Sorry, this is a long post, and yes, it does have more than one question (of course, feel free to only answer the ones you like  :)).

This has been a recent trend on this site, where people would deny a certain genre's popularity or dominance (particularly grunge) because it didn't do as well on te Hot 100 as some other genres at the time. To me, this is an understandable misconception for someone who isn't much of pop culture or music buff, but some people on this site are much more educated and well rounded than that that still do this. Grunge especially. I mean look at Pearl Jam - they were HUGE - 'Ten' sold 12 million copies by 2000 while doing very poorly on the Hot 100 (their hgihest charting single from the album was Jeremy, and that only reached #73...in 1995!). Their follow up album 'Vs.' broke the record for most albums sold in one week and stayed at #1 for five weeks in 1993, selling eight million copies, and their biggest hit from that album didn't even break the top 90. Eddie Vedder even appeared on the cover of Time magazine!

I'm sure its confusing to some why this is, and that's understandable, but here's the reason: the Hot 100 is a combination of singles sales and radio airplay, which means the poppiest and most accessible are going to dominate that chart (which is why 'one hit wonders' that have poor albums but really catchy singles are usually at #1), and keep in mind that VIDEO airplay plays no role. MTV played the HELL out of Jeremy when it started gaining momentum (the video wom 4 MTV music awards, including video of the year), but commercial radio for the most part was very reluctant. The same deal with Nirvana, though their singles sales were higher and radio was a little less reluctant than with Pearl Jam. It's all because commercial radio is afraid of change, and they always have been. It takes time for them to realize that this new music is what people like and the constant getting rid of the 'old guard' per se continues.

Look at glam metal. In 1983 the only band doing well on the singles charts was Def Leppard (Quiet Riot was doing okay), but the albums charts tell a different story - Motley Crue, Def Leppard, and Quiet Riot were all selling millions, and Ratt and Twisted Sister were soon to follow. By 1987 the genre was dominating popular radio, it just took a while for them to realize that they could rely on Glam Metal (and hair metal) to maintain appeal. In the late 70's it was the same situation. Disco dominated, and while New Wave was definitely popular around 1979, it wasn't til around 1982, when MTV got big, that New Wave really started to be a force on the radio and singles charts. We could stretch it back to Acid Rock if I wanted, since Hendrix only had one top 20 hit but was huge regardless.

Oh, and back to grunge - once radio realized what was up, they started to change again, but unfortuantely only post-grunge (with a few exceptions) received any real airplay (by 1999 Creed had a #1 song and Nickelback did again in 2001). For the 90's, the real domianting force on the singles charts was R&B, with groups like Boyz II Men and TLC releasing hit after hit, but R&B didn't do nearly as well in album sales as grunge or crossover country (the latter of which didn't do too well on the singles charts either until Shania Twain came along). There's no doubt R&B was big, but despite its success, I doubt it was any bigger than gangsta rap, which did much worse in terms of singles but just as well in album sales. Grunge was far more dominant. This actually brings up another question too: Do newer forms of media (such as MTV or, in a more modern sense, the internet), really kick of some genres and force the older medias to change their musical preferences to keep up with the times? This can be seen with the internets influence on the popularity of emo/pop-emo today. Is this why certain genres (such as Glam Metal or Grunge) were seen as cool and edgy at first but were rejected once they got to the point where they were literally everywhere?

I've sorta noticed that too. I think grunge was more of a cultural impact, so even if the songs didn't chart very high on pop radio, its influence was everywhere up through 1996 or so. Not just music but in things like fashion too. I think that's when you know something is really huge, so that's probably more important than chart success.

I mean "Ice Ice Baby" was huge in '91 and look how much of a joke Vanilla was. ;D


Do newer forms of media (such as MTV or, in a more modern sense, the internet), really kick of some genres and force the older medias to change their musical preferences to keep up with the times? This can be seen with the internets influence on the popularity of emo/pop-emo today. Is this why certain genres (such as Glam Metal or Grunge) were seen as cool and edgy at first but were rejected once they got to the point where they were literally everywhere?

I think that's a very accurate statement. I think it takes something like that to get record companies to take notice of what's popular.

There's this five-part series VH1 did around 1999 that I have on tape (I'll have to see if I can upload it to youtube at some point) where they talked about MTV and the impact of music videos on the pop industry. It was really interesting, and one of the things they talked about was how it was hard for newer, non-established bands who weren't totally safe and mainstream (at the time, like leftover '70s adult contemporary or AOR) to get on the radio. They said too, that was basically the only way to get widespread exposure back then too. It was only when new wave and stuff like Michael Jackson started to explode on MTV (circa 1982 and '83) did the industry start adapting.

To some extent you could say the same thing is true today (since like '05/06) as far as being in a slump. I think downloading and YouTube or Myspace is a much better idea for what's popular than what you'd hear on the radio.

Sorry, this is a long post, and yes, it does have more than one question (of course, feel free to only answer the ones you like  :)).


  I suggest using paragraphs, VegettoVa90.  Breaking a long post into paragraphs makes it easier to read...

Speaking of radio, I've always thought The Smiths, Oingo Boingo, and even The Cure (they were... in the later '80's) were mainstream or very popular until a few years ago...

