Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How were records released back then?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How were records released back then?

    I recall on the radio that Beatles are still the only group that had hits that were ranked #1,2,3,4,5 for a week. No artist have accomplished that. Because it's from radio, there is no link. Don't matter, because it's not far from the truth, and that's not the meat of the question.

    Sure, Micheal Jackson may have #1, #7, and #15 at the same week. All from the Thriller album. This happened because the record company strategically release each song, at a specific time. If they have to hold back a release because the other song was still at the top of the charts, they often do. Nonetheless, it was timed, and planned. Imagine if (just about) every song from the Thriller album was released at once. I bet we would see #1,2,3,4,5.

    Question. Was there some sort of order or plan for the Beatles releases? If there were some time between each releases, then that would mean the Beatle hits really stayed at the top of the charts that long? I was too young to remember any Beatlemania.

  • #2
    Re: How were records released back then?

    On the Billboard Hot 100 chart of April 4, 1964, the top 5 were:

    1. Can't Buy Me Love - The Beatles (Capitol)
    2. Twist and Shout - The Beatles (Tollie)
    3. She Loves You - The Beatles (Swan)
    4. I Want to Hold Your Hand - The Beatles (Capitol)
    5. Please Please Me - The Beatles (Vee Jay)

    "Twist and Shout" and "Please Please Me" did not go to #1 on the U.S. Billboard chart.

    I don't think there was any master plan except that this chart accomplishment came after The Beatles probably got a lot of airplay after their performance on the Ed Sullivan Show on CBS back in February of the same year.

    The first official Capitol records release was "I Want To Hold Your Hand". It was released in late 1963, hit the Billboard Hot 100 in January 1964, climbed to #1 and stayed there for 7 weeks before gradually falling off.

    In the meantime the second Capitol single was released, "Can't Buy Me Love". That shot up from #27 to #1 on the April 4, 1964 chart.

    Older non-Capitol issue (at that time) singles became radio and chart active and somehow got into the top 5 that same week, hence the 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 spots locked in.

    I used to be a chart follower back in the late 60s and most of the 70s picking up issues of Billboard Magazine, listening to Casey Kasem's American Top 40 show and local radio countdown shows.

    The Bee Gees had 5 songs in the top 5 in 1978... but this was songs they had written for either themselves or other artists... with 3 of the songs coming off the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack album.

    1. Night Fever - Bee Gees
    2. Stayin' Alive - Bee Gees
    3. If I Can't Have You - Yvonne Elliman
    4. Emotion - Samantha Sang
    5. Love is Thicker Than Water - Andy Gibb

    4 of the 5 songs reached #1 with Samantha Sang's "Emotion" peaking at #3. All were released on Robert Stigwood's RSO label except "Emotion" which was issued on Private Stock records.

    Wikipedia has a list of interesting Billboard chart achievements.
    I'm still here. Are you?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How were records released back then?

      Originally posted by mel View Post
      I don't think there was any master plan ...
      Especially when you see that the releases are on four different labels. Capitol was a little late to the game and early Beatles releases came out on other labels in the US.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: How were records released back then?

        Good info.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How were records released back then?

          Originally posted by mel View Post
          I used to be a chart follower back in the late 60s and most of the 70s picking up issues of Billboard Magazine, listening to Casey Kasem's American Top 40 show and local radio countdown shows.
          I was an avid chart-follower, too, but perhaps a decade behind Mel. Although my knowledge of popular music doesn't even approach Mel's or Leo's, my friends (at least) are generally impressed by what I remember about [insert band name here] in any conversation that turns to music. I attribute a great deal of this simply to reading charts. Flipping through records at the record store was a big part of this education, too. There's a reason I know that Bitch's first full-length album was called Be My Slave. But I digress.

          Like Mel, I followed the Billboard charts (which I believe now to be a near-total crock in the pre-1991, pre-Soundscan days) but also religiously picked up the printed KIKI lists at the local music stores and when I was in intermediate school, I used to keep track of 98 Rock's Wednesday album countdown, which was much, much more interesting to me because it was all rock. Remember when KIKI had a listener-survey-generated countdown, years before Radio Free Hawaii had its over-hyped, overrated survey-generated play lists?

