|
Post by Mike on Jan 2, 2005 10:41:30 GMT -5
#3 "The Reason," Hoobastank Peak: #1 (1) WOC: 36 Spins: 122439 Like on the Pop chart, #3 and #2 were very close - on here, #2 was decided by about 950 spins. Hoobastank were able to hit #1 after 6 weeks at #2 (and two bullet losses during that time) because "Burn" 's losses prevented it from keeping them back entirely. Their feud for #1 resulted in a rather weak time period for #1s that didn't start to return to normal until "Pieces of Me" and "She Will Be Loved" had their runs at #1. With such a long run, it's only fair that I post the chart run: 44-32-23-17-14-11-9-8-6-6-4-4-2-2-2-2-2-2-1-2-4-5-7-11-13-15-16-22-26-31-34-33-38-43-47-47-OFF
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 2, 2005 10:46:27 GMT -5
#2 "This Love," Maroon 5 Peak: #2 WOC: 41 Spins: 123386 This spent 5 weeks at #2, all behind a single #1. At 41 weeks, this also spent the longest on the chart in 2004. That makes it the second-longest running song on the chart ever. 46-43-36-26-19-17-14-9-6-5-3-2-2-2-2-2-4-6-6-6-5-5-6-7-10-12-12-23-26-28-31-31-32-33-32-34-37-42-46-45-48-OFF During its weeks in the upper 30s, its losses dropped below 100 - just one of quite a few ways this had staying power. So that leaves us with only one song left - the longest-running #1 of 2004. This song has quite a story to tell...
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 2, 2005 11:05:55 GMT -5
#1 "Yeah," Usher Featuring Ludacris & Lil Jon Peak: #1 (11) WOC: 39 Spins: 146693 Quite simply, there is no other song that could possibly have been #1 for 2004. (Obviously this is the fourth and final appearance for Usher, Ludacris, & Lil Jon.) This may very well become the ultimate song to have charted on the AC Top 50. On the last week of May, this broke the record for most weeks at #1 by logging an 11th week on top. As it turns out, this ties Lifehouse's mark of 39 weeks on the chart. But, as I have already mentioned, two songs are ahead of both of them for chart longevity. But perhaps the one unique story to tell is in comparing it to a monster #1 of the Pop chart. As it turns out, "Yeah" had an AC Top 50 chart run that is quite similar to the Pop chart run of the #1 song of 1995 - Dionne Farris's "I Know": (NOTE: The Pop chart became a Top 50 on 5-12-95, which was actually her last week at #1) Her Pop chart run33-21-14-11-6-4-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-4-6-7-8-10-13-16-19-22-24-25-30-36-38-37-40-39-41-40-(unknown)-OFF His AC Top 50 run41-23-17-12-8-4-3-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-5-5-5-6-6-5-4-9-13-13-13-16-18-19-22-25-31-35-40-46-OFF And there are more stats for both that match up well. She debuted on the Pop chart on the week of 1-20-95, and he debuted on the AC Top 50 on the week that began on 1-23-04. Both needed only 9 weeks to get to #1. Her 9 weeks at #1 was not only the most in 1995, but also tied what was then the record. His 11 weeks at #1 is the lone record and most in 2004. She lasted a total of 38 weeks on the Pop chart, he lasted 39 weeks on the AC Top 50. As it turns out, the #2 song of 1995 ("Run-around") lasted one or two weeks longer in 1995 than she did; such was the case here, too. And to top it all off, "I Know" was the #1 Pop song of 1995, and "Yeah" brings it full circle by being the AC Top 50 #1 song of 2004. Thus concludes what has been quite a year. It will be hard for 2005 to top quite a few of these great chart events, but I'm sure 2005 will soon have its own stories to tell.
|
|
plannine
I said I’d be honest, I never said I’d be consistent - Grace Slick
Posts: 2,065
|
Post by plannine on Jan 2, 2005 11:19:08 GMT -5
I'll never understand the long chart life of songs these days (both on personel charts and on radio charts). I guess i grew up in a era that when a song dropped - radio dropped it.
