Morgan Wallen
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10250
Printed Date: 05 June 2025 at 1:59am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Morgan Wallen
Posted By: EdisonLite
Subject: Morgan Wallen
Date Posted: 01 June 2025 at 4:25pm
|
I was just looking at this week's Hot 100 and saw that Morgan Wallen has 35 songs in the Hot 100, all from his newly released double album. I think if someone would have told him when he was a kid that's he'd have 35 songs on the Hot 100 (not even the country chart), he would have thought they were crazy. Interestingly, as for his #1 song on the Hot 100, "What I Want", I took a look to see how well it was doing on the Radio Songs Top 50 chart, and it's not on there. I wonder if it will become a radio hit (or at least make the Radio Songs chart). My guess is it will since it's the #1 song in the country (and on the Hot 100.) On the Country Chart (a top 50 chart), he has 34 of the songs - a whopping 68% of the chart by one artist. I don't even think country icons like Johnny Cash or Dolly Parton have had 68% of the country chart in any given week (although different eras ... different chart methodology, so maybe a comparison shouldn't be made). And back to the Hot 100, I also don't think the Beatles ever had this kind of chart dominance (35 songs on the chart in any given week). Sadly, and I've pointed this kind of thing out before, songs like the new Benson Boone single, which would have moved from #30 to a new peak of #24, dropped to #38. I imagine a lot of other radio hits will also suffer from reaching new chart peaks and keeping the momentum going. |
Replies:
Posted By: JMD1961
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 1:57am
|
This is why I stopped paying much attention to the Hot 100 for a long time now. While I know that it (probably) reflects the way people experience music in the streaming era, these "album bombs" just make it hard to take seriously. The same is true of the current version of the country and R&B charts, which just use the same data used to determine the Hot 100. For that reason, I moved to the genre radio charts a long time ago. And yes, it's impossible to compare achievements from today with those of decades past. Is there any doubt, in anyone's mind, that Elvis or the Beatles would have charted entire albums if streaming had existed in their heydays? |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 5:21am
The Beatles, absolutely. Almost every album they released got considerable airplay. Elvis, I'm not so sure. Always considered him more of a singles act. Granted, I missed most of Elvismania, didn't really start getting into music until 1962-ish, and considered him just another 50s act who was still hitting the charts. I'd be hard pressed to name even one (non-45) album cut of his that's considered a classic. Agree with you on the lack of relevance of the Hot 100 for most of this century. What's even a "hit song" today? OK, I'm old school and consider radio play to be the main indicator of what's a hit and what isn't, but I can't imagine anyone's stream playlist (assuming people create their own...I'm not personally into streaming) looks anything like the Hot 100 either. |
JMD1961 wrote:Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 6:40am
|
For old timer chart watchers the Modern Era is a shock, and the knee-jerk reaction is to rely on the Radio-based charts as the closest thing to 'the good old days'. The only issue there is that - while Radio is far from dead - its reach / influence is down demonstrably. At some point this decade, it will have no relevance. As someone who worked in the Industry, it sucks, but the writing's been on the wall for a decade. Due to streaming, radio no longer really breaks new music to the masses like it used to and is more comfort food, relying on recurrents and gold hits to pacify passive listeners. Album Bombs are horrible - but accurate. |
Posted By: torcan
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 7:51am
|
I agree that the Album Bombs are accurate, but they way it's reflected on the charts is so messed up. When most people think of the Hot 100 they think of hit songs. Until 12/5/1998, you had to have a commercial single to be able to chart. After that date, you could chart on airplay alone (because a lot of hits weren't released commercially), but it was still mostly radio hits that people knew and liked. I know I've said this before but when they allowed streaming stats onto the chart, they should have limited it to the songs being promoted to radio as singles - that way we'd still get a pretty accurate reflection of what's actually popular. In the old days, if a song peaked at No. 8 (for example), you'd remember it as a well-known top 10 hit. These days, it a song peaks at No. 8 in an album-bomb week and is off the chart two weeks later, you're looking at a top 10 song that you have no recollection of and was never even played on the radio. In looking at Whitburn's most recent Pop Singles book, a lot of today's artists charted song list go on forever - yet, I hardly know any of them. Oh well...it's too late to undo 20-plus years of history but it really makes today's charts hard to decipher because it's no longer just "hit songs". |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 9:51am