          The Bee Gees had 5 songs in the top 5 in 1978... but this was songs they had written for either themselves or other artists... with 3 of the songs coming off the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack album.
          I remember this. It was like the Bee Gees owned pop radio, and I didn't mind. They became my second favorite group right at this time (replacing KC and the Sunshine Band). I was nine years old and thought "Emotion" was the greatest song ever. I had a Bee Gees 45 ("Tragedy," perhaps) with a B-side of the Bee Gees doing "If I Can't Have You." Not nearly as good (or as sexy) as Yvonne Elliman's, but still pretty dang good.

          I'll get myself back to the topic and say that those charts showing the Bee Gees and the Beatles in the top five spots really don't satisfy the part of me that needs accuracy. Sure, the general feeling at the time must have been that the Beatles owned the five most popular songs in the country, but I've worked in retail and have seen where it SEEMS like one thing is the most popular thing in the store until you look at the inventory and realize that something else has quietly outsold it. Who in the world knew that Garth Brooks was the most popular musician in the nation until Soundscan took over the Billboard charts? The day I saw that first chart showing Garth Brooks at number one, a lifetime of religious chart-following took on a new meaning, as if realizing the God I'd believed in all my life was the creation of marketers. How Billboard got away with it for so long baffles me and infuriates me. How many great bands lost record deals or even concert attendance because of some made-up list that had no science behind it? How many faded quickly into obscurity because their lone hits fell off the made-up charts as rapidly as they jumped on? Gr!

          "Hey Jude" legendarily debuted at number one and stayed there for ten consecutive weeks. That means nothing to me anymore. Stupid Billboard.
          Last edited by scrivener; April 7, 2011, 09:02 AM. Reason: "don't know why i'm suriving every lonely day..."
          But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
          GrouchyTeacher.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: How were records released back then?

            I agree with you totally, Scriv. Charts are very easily influenced in various ways, and so are playlists.
            Back when I was doing FM radio in Los Angeles in the 70s, the record companies used to bring in all their new releases each month and each DJ got a copy. Funny thing, inside each of our records was almost always a gram of coke wrapped in a hundred-dollar bill.
            The chart for sales leaders of Hawaiian music was also fixed. The weekly reports all came from one Tower Records store on Keeamoku, and certain musicians/labels would send in a bunch of friends to buy a bunch of their albums to increase the sales numbers. The leaders on the charts were usually just those who sent in the most people. The staff at Tower knew what was going on but they never said anything publicly; they just collected their percentage of the sales and smiled. The musicians/labels didn't mind paying for the sales, since most of the money (and the CDs) came right back to them.
            I know this from personal experience from an album I was on, and from other musician friends too.
            As for playlists, one Hawaiian radio station wanted us to give them 65 free copies of our CD and $10,000 cash to get on the playlist. We didn't.
            Music is a business, as too many musicians sadly learn.
            .
            .

            That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: How were records released back then?

              Originally posted by mel View Post
              On the Billboard Hot 100 chart of April 4, 1964, the top 5 were:

              1. Can't Buy Me Love - The Beatles (Capitol)
              2. Twist and Shout - The Beatles (Tollie)
              3. She Loves You - The Beatles (Swan)
              4. I Want to Hold Your Hand - The Beatles (Capitol)
              5. Please Please Me - The Beatles (Vee Jay)

              "Twist and Shout" and "Please Please Me" did not go to #1 on the U.S. Billboard chart.

              I don't think there was any master plan except that this chart accomplishment came after The Beatles probably got a lot of airplay after their performance on the Ed Sullivan Show on CBS back in February of the same year.
              Actually, the Beatles were already getting tons of airplay on radio in the US weeks before their debut on Ed Sullivan. (I Want To Hold Your Hand was #1 for a couple of weeks by the time they made the Fab 4 appeared on Ed's Show.) Sullivan's show exposed the Beatles to a wider demographic, esp. the older folks who did not normally listen to Top 40 radio. The kids were already record-buying customers.

              As you say, the Beatles monopolizing the top 5 positions on the Billboard Hot 100 wasn't part of a master plan on the part of the Beatles, their management, or their record label (Capitol). Basically, it was the result of every American record company with Beatles recordings trying to cash in on Beatlemania at the same time. Capitol Records passed on releasing Beatles products in the US in 1962-63. So smaller labels like Vee Jay, Tollie, and Swan took them on, with very little in the way of initial sales. But once Beatlemania took hold in America, these small labels suddenly found themselves sitting on mini-goldmines. They had the rights to the earlier recordings of the world's hottest group, and they took full advantage by re-issuing and pressing as many 45s as they could before their licenses expired.

