[hank alrich]

Perhaps because the names of only a few one-hitters stick in my mind, I
never realized these stats:

http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalin...120311charting

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Perhaps because the names of only a few one-hitters stick in my mind, I
never realized these stats:

http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalin...120311charting


Is there a histogram somewhere of number of hits for all
who charted? Be interesting to see how that works. Bet
it's a power law.

--
Les Cargill

[muzician21]

On Mar 13, 1:27*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Perhaps because the names of only a few one-hitters stick in my mind, I
never realized these stats:


Makes an already gloomy prospect even gloomier for those aspiring to
be "pop stars". Even if you make it to the Impossible Dream and have a
charting hit, odds are it won't last.

Wonder if there's a clearly identifiable difference between the one-
hitters and those who have lengthier careers. It certainly isn't
always talent - think Madonna and Britney Spears.

[rakman]

On Mar 14, 12:20*pm, muzician21 wrote:

Wonder if there's a clearly identifiable difference between the one-
hitters and those who have lengthier careers. It certainly isn't
always talent - think Madonna and Britney Spears.

Fitting into the industry machine helps. (And that does
take talent). Connecting with ordinary people. Timing.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:20:12 -0700, muzician21 wrote
(in article
):

Wonder if there's a clearly identifiable difference between the one-
hitters and those who have lengthier careers. It certainly isn't
always talent - think Madonna and Britney Spears.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

The other interesting stat: it's a rare musician or group who can sustain a
career for more than 4 or 5 years. Even more rare when an artist like Paul
McCartney, Cher, or Elton John (there's an interesting trilogy) who can keep
having a major music career for four decades or more.

These stats have been presented in Joel Whitburn's RECORD RESEARCH books for
many years:

http://www.recordresearch.com/

Note that this only accounts for the BILLBOARD statistics alone. There's a
lot of other ways to assess musical success or historical importance; for
example, artists like Neil Diamond and Barbra Streisand still sell a lot of
albums and do well in live performances, but haven't had bona fide Top 40
hits in years. So the pop charts alone don't tell the whole story.

Note also that BILLBOARD magazine is in terrible trouble. I believe they
recently jettisoned a good chunk of their staff, including their editor and
publisher:

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-...tor-out-other-
top-staffers-follow-36116

--MFW

[Steve Daniels]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:46:39 -0700, against all advice, something
compelled Marc Wielage , to say:

Note also that BILLBOARD magazine is in terrible trouble.


Are people scouring the interwebs looking for music they like, as
opposed to taking whatever crap Teh Top Fwarty says they should
like?



--

I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause
is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude.

Andy Rooney

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:11:21 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote
(in article ):

Are people scouring the interwebs looking for music they like, as
opposed to taking whatever crap Teh Top Fwarty says they should
like?
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I think the death of mass-market CD stores and the downward-spiral of radio
ratings, plus the awful economy, has taken its toll on a lot businesses.
Especially Music and Radio.

It's scary to reflect that right now, if you can sell 5000 albums in one
week, that's enough to put you on the BILLBOARD Top 200. That used to be
considered a flop. I seem to recall a few months ago where a #1 album only
sold about 60,000 copies, which is stunningly low compared to where things
used to be.

The economy sucks.

--MFW

[Mike Brown]

In article ,
Marc Wielage wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:11:21 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote
(in article ):

Are people scouring the interwebs looking for music they like, as
opposed to taking whatever crap Teh Top Fwarty says they should
like?
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I think the death of mass-market CD stores and the downward-spiral of radio
ratings, plus the awful economy, has taken its toll on a lot businesses.
Especially Music and Radio.

It's scary to reflect that right now, if you can sell 5000 albums in one
week, that's enough to put you on the BILLBOARD Top 200. That used to be
considered a flop. I seem to recall a few months ago where a #1 album only
sold about 60,000 copies, which is stunningly low compared to where things
used to be.

The economy sucks.

--MFW

There are still a few CD shops around, generally the better ones have
survived. I ordered a triple CD Leonard Cohen set the other day.

MJRB

[rakman]

On Mar 13, 5:27*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Perhaps because the names of only a few one-hitters stick in my mind, I
never realized these stats:

http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalin...120311charting

--
shut up and play your guitar *http://hankalrich.com/http://www.you...HankandShaidri

It's a numbers game.
"There's only room for so many at the top"
meets "Every dog has its day".

[Tony Done]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Perhaps because the names of only a few one-hitters stick in my mind, I
never realized these stats:

http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalin...120311charting

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

********************

I wouldn't have guessed that either. I'm also surprised at the uniformity
and flatness of the proportion, in spite of changing genres and industry
marketing techniques. Like Les, I would like to see some kind of frequency
statistics, though I wouldn't have said power law. More likely something
like Poisson, though my stats theory isn't good enough for the fine print of
that.

Tony D

[Mike Brown]

In article ,
"Tony Done" wrote:

I wouldn't have guessed that either. I'm also surprised at the uniformity
and flatness of the proportion, in spite of changing genres and industry
marketing techniques. Like Les, I would like to see some kind of frequency
statistics, though I wouldn't have said power law. More likely something
like Poisson, though my stats theory isn't good enough for the fine print of
that.

Tony D

Of course they are talking about the "Top 100". Many of them may have
crept in at position 99 or 100 with a once in a lifetime stroke of luck
rather than a heap of talent. We are talking about popularity not
quality.

MJRB

[Tony Done]

"Mike Brown" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Tony Done" wrote:

I wouldn't have guessed that either. I'm also surprised at the uniformity
and flatness of the proportion, in spite of changing genres and industry
marketing techniques. Like Les, I would like to see some kind of frequency
statistics, though I wouldn't have said power law. More likely something
like Poisson, though my stats theory isn't good enough for the fine print
of
that.

Tony D

Of course they are talking about the "Top 100". Many of them may have
crept in at position 99 or 100 with a once in a lifetime stroke of luck
rather than a heap of talent. We are talking about popularity not
quality.

MJRB

***************

That's true, and very likely accounts for the great bulk of the effect. I
wonder how many one hit wonders make the top 10? A much smaller proportion I
would guess.

Tony D

[Trevor]

"Tony Done" wrote in message
...
Of course they are talking about the "Top 100". Many of them may have
crept in at position 99 or 100 with a once in a lifetime stroke of luck
rather than a heap of talent. We are talking about popularity not
quality.

MJRB

***************

That's true, and very likely accounts for the great bulk of the effect. I
wonder how many one hit wonders make the top 10? A much smaller proportion
I would guess.


Right, I wouldn't call number 100 a "hit", top 40 maybe, but top 10 seems
more like it to me.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Tony Done" wrote in message
...
Of course they are talking about the "Top 100". Many of them may have
crept in at position 99 or 100 with a once in a lifetime stroke of luck
rather than a heap of talent. We are talking about popularity not
quality.

MJRB

***************

That's true, and very likely accounts for the great bulk of the effect. I
wonder how many one hit wonders make the top 10? A much smaller proportion
I would guess.


Right, I wouldn't call number 100 a "hit", top 40 maybe, but top 10 seems
more like it to me.

With thousands of songs released yearyl, yeah, top 100 is a hit, with
substantial sales and airplay.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri