Terrific deep dive into #1's. Granted, my music consumption is still from physical LP/CD's and iTunes, but I would say I fall into both categories of fans. As a mentor of 16-21 year old foster youth (men), I am shocked at how many of them dislike THIER generation's music. Since I don't stream, I will share my thoughts on two topics...that I believe can still be saved...and make following the charts fun again.
1. iTunes: As a long-time customer of iTunes, I would suggest they invest a little more time identifying all new music. In addition, create a category for classic (or) AC artists. (It takes time to find Olivia's new duets albums, Melissa Manchester's new retakes on her songs, or even single releases by Christopher Cross.) Other thoughts would be sequencing songs/LP's by release date, including that release year (for all artists), and even removing older songs from current charts...did the constant ranking of "Don't Stop Believin" keep me from discovering new music on their best seller list. I would add...color code the songs so if I see a new album by an artist I like, somehow, let me know the first single release so I know what the artist/record company is promoting.
2. Billboard. Before I could afford it, I subscribed to Billboard starting in the early 1980's (and still have them...but about to end that hoarding habit.) I went from reading it the day I received my copy to now having several copies untouched. (They want you to go their website...and see the charts with many obnoxious pop-ups.) While I understand it's an "industry" paper, in my opinion, the writers are not fans (or aware) of the history (and importance) of Billboard. I see too many articles about Hollywood stars (that don't sing), politics (legislation is fine...don't care which artist held a fundraiser), and constant rankings of their writers favorite albums, songs, etc. The number of articles about "Texas Hold'em" was silly. I've shared my recommendations with Billboard...although I would add one more, add Mr. Bailey to their team.
Thanks again. Any day with a new "Graphs about Songs" article is a good one!
Good and interesting article relative to the "good data" era of Billboard. I mine the prehistoric era where there was no numeric data--just the charts--and there are analogies.
First, as the article points out, economics does not matter in the choice of music today. In the '60s, investing 98 cents was a big deal and required choices. Don't get me started on the angst of $3.98 for a mono album. Second, I would argue that we've overplayed the significance of simply being a number 1 record for decades. For at least the pre-Soundscan era if not today, more records peaked at number 1 than at any other rank and it doesn't matter what magazine or what genre. In some years, such as 1974 (including "Whatever Gets You Through The Night") there were 35 number 1s out of 495 chart entries--over 7% and nearly a new one every week. On the other hand, some years (1971: 18 of 615, 2.9%; 1978: 19 of 449, 4.2%) there were relatively fewer. The difference is average duration at number 1 (and all peaks, for that matter) and outlier durations of 6 weeks in 1971 or 10 weeks in 1978. In short, there are times when there is consensus about records and times when it's a search for the next shiny object. Using the terminology of the current article, when there is consensus, the Stans and Casual fans agree. When there is none, the spiky influence of the Stans shows alongside the indifference of the Casuals. Usually times of consensus are times when there is agreement on a dominant genre--at the other times there is none, or dominant genres are changing. Velocity going up and going down is relatively similar over time (modulated a bit by total chart entries). Time at peak is the real determinant.
Refs: Some Years are Just Better than Others.
The Importance of Public Consensus in Record Ranking, Rock Music Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19401159.2023.2184914
Not So Lonely at the Top: Billboard #1s and a New
Methodology for Comparing Records, 1958–75, Popular Music and Society, 38:5, 586-610, DOI:
Terrific deep dive into #1's. Granted, my music consumption is still from physical LP/CD's and iTunes, but I would say I fall into both categories of fans. As a mentor of 16-21 year old foster youth (men), I am shocked at how many of them dislike THIER generation's music. Since I don't stream, I will share my thoughts on two topics...that I believe can still be saved...and make following the charts fun again.
1. iTunes: As a long-time customer of iTunes, I would suggest they invest a little more time identifying all new music. In addition, create a category for classic (or) AC artists. (It takes time to find Olivia's new duets albums, Melissa Manchester's new retakes on her songs, or even single releases by Christopher Cross.) Other thoughts would be sequencing songs/LP's by release date, including that release year (for all artists), and even removing older songs from current charts...did the constant ranking of "Don't Stop Believin" keep me from discovering new music on their best seller list. I would add...color code the songs so if I see a new album by an artist I like, somehow, let me know the first single release so I know what the artist/record company is promoting.
2. Billboard. Before I could afford it, I subscribed to Billboard starting in the early 1980's (and still have them...but about to end that hoarding habit.) I went from reading it the day I received my copy to now having several copies untouched. (They want you to go their website...and see the charts with many obnoxious pop-ups.) While I understand it's an "industry" paper, in my opinion, the writers are not fans (or aware) of the history (and importance) of Billboard. I see too many articles about Hollywood stars (that don't sing), politics (legislation is fine...don't care which artist held a fundraiser), and constant rankings of their writers favorite albums, songs, etc. The number of articles about "Texas Hold'em" was silly. I've shared my recommendations with Billboard...although I would add one more, add Mr. Bailey to their team.
Thanks again. Any day with a new "Graphs about Songs" article is a good one!
Good and interesting article relative to the "good data" era of Billboard. I mine the prehistoric era where there was no numeric data--just the charts--and there are analogies.
First, as the article points out, economics does not matter in the choice of music today. In the '60s, investing 98 cents was a big deal and required choices. Don't get me started on the angst of $3.98 for a mono album. Second, I would argue that we've overplayed the significance of simply being a number 1 record for decades. For at least the pre-Soundscan era if not today, more records peaked at number 1 than at any other rank and it doesn't matter what magazine or what genre. In some years, such as 1974 (including "Whatever Gets You Through The Night") there were 35 number 1s out of 495 chart entries--over 7% and nearly a new one every week. On the other hand, some years (1971: 18 of 615, 2.9%; 1978: 19 of 449, 4.2%) there were relatively fewer. The difference is average duration at number 1 (and all peaks, for that matter) and outlier durations of 6 weeks in 1971 or 10 weeks in 1978. In short, there are times when there is consensus about records and times when it's a search for the next shiny object. Using the terminology of the current article, when there is consensus, the Stans and Casual fans agree. When there is none, the spiky influence of the Stans shows alongside the indifference of the Casuals. Usually times of consensus are times when there is agreement on a dominant genre--at the other times there is none, or dominant genres are changing. Velocity going up and going down is relatively similar over time (modulated a bit by total chart entries). Time at peak is the real determinant.
Refs: Some Years are Just Better than Others.
The Importance of Public Consensus in Record Ranking, Rock Music Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19401159.2023.2184914
Not So Lonely at the Top: Billboard #1s and a New
Methodology for Comparing Records, 1958–75, Popular Music and Society, 38:5, 586-610, DOI:
10.1080/03007766.2014.991188