Will U2 ever again reach #1 on the BB Hot 100?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
phanan said:
Are you certain? I read somewhere that Vertigo had about 30,000 and Speed Of Sound had 44,000 (both numbers reflect first week sales), although to be quite honest I can't recall where I saw that and if it referred to only the U.S. or the entire world.

EDIT:

After some searching, I have found this article regarding music sales. The last paragraph is specific to Vertigo.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/11/biz_musicsales11.html

And then this article, from Billboard, states the 44,000 figure for Speed of Sound:

http://www.billboard.com/bb/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000901122

Am I missing something?


Good work!

I think what people are confusing are total downloads vs. weekly downloads. I think "Vertigo" has more downloads total.

Also, I think that at the time, "Vertigo" had the most downloads ever. "Speed of Sound" charted high mostly based on downloads - the airplay really hadn't kicked in yet at all. And the song down the charts quickly after its debut, suggesting total downloads were waning.

In contrast, "Vertigo" rose on the charts - showing that airplay was increasing. Furthermore, it held the top spot on the download charts for several weeks. All of this combined definitely would have made "Vertigo" a top 10 hit for U2. I would argue that it would have even reached the Top 5. Whether it hit #1 or not is debatable - but there was an outside chance.

Of course, this is my big problem with Billboard's Hot 100. They are constantly changing how the songs chart. This is good in a way as Billboard needs to keep current. However, it's also bad in that one can't compare eras. Based on airplay alone, I can guarantee you that "Speed of Sound" would NOT have hit #8 on the Billboard Hot 100. Yet, Coldplay have this Top 10 hit due to the change in the charting format. It's not fair then to compare "Vertigo" and "Speed of Sound" - two songs released just months apart - because different charting procedures were used. But history doesn't look at this - history will just see that "Speed of Sound" reached #8 and "Vertigo" reached #31, so "Speed of Sound" was the far bigger hit. And I truly question if that is true.
 
doctorwho said:
Of course, this is my big problem with Billboard's Hot 100. They are constantly changing how the songs chart. This is good in a way as Billboard needs to keep current. However, it's also bad in that one can't compare eras.

But that's inherent to any chart. It's even the same within a 'chart era'. Was ATYCLB or Radiohead's Kid A the bigger hit? That last one reached #1 on the Album 100 a few weeks before ATYCLB (which reached #3), yet Kid A's first week sales were less than half of ATYCLB. But history will only tell that Kid A reached #1.
And the same holds for the singles chart. Was Vertigo or Beautiful Day the bigger hit. BD peaked higher, but for the rest? We don't know for sure, as so many other factors need to be counted in.
It's always difficult to compare songs from different periods, not just chart era's, but also from those only weeks apart. But we can be lucky that position isn't based anymore on spins on the jukebox. :)

C ya!

Marty
 
Popmartijn said:


But that's inherent to any chart. It's even the same within a 'chart era'. Was ATYCLB or Radiohead's Kid A the bigger hit? That last one reached #1 on the Album 100 a few weeks before ATYCLB (which reached #3), yet Kid A's first week sales were less than half of ATYCLB. But history will only tell that Kid A reached #1.
And the same holds for the singles chart. Was Vertigo or Beautiful Day the bigger hit. BD peaked higher, but for the rest? We don't know for sure, as so many other factors need to be counted in.
It's always difficult to compare songs from different periods, not just chart era's, but also from those only weeks apart. But we can be lucky that position isn't based anymore on spins on the jukebox. :)

C ya!

Marty


Ah, but see, in an album chart, while ATYCLB did only reach #3, one just needs to look at total sales (that 4x Platinum certification sure looks pretty when compared to "Kid A") and how many weeks it spent on the charts to determine the bigger impact the album had. And also, while ATYCLB "only" reached #3, that's not so low that people won't see it wasn't a big sized hit. It would have been different if ATYCLB only reached #33 or something.

And that's the problem with the singles charts. Albums charts are based on sales - that's it and that's all. They always were about sales, even in the days before SoundScan. Admittedly, there were estimates and corruption in the "old era", but one can still compare chart eras. The biggest disparity is how long albums would stay at #1 in the old era vs. today. But overall, the eras can at least be compared.