              Originally posted by mel View Post
              The Bee Gees had 5 songs in the top 5 in 1978... but this was songs they had written for either themselves or other artists... with 3 of the songs coming off the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack album.

              1. Night Fever - Bee Gees
              2. Stayin' Alive - Bee Gees
              3. If I Can't Have You - Yvonne Elliman
              4. Emotion - Samantha Sang
              5. Love is Thicker Than Water - Andy Gibb
              To be more precise, it was Barry Gibb who was the only person to have writing credit on all five of these songs. Barry, Maurice, and Robin wrote Stayin' Alive, Night Fever, and If I Can't Have You. Barry and Robin wrote Emotion, while Barry and Andy teamed up for Love Is Thicker Than Water.
              This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: How were records released back then?

                They were dropped.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: How were records released back then?

                  Originally posted by LikaNui View Post
                  As for playlists, one Hawaiian radio station wanted us to give them 65 free copies of our CD and $10,000 cash to get on the playlist. We didn't.
                  Music is a business, as too many musicians sadly learn.
                  Yet another ideal bites the dust (snif).
                  Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
                  ~ ~
                  Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
                  Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
                  Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: How were records released back then?

                    Originally posted by scrivener View Post
                    I'll get myself back to the topic and say that those charts showing the Bee Gees and the Beatles in the top five spots really don't satisfy the part of me that needs accuracy. Sure, the general feeling at the time must have been that the Beatles owned the five most popular songs in the country, but I've worked in retail and have seen where it SEEMS like one thing is the most popular thing in the store until you look at the inventory and realize that something else has quietly outsold it. Who in the world knew that Garth Brooks was the most popular musician in the nation until Soundscan took over the Billboard charts?.
                    Here are my responses:

                    1) The Billboard Hot 100 chart was never just about unit sales. From its origin in 1958, it was always the product of a combination of sales and radio airplay. The exact formula and the means of extracting the data has changed and evolved over the years. But the Hot 100 was never strictly based on sales.

                    2) Nielsen's SoundScan may have been a better system than what Billboard used previously to track sales numbers. But as this article shows, SoundScan is not perfect. And there are still ways for record labels to game the system and manipulate the charts.

                    3) As far as the plausibility of the Beatles having the top 5 records during the week of 4/8/64 goes,.... keep in mind that Beatles generated a fan frenzy and hysteria that the world did not see before, or has seen since. This website gives a pretty good overview of the box-office drawing power the Fab 4 had during their 1964 and '65 American tours. Nearly every show was a sellout, oftentimes within the first day tickets were made available. Not to mention the thousands of fans who gathered at each airport to greet the Beatles in every city. You think this kind of extraordinary fan reception could be sustained if the Beatles' sales/recording achievements were the product of artificial hype and marketing? I dunno 'bout dat.

                    Originally posted by scrivener View Post
                    "Hey Jude" legendarily debuted at number one and stayed there for ten consecutive weeks. That means nothing to me anymore. Stupid Billboard.
                    Hey Jude did not debut at #1. It started at #10, which was then a record-high for a Hot 100 debut.

                    But it's interesting that the concept of #1 debuts irritates you, as this achievement did not take place on the Billboard Hot 100 until 1995, which was AFTER SoundScan was implemented. Michael Jackson first accomplished the feat with "You Are Not Alone." And even more intriguing,.... after MJ accomplished the #1 debut, which was unprecedented in the history of the Hot 100 for 37 years up to that point, 3 other songs matched that feat over the following 3 months!!! Record labels began withholding radio/music video hits from being released as singles until they reached their peak in airplay. Then when they suddenly put the song out as a single,.... BOOM! They had a #1 debut on their hands. It got to the point that Billboard eventually had to change its rules in order to make it harder to achieve a #1 debut.

                    I guess my point to all this is,... monkey business and manipulation may have influenced the charts during the 1950s-80s era. But in different ways, it still goes on today.
                    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: How were records released back then?

