Date Posted:01:27:26 07/15/02 Mon Author:Craig Subject: Re: No. 1's from 1974 In reply to:
Christopher Elliott
's message, "Re: No. 1's from 1974" on 21:55:50 07/14/02 Sun
>>With songs having long stays at No. 1 nowadays, it
>>hard to believe that we could go through an entire
>>year that no songs would spend 4 or more week at No. 1
>
> If you ever get your hands on Billboard magazine from
>1974, you will see that the record industry was in a
>flux during much of 1974 and 1975. Part of the problem
>was the energy crisis of 1973, which spilled into
>1974. This affected the industry in many ways, some of
>which was the production of the records themselves. It
>also led to radio stations to become a bit more
>conservative, with tighter playlists. However, unlike
>today where the tighter playlists led to 10 week rides
>at #1, it led in 1974 to many songs on the Hot 100
>unable to gather alot of points at one time. With
>shorter lists, a song was harder press to grab the
>necessary station adds to get into the #1 slot. And
>when it did, it couldn't keep it. So in essence, it
>led to a rapid turnover at #1. Notice, that on the Hot
>100 itself, many songs took there own sweet time
>moving up and down the chart. Songs could take 10-12
>weeks to drop off the chart after hitting the top 10,
>something unthinkable in 1972.
>
> The problem reached its peak in the summer of 1974,
>leading to many front page articles in Billboard to
>address the AM radio problem. A look at a typical Hot
>100 of August 1974 shows the problem in all its glory.
>All agreed that looser playlists were needed. So some
>stations began to adopt this policy.
>
> However, the pendulum swung too much in the other
>direction. In the Winter of 1974 into much of 1975,
>you had alot of debuts on the Hot 100 in the 91-100
>area. Which is indictive of a longer playlists. But
>the top of the charts, there would have songs drop
>from #1-#15, or #14-#41, and so on. This is a practice
>of stations and retail outlets of dropping a song once
>they felt it has reached its peak.
>
> Sorry for the muttering, but I've always been
>fascinated on why the charts behave as they do :)
>
> Christopher
If you thought that strange behavior in 1974-1975 was odd, it was even weirder in 1982 where songs either stay put at a peak position for several weeks or peak at a certain position & BOOM! plummeted down the charts. Now THAT is weird.