|
I scan the charts from Mediabase at All Access to update my current music folders. The Morgan Wallen track, What I Want, is currently #20 on the Top 40 chart on Mediabase. ------------- John Gallagher Erie, PA https://www.johngallagher.com" rel="nofollow - John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment / Snapblast Photo Booth |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 11:36am
|
torcan - nothing you said is inaccurate! And it's not just seasoned chart watchers, but young people as well that aren't happy with a #8 song that is gone after 1 chart week. Nowadays chart fans care increasingly about longevity (weeks on chart) just as much as peak position. In fact, Billboard lists their Artist Chart History in descending order based on the weeks a song has charted, creating some odd visuals when a #14 song is listed atop a #2 hit, going strictly by weeks. Of course, this issue dates back way before streaming. I knew we were 'in for it' back in 2006 when suddenly the Hot 100 had like 7 "High School Musical" tracks... unheard of at the time, but definitely a harbinger of what was to come. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 1:52pm
|
As someone who works in the music industry, I can tell you that most industry professionals I speak to say the Hot 100 is a useless chart for them. As far as I know, none of the national top 40 radio countdowns have used the Billboard hot 100 for many years. There probably are radio regulations that prevent one artist having 20-30+ songs played in a 4-hour period. Looking at this "album bomb" phenomenon in a reverse situation (and I never really have before), if somehow streaming existed back in the '70s & 80s, for any artist who had a really large fanbase (one example: Barry Manilow), most of his fans would have streamed all his album tracks on the week of release. But let's say, "You Could Show Me", "Starting Again" and "Bobbie Lee (What's the Difference, I Gotta Live") all made the top 10. How many people (other than true Manilow fans) would even know these top 10 hits? But in my hypothetical example, these would go down in the history books as top 10 hits. Frankly, I'm glad we can look back at the top 10 hits of the '70s and '80s as the hits they were, rather than album-bombs filling much of the top 10 with "hits" that no one other than fans of the group/artist of the week would remember. No disrespect to Barry Manilow or his fans (which includes me). Just giving one example, but I could have said John Denver, the Carpenters, Air Supply, or many heavy metal bands for that matter :) |
Posted By: JMD1961
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 3:47pm
The point it hit me was when all the major news outlets started pointing out that the cast of "Glee" had more Hot 100 hits than Elvis. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 3:50pm
| Yes, I remember that. And the Beatles, too, IIRC. To me, it's kind of insane to think the cast of Glee was more successful than Elvis (in terms of Hot 100 hits). |
Posted By: LunarLaugh
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 4:28pm
|
Imagine if "Kung Fu Fighting" came out this year... the other songs from KUNG FU FIGHTING AND OTHER GREAT LOVE SONGS would be a shoo-in for the top 40. ------------- https://thelunarlaugh.bandcamp.com/ - Listen to The Lunar Laugh! |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 4:47pm
|
While ALL the thoughts are well taken and understood, what should also be noted, bizarrely (and may be NOT so oddly) is that the hot 100 is having chart-breaking stints for songs staying in the top 10 and top 40......in last week's Billboard top 40 there are songs in the top 40 for 51, 53, 57, 60, 70 AND 75 weeks!!!.....and also weeks in the top ten of 33, 39, 56 & 62 weeks.....how is it a song is THAT popular for a freaking year when the attention span of listeners/people today is so short..........I guess the transient nature of things popping in and out quickly leave the really popular songs via radio to stay much longer than otherwise would have occurred....something to think about.... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: The_Bops
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 5:32pm
Streaming certainly is the biggest component of the Hot 100 (and the Genre component charts). Sales are next to dead and Radio is down. Even without major album bombs like Morgan Wallen, half of the time songs that make the top 3 on Country radio don't hit the top 10 on the Hot Country Songs chart because they don't stream well enough. Certainly can't compare eras from decades ago to today.
"What I Want" is being promoted to Pop radio so it should be on the Radio chart soon. I believe it even debuted on Country Radio at #55 last week due to curiosity spins. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 02 June 2025 at 7:00pm
To Ed's point, "Flowers" by Miley Cyrus spent about 60 weeks at #1 (!) on the AC chart. How can a song possibly be so popular that it's the most played song in that genre for over a year. Not a top 100, top 40, or top 10, but #1. But such is the nature of charts these days. |