Updated Billboard Top 100 Singles, 1958-2015

That sounds about right.

 

When I think of Singles, I think of the 60's. That is when almost everyone I knew actually bought them.
Looking at the list I don't see much from the 60's made it.
Sad.

 

There was much more quality competition during the height of the rock era.

 

While I'm familiar with most of the songs on the list, and enjoy a number of them, as far as I can tell, I only own one (Bobby Darin's cover of "Mack the Knife"). Kind of crazy considering the size of my collection. I guess I'm just not very hip.

 

I'm ashamed to admit I have about 1/3 of these.....gratified Marvin Gaye is quite high though.

 

Where's Bobby Morrow, btw? Usually he's all over a thread like this one. I hope he's OK.

 

So did I.

JcS

 

Wow, what a weird list. I would really like to know how they calculated it (there's a brief explanation but they omit where it gets complicated/convoluted).

 

Chubby Checker tops the list, and only one Elvis.

The moving finger writes...

 

Yeah, but note the years covered. Many of Elvis' major hits predated August 1958, which is when the chart being used started.

JcS

 

I have a Billboard Albums book from 1996 or so, and it gives the formula in it. I will try to look tonight if someone doesn't find it and post it between now and then.

JcS

 

Thanks for the offer, but I'm sure their process is even more complicated and convoluted in 2015

 

65 out of 100... always been very eclectic, however very surprised by some titles, for example Savage Garden at n. 36.

 

What a mess of a list!!!

 

I have all of those songs on CD and iPod. I like them all, some more than others. But it's still confusing as to how they tabulate lists like this. One thing I noticed years ago when I started following Billboard is that songs that last longer on the charts often tend to outrank songs that charted higher but stayed on the charts less time. For instance, you might think that Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" would rank higher on the list considering it spent 14 weeks at #1, but it only spent 26 weeks on the chart in its first chart run and then 3 more weeks in 2012. Whereas, LeAnn Rimes' "How Do I Live" peaked at #2 but spent 69 weeks on the chart (including a record 32 weeks in the Top 10 alone) and ranks at #4. So it seems like chart longevity is a big factor in how high a song ranks in lists like these. On the other hand, Imagine Dragons' "Radioactive" currently holds the record for most weeks on the chart with 87 weeks (peaking at #3), and it didn't even make this list at all. It all seems very confusing to me. As for "The Twist", I wonder if it was given extra points in their tabulations for hitting #1 twice (and being the only song in the Rock Era to do so) . A combined total of 3 weeks at #1 and 39 weeks on the chart alone doesn't sound like enough to give it a #1 ranking on a list like this.

 

I remember when Billboard put together its first version of this list - if menory serves, it was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Hot 100 in 2008. Without explaining exactly how it did so, it used a weighted formula to compare charts of the pre-Soundscan/BDS era to the later charts so that the final version wouldn't be utterly dominated by hits from 1992 and later.

 

Maybe--but this from the Billboard site seems more straightforward than I remembered: "These all-time rankings are based on actual performance on the weekly Billboard Hot 100 (from its launch on Aug. 4, 1958 through Oct. 10, 2015) and Billboard 200 (from Aug. 17, 1963 — when we combined our two leading pop album album charts for stereo and mono releases into one all-encompassing weekly chart — through Oct. 10, 2015). Titles are ranked based on an inverse point system, with weeks at No. 1 earning the greatest value and weeks at lower rungs earning the least. Due to changes in chart methodology over the years, eras are weighted differently to account for chart turnover rates over various periods."

What I recall from the book was that a song got extra points for each week it remained at #1, giving a song that spent 4 weeks at number one more than 400 points for those weeks.

JcS

 

I would have thought it was just the opposite--songs on the charts after the change would be more likely to zoom up and down, especially after the vinyl 45 and CD singles no longer were a market force. I know albums were jumping up to the top quickly and then sliding down when the hardcore fans had bought in the first couple of weeks.

That phrase "chart turnover rate" makes me wonder if there is less competition now, and thus easier for a song to rest atop the charts longer (which is what you are saying, I think).

But I readily admit, I've not researched it a bit.

JcS

 

Songs started charting longer in the 90's.

 

I bought fully 49 of those records and about 15 of them get the 'WTF was I thinking?' now.

 

I don't really buy that. Maggie May for instance was waay bigger than some of those.

 

I think what is amazing about that list, that despite all the new songs on there, The Twist is still the #1 Billboard song of all time. It did not spend that many weeks total at #1 as other songs did, but it is the only song in that list that has the distinction of peaking at #1 in two separate years, 1960 and 1962

 

When talking about "big" songs, there's always going to be the "big" difference between airplay and sales. As someone noted earlier, "Abracadabra" jumped out at me -- but not because of the weirdness that that's Steve Miller's biggest hit, but that it sold more than "
"You're So Vain." Maybe it's that YSV was so ubiquitous that many people felt no need to buy it.

No getting around that this is a really strange list, though. A Weakest Link battle is definitely in order!

 

I kinda like a handful of songs on that list. None that I love.

I would rather listen to any random top 50 chart 1963-68 than that list.

 

"Top" ain't what it used to be.