Singles that weren't hits but are now considered classics!

...because, remember: neither Oldies stations nor Classic Rock stations, are beholden to the chart positions of years past. Oldies (when there used to be more stations that were that format) and Classic Rock stations, were designed to exist in the time and mindset of the audiences they target at the present moment, not to some slavish approximation of charts that are no longer relevant. You do research on what the audience says they like that very moment, because those are the target audiences you are after.

It simply does not matter if some guy with a statistics book in his hand says, "hey, you forgot that song, and it was a Top 10! Wahhh!" Those charts existed back when those were the only songs that radio station was playing at that point in history, and are irrelevant. You want accuracy, go to a museum. You want entertainment, go to a radio station that's reflecting your tastes at this very moment.

 

Exactly. Also, most people do not have that broad a memory when it comes to music nor do they have as broad tastes. There are even people who bought the 45s at the time and listened to them a lot as a youngster but do not necessarily remember the songs as time goes by and when they go back and listen to them, they may not necessarily like the song today. There were people who liked Chuck Berry and Fats Domino but weren't necessarily the same people who liked Johnny Mathis and Andy Williams despite these acts in the Top 40 around the same time period.

 

The Underground Sunshine had the single of "Birthday" but the Beatles' original gets the airplay as the Beatles' original is more popular with the masses.

 

Transmission went to #2 (it's debut position) when it was finally released in New Zealand in 1981.

The other two Joy Division singles released here, Atmosphere and Love Will Tear Us Apart, both went to #1 on their 1981 release. And this was despite all three singles only being available as a much more expensive 12" single.

 

No, that's not true. Like any all or nothing statement. Charts of the past are not "irrelevant." . Like any historical document, like any statistical records, they tell us something. Lots of things, They may not tell a programmer of an oldies station today what to play (or which version). Because an oldies station today has nothing to do with art, creativity or humanity. They are 100% business. God forbid they should play even one cut that is not in the Top 100 of the songs that were most popular of the thousands of people surveyed in the exact demographic they are laser-focused on. (Never mind that 500 other stations are playing the exact same songs.) Take a chance, put on a long-forgotten single of high quality and no one, despite the instantly grabbing intro played by the greatest musicians of all time (i.e, the Wrecking Crew), will stay for one second. They're out of there, on to the next station, never to come back.
There is real evidence that people actually are entertained by a little variety now and then, but I'm not gonna argue this with someone who is in the business and knows so much. But I will say the most popular oldies internet station in the world has a wide and varied playlist. You can listen for a week and maybe only hear a few songs twice. And real radio stations like college stations that play music from varied times and genres and introduce new music have solid, loyal audiences, and those people are going to be an important part of society and the mass consumers.
But charts tell us lots of things. For instance, they tell us that "Michelle" received huge radio play and sold a lot of records. It was all over the radio, like other Beatles covers that were hugely successful. Whether people remember the artist or not, the fact that these non-singles by The Beatles, shrewdly selected by people who had an ear for hits and could make decent records, like, say, George Martin, who not only picked "Michelle" but produced the hit version by David and Jonathan, became part of the mass consciousness, part of the culture, because of those cover versions. Even then, when these songs were made hits by other artists, everyone knew they were Beatles songs. But like it or not, if you step out of your Beatles Bubble, the general public would not be aware of most of those songs without the cover versions. I know it's almost impossible for people in a Beatles Bubble to believe it, but I have no idea what "Revolution #9" sounds like. I've never heard the White Album all the way through. I know the non-singles Beatles cuts almost exclusively because of hit, or at least radio hit, cover versions. Thank God Robert Palmer covered "Not A Second Time". I would have entirely missed out on what is now one of my 5 favorite Beatles songs.
So charts of the past may be perceived as irrelevant to a radio station programmed by a computer or by someone reading demographic data off a computer. But in reality, they aren't.
And who knows what might happen if a program director (do they exist anymore? what function could they possibly serve?) used just a little tiny bit of imagination?

 

And to think that for me A Girl Called Johnny will always remain that, along with the two you mentioned AND A Man Is In Love. Can't wait for December 3rd to roll around!

 

Bowie - "Heroes"

 

Everything you said is true, especially in the populist mentality.

When I say old charts are "irrelevant" (and have done so many times on this board), I am usually referring to the irrelevancy in the context of why somebody doesn't understand why a Top 10 hit in 1973, or a Number One from 1965, isn't heard to his satisfaction on a radio station, playlist, music service or stream, with the same frequency those older charts used to imply about their significance.

The main reason I say "irrelevant", is because the music chosen for these modern stations, streams, playlists or whatever, are because those charts were week-by-week research, a snapshot of a time that does not exist when Joe Sixpack or Molly Minivan turns on a radio now, in 2021, with years-after-years of weeks-after-weeks of musical memories to draw from. Moods change, while ink on a paper does not. And the research that takes the current mindset into account when choosing a limited number of songs for a station, stream, music service or whatever...not what one week of radio listenership or one week of record store purchases was like in some distant past.

Of course, obviously your musical memories were fashioned by input from charts which were used to determine which free music would come out of your radio the very next week. Of course, George Martin decided this artist would cover that song because he knew too many Beatles songs were already on the radio so he knew he could get a hit if he asked somebody else to record the same song and put their name on the label. And of course, there are always the exceptions today, of radio stations which play more and by your own estimation "are quite popular" (until an old number-one hit like "My Ding-A-Ling" comes on, and people tune out to go directly to their competition, be it another station, or Twitter or Netflix).

