The decline of America's top 40 and hits radio

[smark21]

From today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/magazine/the-swan-song-of-the-top-40.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=print

[Doug-Morgan]

It was all us hippies fault. We were the first ones to truely fractionalize pop radio.

[marv2]

Great article! It pretty much confirms what I had been saying for several years now. hehehehehe.....

[soulster]

That article was less about the charts and radio, and more about nostalgia.

Doug-Morgan nailed it: the desire to hear more "serious" rock music in the late 60s pretty much began the decline of top-40 radio, although it kept strong until the mid-70s, when automated programming came into fashion, and disco threatened rockers.

[sunshineonacloudyday]

Thank you smark21. I didn't even know there was still a Top 40, lol.

In the sixties, my brother sat at his desk EVERY Wednesday night, pen and notebook in hand, to write down the Top 10 songs as the deejay played the countdown to "Number One."

When the national Top 40 began, it was characterized by drawing "popular" songs from a variety of still distinctive genres and unique regional sounds. I think it lost its significance with the gradual homogenization of popular music beginning in the mid 70s. Then video [[MTV, etc.) came along in the 80s leaving it pretty much irrelevant.

[jobeterob]

I agree with all of you and the article; it's sad, but it's gone. Now there are two dozen charts and you can top some of the charts hardly selling anything.

LOL, the decline really began with the Disco Club Play Charts in the late 70's. It was the Kiss of Death to be #1 on that chart ~ then you disappeared into oblivion the next year.

[chidrummer]

In a nutshell, " Glee charts more tunes than Elvis Presley" Quick, name one Glee tune that's not a cover. Heck, name one Glee tune at all. Now name four Elvis tunes. Easy isn't it?

To me it looks like many of today's number one artists would have been dropped by the major labels of the 60's - '80's because of low sales.

[marv2]

In a nutshell, " Glee charts more tunes than Elvis Presley" Quick, name one Glee tune that's not a cover. Heck, name one Glee tune at all. Now name four Elvis tunes. Easy isn't it?

To me it looks like many of today's number one artists would have been dropped by the major labels of the 60's - '80's because of low sales.

Great, excellent points Chi Drummer!!!

[jobeterob]

Right on ChiDrummer. That Glee / Elvis chart statistic is so misleading; Glee is like Milli Vanilli or the Partridge Family. Elvis Presley is American Music personified.

[smark21]

In a nutshell, " Glee charts more tunes than Elvis Presley" Quick, name one Glee tune that's not a cover. Heck, name one Glee tune at all. Now name four Elvis tunes. Easy isn't it?

To me it looks like many of today's number one artists would have been dropped by the major labels of the 60's - '80's because of low sales.

Album sales are not what they used to be, but single sales, thanks to cherrypicking songs from albums, are doing quite well.

[sunshineonacloudyday]

Right on ChiDrummer. That Glee / Elvis chart statistic is so misleading; Glee is like Milli Vanilli or the Partridge Family. Elvis Presley is American Music personified.

Yes, having a song on the charts today would not appear to be equated with artistic merit. Yet I'm often surprised to find old-school artists/groups whom I would have expected to chart high, but who didn't even make the Top 100!...

Joel Whitburn's TOP R&B Singles [[I have 1942-1999 edition) presents perhaps the most telling difference in the charts between "then and now". In his "Singles of Longevity" [[singles with 35 or more total weeks charted), he lists 45 songs. Here is the breakdown by decade:

1940s, 1 song: RED BLUES-Cootie Williams and his Orchestra, 1944. Charted for 39 weeks.

1950s, 1960s, 1970s: NOTHING! From THREE decades, no song charted more than 35 weeks!!!

1980s, 1 song: BABY, COME TO ME-Patty Austin [[with James Ingram), 38 weeks.

1990s: All the remaining 43 songs were from the 90s, with Usher's YOU MAKE ME WANNA..at the top, lasting an incredible 71 weeks!!!


I don't have the data on the 2000s, but I can imagine...

Between the 50s-80s talent was abundant, and competition clearly fierce.

[marv2]

Yes, having a song on the charts today would not appear to be equated with artistic merit. Yet I'm often surprised to find old-school artists/groups whom I would have expected to chart high, but who didn't even make the Top 100!...

Joel Whitburn's TOP R&B Singles [[I have 1942-1999 edition) presents perhaps the most telling difference in the charts between "then and now". In his "Singles of Longevity" [[singles with 35 or more total weeks charted), he lists 45 songs. Here is the breakdown by decade:

1940s, 1 song: RED BLUES-Cootie Williams and his Orchestra, 1944. Charted for 39 weeks.

1950s, 1960s, 1970s: NOTHING! From THREE decades, no song charted more than 35 weeks!!!

1980s, 1 song: BABY, COME TO ME-Patty Austin [[with James Ingram), 38 weeks.

1990s: All the remaining 43 songs were from the 90s, with Usher's YOU MAKE ME WANNA..at the top, lasting an incredible 71 weeks!!!


I don't have the data on the 2000s, but I can imagine...

Between the 50s-80s talent was abundant, and competition clearly fierce.

Now this information is extremely interesting [[to me). Thinking about it now, it did seem like the same songs stayed on the radio forever in the 90's! You had songs like Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" and Boyz II Men's "End of The Road" sitting at number one for like 13 or 14 weeks ! LOL! Amazing how things had sunked into the bottomless pit of the mundane!

[tsull1]

I think it's really hard today to create a unique sound. Pretty much all of it has been done. Read some new fiction these days, it's not new and unique. There's too much writing out there and too much music to have created anything new.

Top 40-wise, I would say this is the worst era ever in popular music. None of these songs have staying power.

That said, there is some very good non-charting music out there in soul, jazz, rock, alternative, etc. I'm encouraged by some of the new releases in soul coming out the past few years, including Raphael Saadiq, Sharon Jones, Mayer Hawthorne, Fitz and the Tantrums. I would say none of the aforementioned groups are amazingly original, they borrow from previous genres. Why not? What possibly can sound completely original these days. But those artists and others are producing very good soul music.

I'm eagerly awaiting Ronnie McNeir's next album, another example of some great soul music being produced today.