I look at both certainly Nirvana and Pearl Jam were huge artists and the hot 100 of course favors pop/r&b/hip-hop/soft rock kinda music that can crossover to as many formats as possible. Though many artists in the '90s that had success on the hot 100 also sold many records, like TLC, Mariah Carey, Boyz II Men. There are a lot of aspects to popularity, the Hot 100 is just one of those. There's a lot of songs that chart real high on the hot 100 but aren't really well remembered at all, like say Nina Sky or Kevin Lyttle who had this "huge" hits a few years ago now have seemingly vanished from the planet. There's also a certain "it" factor that an artist has to have to be remembered something that distinguishes them from other artists at the time or makes them stick out in some way, Nirvana definitely had that.

It is definitely true that the position of singles on the Hot 100 don't reflect what is truly popular.  You can see this clearly with the Emo of the 00s.  My Chemical Romance has only had two Top 40 singles, yet some of their songs like "Teenagers" (which hit 67 on the Hot 100) have millions upon millions more views on youtube than other, more successful Top 40 songs.  Same goes for a lot of the other most popular Emo bands.  Emo may have been one of the defining music trends this decade, at least for teenagers, but its actual performance on the singles charts (even the Rock charts) has been lackluster at best.

I think you notice this phenomenon moreso with Rock music than with other forms of music.  Personal experience has taught me that Rock fans tend to be more likely to actually buy or download entire albums.  A lot of the Pop/Rap fans I know only care about the singles and never actually get the entire album.  Look at how Soulja Boy's "Crank That" was #1 for weeks, yet his album debuted at a terrible #4 on the charts.  Flo Rida also had "Low" at #1 for 10 weeks, yet his album also only debuted at #4 and has yet to sell the 500,000 needed to go Gold.  By way of comparision, a band like Radiohead can have an album debut at #1 (as In Rainbows did earlier this year), yet not have a single Top 40 single to their name.

What VegettoVa90 stated is a trend that still continues today.  As Brian said earlier, there are many aspects to popularity.  Hot 100 is one of these, album performance is another, and internet success is yet another.  Personal experience has taught me that certain forms of music tend to do better with certain aspects than others.

^ Yeah, I've noticed that about rock as well. I wonder if it's because (other than, say hair metal) it's less trendy, so they build up more of a devoted fanbase who buy their albums sight unseen, and go to their concerts. The Rolling Stones are still successful like that, even if "Start Me Up" in 1981 was probably their last really big hit. Or Metallica with that St Anger album, even as terrible as it was (with most copies probably resurfacing in the used section, lol).

Rock bands seem to also make big profits from touring, largely for the same reason I think.

I also think "album tracks" tend to be better with rockers. Even though I'm personally more of a pop fan, lots of pop albums are a great single and maybe a couple more decent songs, but it's mostly filler. There's lots of '80s bands I'm into (i.e. Hall and Oates, The Cars, Police) where their singles are awesome, but the albums are usually so boring!

A fun thing to do is to scan down artists that made only the Top 40 in  a given years vs. how many artists went to the Top 10.  You find a surprising number of Top 10 hits have been utterly forgotten and a lot of artists who merely made the top 40 got famous over time. 

  I suggest using paragraphs, VegettoVa90.  Breaking a long post into paragraphs makes it easier to read...


I second that.  I never even read the main post becuase it's too hard on the eyes without paragraphs


You'll find lots of people who think only the songs that were in the Top 40 are the ones that matter.  Hits are hits no matter how high they chart, and I know this from experience because alot of the songs I grew up hearing on the radio were far from the Top 40

Perfect example:

Modern English: I Melt With You

This song never even made the U.S. Top 40, but it was huge on MTV and, at least in the Boston market, received substantial FM airplay.  I remember hearing it on the radio quite a lot in 1983; it was also big on college radio. 

Then, of course, it was in "Valley Girl" and has had a life of its own in TV commercials subsequently.
8)

I'll probably get trashed for saying this, but I'm pretty much a "greatest hits" type of person since I only have compilatation CDs, 'Best of', and only a few full albums. I have many records, but don't listen to them much...

I'll probably get trashed for saying this, but I'm pretty much a "greatest hits" type of person since I only have compilatation CDs, 'Best of', and only a few full albums. I have many records, but don't listen to them much...


Nothing wrong with that.  I like buying original albums, but I love greatest hits, too. 

I'll probably get trashed for saying this, but I'm pretty much a "greatest hits" type of person since I only have compilatation CDs, 'Best of', and only a few full albums. I have many records, but don't listen to them much...


I usually buy compilation CDs myself.  I'd rather get more value for my buck rather than buying a CD with only one or two songs that I like.

Perfect example:

Modern English: I Melt With You

This song never even made the U.S. Top 40, but it was huge on MTV and, at least in the Boston market, received substantial FM airplay.  I remember hearing it on the radio quite a lot in 1983; it was also big on college radio. 

Then, of course, it was in "Valley Girl" and has had a life of its own in TV commercials subsequently.
8)



Another example could be 'I Want Candy' by Bow Wow Wow.  Often cited on many TV shows about pop music and frequently appears on 80s compilations released to the States, but it too was out of the US Top 40