                      Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                      1) The Billboard Hot 100 chart was never just about unit sales. From its origin in 1958, it was always the product of a combination of sales and radio airplay.
                      Oh, I know. Casey Kasem made a point of explaining it every week on the AT40. My feeling (perhaps incorrectly) is that there was a lot less science behind it and a lot more feeling. When I was at a college radio station, I know the program director took a look at the logs and submitted a weekly report to CMJ but I could tell only certain shows' playlists were being watched, and they didn't represent a majority of the airplays.

                      2) Nielsen's SoundScan may have been a better system than what Billboard used previously to track sales numbers. But as this article shows, SoundScan is not perfect. And there are still ways for record labels to game the system and manipulate the charts.
                      Yes, I'm fully aware of that. But at least record sales are at the heart of the formula. And yes, I know the system can still be gamed. The same has been true of the NYT best-seller list (another list whose credibility I question, now that it doesn't stick to sales numbers; the USA Today chart seems to be much more credible now). There are great stories of Church of Scientology members buying cases of Dianetics from bookstores and then sending them back to the publisher. Stories used to abound telling how bookstores would receive shipments of new Dianetics books that already had the store's price stickers on them.

                      3) As far as the plausibility of the Beatles having the top 5 records during the week of 4/8/64 goes,.... keep in mind that Beatles generated a fan frenzy and hysteria that the world did not see before, or has seen since. This website gives a pretty good overview of the box-office drawing power the Fab 4 had during their 1964 and '65 American tours. Nearly every show was a sellout, oftentimes within the first day tickets were made available. Not to mention the thousands of fans who gathered at each airport to greet the Beatles in every city. You think this kind of extraordinary fan reception could be sustained if the Beatles' sales/recording achievements were the product of artificial hype and marketing? I dunno 'bout dat.
                      Yes, yes, yes. I'm too young to remember it but I'm aware of it. I don't question the Beatles' chart- and culture-domination. What I'm saying is that it would be nice to know that these chart positions were determined with some amount of hard data, data that I don't think Billboard really worked that hard to ensure the accuracy of.

                      Hey Jude did not debut at #1. It started at #10, which was then a record-high for a Hot 100 debut.
                      Ah heck. It's amazing what we think we remember. I wonder how that got stuck in my head.

                      But it's interesting that the concept of #1 debuts irritates you, as this achievement did not take place on the Billboard Hot 100 until 1995, which was AFTER SoundScan was implemented.
                      The concept doesn't irritate me at all. What irritated me was the (erroneous, it appears) thought that this legendary song had such a claim, but that the claim was built on a ridiculous system. There are things in life whose rankings should be meaningful and based on hard numbers, such as who the class valedictorian is or who's got the lowest-priced eight-cylinder car. I think record charts should strive for that kind of meaning.

                      It got to the point that Billboard eventually had to change its rules in order to make it harder to achieve a #1 debut.
                      I actually think Billboard shouldn't interfere. If that's what the sales numbers looked like, that's what it should report.

                      I guess my point to all this is,... monkey business and manipulation may have influenced the charts during the 1950s-80s era. But in different ways, it still goes on today.
                      Yes, and I don't dispute that.
                      But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
                      GrouchyTeacher.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: How were records released back then?

                        At least a good portion of pre 80s music played on radio had merit and staying power, we'll be digging most of those tunes forever, whereas who cares a whole week later about the drek served up the last 3 decades? It's immediately disposible music for perpetually distracted minds that gets airplay today, and most importantly it makes $$ for the undeserving guilty.
                        Gotta love this http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/vid...rst-song-ever/ and yet, if Bob Dylan were trying to break into music today he'd die a beggar, or maybe not... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FISH...layer_embedded I actually almost like this!
                        Last edited by Ron Whitfield; April 10, 2011, 11:48 AM.
                        https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: How were records released back then?

                          Originally posted by Ron Whitfield View Post
                          At least a good portion of pre 80s music played on radio had merit and staying power; we'll be digging most of those tunes forever, whereas who cares a whole week later about the dreck served up the last 3 decades? It's immediately disposable music for perpetually distracted minds that gets airplay today, and most importantly it makes $$ for the undeserving guilty.
                          (spelling errors corrected)

                          You're certainly entitled to this erroneous opinion, but it is sooooo wrong. Pop radio has always been pop radio and the overwhelming majority of what got played at the time did NOT have staying power. You're remembering what gets played NOW from those earlier times, so of course it has staying power: it's the stuff that gets played.