I'm only saying, as apparently people here need to be reminded constantly, just because a song hit a sale metric position on a piece of paper in a stack of pieces of paper from years past...doesn't mean that same information is relevant today.

In fact, that information became irrelevant...the very next week. And every week thereafter.

 

It was a No 3 hit in the UK

 

I hitchhiked up to Louisville right after I graduated high school in 1978. This song was played constantly from Riverdale, Ga to Louisville and back. Loved it at the start, by the time I got home I never wanted to hear it again.

 

What charts are we referring to? It depends which you reference. Rockin in a Free World reached #2 on Billboard’s Mainstream Rock Tracks chart.

 

Yup.

 

Top 100 chart, which is the only one that really matters in terms of a song actually being big. You can be #1 on one of the slice-and-dice charts, like Mainstream Rock, and have little penetration in popular culture.

 

I don’t know. That song was huge on MTV. I’m not so sure that the top 100 is as meaningful once you reach the video era when we talk about pop culture.

 

Maybe the more accurate question is why was a single a massive hit in one territory and a flop in another. There is a marked difference in tastes and popularity of artists/bands across the various nations of the world. Although some bands are universally popular they often find different responses to the same tracks in different lands. The US & UK have some fascinating stats. Superstar acts including Elvis, Sinatra, The Beatles and Madonna can have an iconic No1 single in either the UK/US which failed in the other nation or never got a release on 45. River Deep Mountain High- Ike & Tina Turner sank without trace in the US but was a No3 hit in the UK. Several US No 1 hits for the Beatles were never released as singles in the UK. Elvis had a UK No1 with Wooden Heart- never released in the States. Lulu scored a massive US No1 with To Sir With Love but it was relegated to the B Side in the UK and never charted. Can't Take My Eyes Off You - Frankie Valli was a US No2 but failed in the UK- Andy Williams had No4 UK hit with his version year later which failed in the US. 9 to 5, arguably Dolly Parton's best know song was a US No1 but again failed on the UK chart- Journey's Don't Stop Believing also bombed in the UK, eventually charting in 2010. There are hundreds of similar examples. I've chosen these 4 as a starter. It should also be noted that back in the day many US/UK hits were covered by artists who were more successful in their own territory, resulting in the original never being released or loosing out in the battle for airplay and ultimately chart success.

 

That’s such a great podcast.

 

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about! A word salad tossed in the air!

 

There was a poor note for note cover released in the UK which reached the UK Top 10.

 

That poor cover was by Dolly Parton's brother, David. Actually introduced me to the song.

 

I guess English doesn't translate well over there. Or is that just your way of saying, "I don't agree with what your saying, so I'm just going to insult it as gobbldegook..."

 

Excellent summary.

 

This is all true and as you say there's a thousand other examples, of which I could rattle off 50 or so in 5 or 6 minutes. My question is, is this actually news to anybody here? Back in 1971 I knew some Beatles songs were hits here and not in the UK and vice versa. I wasn't a graduate in the study of popular music. I was barely a teenager. I remember the English band the Fortunes had a big hit here called "Here Comes That Rainy Day Feeling Again" that completely bombed in their own country. I'm surprised that anyone in this forum would find this to be enlightening. Specific examples, sure. I just found out that Steely Dan had only two Top 40 hits in the UK, and only one of those made the Top 20 – "Haitian Divorce" - which was released as a single at the same time in the US and didn't chart or even bubble under. That's interesting, and probably news to some people. But the fact of these international differences? Is this news? If so, well, I'm glad some people learned something. But I just thought that people, at least around here, would've already known that..

 

Never assume that people are as well informed as you! I've made that mistake many times in my 60 years on this planet. Just take a look at the world today... one would assume folks have a reasonable degree of intellect, basic knowledge, respect for science and expertise and common sense... but it seems like there's a fair number of fruit loops living among us and they don't all wear tin foil hats, other forms of head gear appear to be their preferred choice...

 

I speak English as it should be spoken in the land where it originated. Your comment doesn't make any sense, it IS gobbledegook. I've read it several times, I want to get a handle on it but you really should have another go. I know your trying to make an important contribution to the thread. It might help to keep it simple?

 

Good point. I try not to think too much about those fruit loops, but it doesn't mean they're not out there. They most certainly are.
However, SHF is a subset of music lovers that I have assumed from the start were a lot more savvy than your average music fans. Also, I think any fruit loops here would stick out very quickly and get banned.
As far as savvy, I must say that my expectations have exceeded the breadth of my experience, at least in the areas of pop and rock music. And of course various people are experts in areas I know nothing about, and vice versa. And like you, I'm always willing to share my knowledge and maybe inform some people about something they didn't know. It's fun and sometimes people find it interesting. (Unless it's about those behind-the-scenes, non performing songwriters that are my heroes. Just like in the general public, the percentage of people here who care, much less know about them wouldn't register as statistically significant enough to be even mentioned on a poll. That was the biggest surprise and disappointment for me since I joined.)
It's a mixed bag. Yes, what's very old news for me could be new for someone else. But these kinds of facts regarding dIfferences in international releases and success of records/songs come up so often in discussions here that I couldn't conceive of anyone not knowing them. So I would would never have written an essay about it. But it's good that you did.