No matter what size of the chart, 2 weeks after a drop (from any position on the chart), the song was off, or at the bottom of the chart. Also, nothing ever fell from the Top 40 down to the lower 60 (of a top 100 chart). It fell off.
Everybody who wanted it, had it, and those that didnt, didnt want it in the first place, so they really dont want to hear it.
But this is old age speaking, but i always figured, more music is better, then less.
I guess what i am really asking, is are the songs staying on the charts or at the top, from them being so good, or cause of a lack of good songs to remove them from the chart, or the lack of airplay due to restricted playlists.
(note: im sure i could make the same comment on many of the charts, but i will do my best to refrain from doing so)
|
|
|
Post by Gerardo on Jan 2, 2005 13:11:11 GMT -5
Good commentary!
Now I have a question. Have there ever been songs to take the #1 spot for the year with a non-#1 peak?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 2, 2005 15:18:00 GMT -5
Good commentary! Now I have a question. Have there ever been songs to take the #1 spot for the year with a non-#1 peak? Why yes, just last year. In fact, last year the Top 2 were both #2 peakers. #2 was "When I'm Gone" and #1 was "Unwell". The highest #1 was #3 "Ignition".
|
|
plannine
I said I’d be honest, I never said I’d be consistent - Grace Slick
Posts: 2,065
|
Post by plannine on Jan 5, 2005 12:24:11 GMT -5
On your top 2 peakers....did they get the higher rating beacuse of weeks on chart?
With smaller charts (Top 30's) the length on the chart is usually balanced, while with larger charts (Top 50's, 100's etc) a song can benifit from being on the chart for a long time.
A few year end charts ive seen , would take the average number of weeks by all songs, and use that as the cut off for songs, and take the best X (number of weeks) from a songs life.
A couple others I know only count when songs are in position 1-XX (some number) into their year end results. I use this method on my Classic Top 30 (www.Ct30.com) year end album chart. I only count albums that made the top 13 towards the year end results (since a classic album could be on the chart 52 weeks) In the song chart, just 30 of the 31 positions are counted.
Which is best: Song A 10 wks #2 (5 other weeks in top 10, 25 total weeks on Top 100) Song B 5 wks #1 (5 other weeks in to 10, 25 total weeks on top 100) Song C Zero Wks in Top 3 (15 weeks in to 10, 30 total weeks on Top 100)
SONG A 80 40 25 17 9 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 8 10 17 24 33 45 61 88 SONG B 99 78 57 36 24 11 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 8 11 15 22 34 41 47 52 77 89 SONG C 100 89 78 69 58 47 36 28 22 15 10 9 9 8 7 7 6 5 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 11 14 17 34 52
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 5, 2005 13:10:27 GMT -5
On your top 2 peakers....did they get the higher rating beacuse of weeks on chart? With smaller charts (Top 30's) the length on the chart is usually balanced, while with larger charts (Top 50's, 100's etc) a song can benifit from being on the chart for a long time. A few year end charts ive seen , would take the average number of weeks by all songs, and use that as the cut off for songs, and take the best X (number of weeks) from a songs life. A couple others I know only count when songs are in position 1-XX (some number) into their year end results. I use this method on my Classic Top 30 (www.Ct30.com) year end album chart. I only count albums that made the top 13 towards the year end results (since a classic album could be on the chart 52 weeks) The song chart 30 of the 31 positions are counted. Which is best: Song A 10 wks #2 (5 other weeks in top 10, 25 total weeks on Top 100) Song B 5 wks #1 (5 other weeks in to 10, 25 total weeks on top 100) Song C Zero Wks in Top 3 (15 weeks in to 10, 30 total weeks on Top 100) For this chart, all year-end chart rankings are based on YTD spin totals. And since the maximum spin total is 5000, it does work better than an inverse point system. But for 2001, I used the inverse point system in compiling the chart. So lasting longer is likely to benefit a given song, since such a result is likely to give that song more total YTD spins. As for which of your three is best...I'll have to get back to you on that one, since I'm leaving for a friend's house shortly and don't have the time to figure A, B, and C.
|
|