                          If you're like most of us, you don't really spend much time today listening to pop radio, so you might not catch the good stuff, because you do have to sort through the dreck. But as we've said here many times before, it is each generation's JOB to like music that previous generations dislike. It was easier for us to listen to pop radio in our own times because that was the good stuff, according to us. I'll bet a quick flip through your record collection would yield an enormous list of songs that are incredibly awesome but never get played on the radio anymore.

                          Something must be said about the way pop radio has changed. Everything is so compartmentalized (in general) that what's really pop rock is what you hear on alt-rock stations, and what you hear on pop stations is really pop-R&B. Top 40 stations in the 80s played both those forms, plus pop-country, pop-rap, pop-punk, pop-new-wave, and pop-whatever-you-can-think-of. The lack of this variety in pop radio today doesn't mean good stuff across the genres isn't being made: it means you have to work harder to hear it, especially since some musicians are choosing other ways to connect audiences with their music.

                          It would be great to offer you a list of very, very good music made in just the past five years that we'll still be hearing twenty years from now, but the truth is that only time reveals that. There's just no way of knowing what's going to be held onto. Would you have guessed that Fleetwood Mac's "Landslide" (1975) would be covered with some chart success by two prominent acts in these past nine years? I wouldn't have.

                          In a way, I don't blame you for dismissing recent music. Finding the good stuff is a lot of work sometimes. I pursue new music partially because I don't want to be one of those old guys who thinks rock and roll peaked during my youth and nothing good has happened since, but also because I try to stay a step ahead of my students, who are also a good source of info about what's going on today. Music is as important to young people today as it was to us in our youth, and I make it a point to be up on whatever they're listening to. Yes, most of it sucks. But a lot of it is quite good.
                          But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
                          GrouchyTeacher.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Maybe the stations you listened to in the 60/70s weren't playing worthy/lasting/timeless music, but mine were. I didn't waste time listening to shlock, and everything I liked then, I like now, plus I learned early on there was tons of high quality music long prior to my era. I don't listen to radio for new music anymore but I do find decent newer stuff on the net and new-to-me 60/70s music which is still superior in most ways. Today's production quality has improved, that's about it and not always even a good thing. The ratio of good vs bad music produced has always been in favor of bad/mediocre, but that stuff usually didn't make it to air, now that's all you find. The machine worked much better for quality listeners back then, and they still raked it in. But I've always searched for good stuff that didn't air, and at 15 my record collection numbered over 300, most of which were bootlegs and imports, even the 'normal' discs being mostly of the kind not too many post-underground stations would consider, quality radio instilled that urge to search for more. And let's review, Jimi Hendrix was as rock as they come, yet was still considered 'pop' in the 60s. The term 'rock' covered a lot of diverse ground then, not so much now. Even the kids say my era was way better, across the board, and they've only heard the tip of the iceberg, not even thinking of anything pre '66. No, in '75 I would not have thot Landslide would have been so great as to cover it now, we were too busy looking forward, now that's an easy way to quick success all too many use, yet they don't improve on the song at all, which was always a sin most avoided.
                            https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: How were records released back then?

                              I think everyone who has made a response to this thread has some valid or at least some interesting points to make. I am not going to reply in detail otherwise I'd spend the rest of my day replying.

                              That said, I am old, but I like a lot of "new" music that is out now or that has been released in the last 2 or 3 decades. It is a matter of finding what you like and discarding/ignoring the crap.

                              And I still hold on to and cherish all of the music I liked from when I was growing up and even before that. I have found some old music that I did not grow up with to be "new" that I now like.

                              A song called "Whole Wide World" is a tune I found on Scrivener's blog that I never heard before. It came out in 1978 and has now been added to my iTunes library. Good song.

                              I like many of the old country and western songs that my Mom loved when she grew up and now many of those are part of my iTunes collection.

                              In the end when I look at what I play the most on my iTunes, it is mostly newer songs...though I have a lot of respect and reverence for the older songs that I have always liked, even the obscure, silly ones that are never played on radio anymore. Check out my huge 74,000+ playlist log I have on Last.FM. It shows what I listen to the most... good stuff and others may be crap to some of you.

                              Music is personal and I play what I like.
                              I'm still here. Are you?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X