30 to 40 years of my life being very limited as to what I could choose to listen to. I believe this is why I appreciate streaming so much. In another 30 or 40 years there will be very few people alive who will know what it's like to not have anything you want at the push of a button.
I realize that statement was a little off subject.
I could go on about music, charts, and radio for ever.
It’s a great observation. I think access to everything is obviously great but we do lose something without scarcity
Thanks for your great further research into my question. You mention some interesting facts. If there is more turnover in the lower rungs of the chart why can't more of these songs move in to the Top 40? I think part of it has to do with the allowance of album cuts today. When major acts release new albums the tracks tend to take over and then disappear once the initial interest wears off. I'd be curious as to how varied the artists are in that lower sixty. It seems there may be a lot of new songs there but not by a lot of different artists.
Of course, I say all of this as I lament the loss of pre-Soundscan Billboard! Whether the change made the charts more legitimate or not could be debatable. I recently re-discovered the weekly Top 40 surveys I kept from my local Chicago radio station, WCFL, in the 1970s. I loved how the chart was constantly changing and there were new songs every week replacing those that were played out. There also seemed to be much more diversity in terms of music genres back then. In the end, I still think Billboard should cap the number of weeks songs remain on their Hot 100. Really? 99 weeks for Teddy Swim?! That definitely signals some stagnation.
In New Zealand the charts were calculated for many years from a few select record stores, who would send their "sales" data through. As it's 30years ago I doubt I'lll get in any trouble, but I did exploit the hell out of my job as the charts return guy at ECM in St Lukes, Auckland. Back when label reps had expense accounts and endless promo material I was fairly shameless... the things a Sony rep would do to ensure Michael Jackson debuted at #1 (as if that wasn't going to happen anyway!). I suspect being a label rep is a pretty depressing job these days... doubt any company credit cards are being used to keep venue bar tabs open in 2025!
Supposedly, "payola" disappeared here in the U.S. in the 1960s but I'm sure a lot of what you describe was still going on here too well into the 90s (perhaps on some level it's still happening today.)
Yeah, at the time it seemed normal and ok… a rep would give you all the new releases so you could confidently talk with the consumers about the fabulous new stuff that was coming (You know that popular band? Well this band is like that, but totally watered down!). They’d clip the bar code, or even better hot wire the side of the CD case, thus making that CD completely unsellable! And every Saturday I’d lug my pile of promo down to Real Groovy and Nick would count off crisp $ bills. Payola is such a dirty word! Eventually I got to know the Groovy staff so well it was now me buying the Cd’s off the (rather hilarious carbon copy of me) ECM hired… someone should have done a book traveling around photgraphing and interviewing record store guys… or even easier, just copy and past the first interview/photo, cos we are the same freakin’ dude. Well ok… some guys have more Sebadoh 7” singles than Guided by Voices, but that’s about the only difference!
Wow! Since that world of CDs is basically gone I do wonder how they're handling it these days!
Yeah I can't even imagine what the job would be now... the label can just fire off an email with a list of their new releases, links to reviews and attatched sound files (which I doubt a 2nd hand record store is going to pay you much for!)
I guess I wonder how realistic those streaming numbers are. My cynical side thinks a label could pay off Spotify, or Billboard for that matter, to report numbers that are false to promote certain artists over others. Just a thought!
I suspect one huge factor in the slowdown in new "hits" is that with the consolidation in everything from radio to music labels to streaming, the mechanisms for discovery have been wrung out of the system.
That's one reason why you're seeing random songs become at least mid-sized hits from Tik Tok or other social media. It's one of the few places where people can hear something unexpected and fall in love with the track.
It's sad, but there is a near zero chance that the modern equivalent of an odd song like "Rock Me Amadeus" could become a hit in 2025.
Interesting how the methodology changes have had such drastic effects in some cases and more subtle effects in others. I'm assuming that Soundscan has evolved over time as well? It seems unlikely that they're relying exclusively on record store sales these days.
I was going to push back on your criticism of Paula Abdul, but then I considered how many of her songs do I have on my playlist for that era. Exactly zero. So I can't really say I disagree with your assessment.
I think Paula Abdul benefitted from more than just the pre-Soundscan data collection. That time period when she peaked was also when music videos were really starting to take off. Back then when channels like MTV and VH1 showed (almost) exclusively music videos 24/7, she got a lot of airtime. Paula may not have been a great vocalist, but she was a good dancer. My guess is her visual appeal helped her get a lot more attention than just the music alone. As the novelty of videos faded and their importance started to wear off, so did her career. That's my guess anyway. Not the whole reason, but possibly one factor.
I wonder if it isn't so much a stagnation of the genre itself as much as a stagnation of the people listening to it.
Allowing any and all album tracks to be eligible for the chart has created some wild results... as much as I've grown to love Talyor Swift (I was one of those rock snob guys who needed Ryan Adams to hip me to her talent as a song writer... something that went from just embarrassing to kind of icky and gross if you have followed his career/creep behaviour the past half decade). I don't know if allowing a major artist to just take the entire top 10 is a good thing:
https://www.billboard.com/lists/taylor-swift-hot-100-top-14-fortnight-post-malone-record/swifts-record-breaking-streak-of-albums-with-hot-100-no-1s/
The first 5 or 6 tracks almost certainly deserve their chart position, but by the mid-point of the album I suspect tracks are charting because people have left the album playing. Maybe it's just a reflection of my lack of stamina but I'll often be listening to albums I've owned for years and realise... wow, track 9 is great, never really actively engaged with it before!
Looking forward to your book Mr. Chris... big fan of nerdy chart stuff!