In contrast, the singles chart keeps changing. When one song charts at a comparatively rather low #31, yet clearly had a bigger cultural impact, it's tough to compare to a song released months later that charted at #8 almost entirely due to downloads. As I wrote above, "Sound of Speed" quickly fell down the charts after that initial burst - showing that not only were the downloads waning, but the airplay wasn't there to support it. That #8 was reached based on download sales. "Vertigo" debuted at #45 and rose on the charts - showing that airplay increased. Additionally, it stayed at #1 on the download charts for several weeks - even returning to the top once it fell! So if "Vertigo" had downloads added to its total, it would have easily hit the Top 10 and stayed there for a while.

This is why I'd rather see Billboard break up the eras of their charts. Divide the Hot 100 by the criteria they used to create the chart. This way, all songs that charted in Nov. 2004 were based on the same criteria - and won't be compared to songs charting now which have a different criteria (diito for comparing now to the songs from the 50's or 60's, etc.).
 
doctorwho said:



Ah, but see, in an album chart, while ATYCLB did only reach #3, one just needs to look at total sales (that 4x Platinum certification sure looks pretty when compared to "Kid A") and how many weeks it spent on the charts to determine the bigger impact the album had. And also, while ATYCLB "only" reached #3, that's not so low that people won't see it wasn't a big sized hit. It would have been different if ATYCLB only reached #33 or something.

And that's the problem with the singles charts. Albums charts are based on sales - that's it and that's all. They always were about sales, even in the days before SoundScan. Admittedly, there were estimates and corruption in the "old era", but one can still compare chart eras. The biggest disparity is how long albums would stay at #1 in the old era vs. today. But overall, the eras can at least be compared.

In contrast, the singles chart keeps changing. When one song charts at a comparatively rather low #31, yet clearly had a bigger cultural impact, it's tough to compare to a song released months later that charted at #8 almost entirely due to downloads. As I wrote above, "Sound of Speed" quickly fell down the charts after that initial burst - showing that not only were the downloads waning, but the airplay wasn't there to support it. That #8 was reached based on download sales. "Vertigo" debuted at #45 and rose on the charts - showing that airplay increased. Additionally, it stayed at #1 on the download charts for several weeks - even returning to the top once it fell! So if "Vertigo" had downloads added to its total, it would have easily hit the Top 10 and stayed there for a while.

This is why I'd rather see Billboard break up the eras of their charts. Divide the Hot 100 by the criteria they used to create the chart. This way, all songs that charted in Nov. 2004 were based on the same criteria - and won't be compared to songs charting now which have a different criteria (diito for comparing now to the songs from the 50's or 60's, etc.).

One thing that can be compared are the "Airplay Only" charts for the HOT 100. With Or Without You, ISHFWILF both hit #1 in airplay. Desire hit #5, One #7, Mysterious Ways #11, Discotheque #22, Beautiful Day #19, Vertigo #31.

The sell of singles has not been very relevant since the early 1980s. With the I-tunes craze taking off now, this may change.
 
doctorwho said:



Good work!

I think what people are confusing are total downloads vs. weekly downloads. I think "Vertigo" has more downloads total.

Also, I think that at the time, "Vertigo" had the most downloads ever. "Speed of Sound" charted high mostly based on downloads - the airplay really hadn't kicked in yet at all. And the song down the charts quickly after its debut, suggesting total downloads were waning.

In contrast, "Vertigo" rose on the charts - showing that airplay was increasing. Furthermore, it held the top spot on the download charts for several weeks. All of this combined definitely would have made "Vertigo" a top 10 hit for U2. I would argue that it would have even reached the Top 5. Whether it hit #1 or not is debatable - but there was an outside chance.

Of course, this is my big problem with Billboard's Hot 100. They are constantly changing how the songs chart. This is good in a way as Billboard needs to keep current. However, it's also bad in that one can't compare eras. Based on airplay alone, I can guarantee you that "Speed of Sound" would NOT have hit #8 on the Billboard Hot 100. Yet, Coldplay have this Top 10 hit due to the change in the charting format. It's not fair then to compare "Vertigo" and "Speed of Sound" - two songs released just months apart - because different charting procedures were used. But history doesn't look at this - history will just see that "Speed of Sound" reached #8 and "Vertigo" reached #31, so "Speed of Sound" was the far bigger hit. And I truly question if that is true.

I agree. Vertigo should be the bigger hit, yet because of the change in the chart, it won't look that way. Although Speed Of Sound had a bigger debut week (from what I can tell) it wasn't able to sustain those sales over the course of the first month like Vertigo. Whereas Speed Of Sound had a nice debut and subsequently fell rather quickly, I think Vertigo would have had a similar debut and probably would have rose a few spots within the next few weeks. A Top Five position is definitely a good estimate.
 
STING2 said:


One thing that can be compared are the "Airplay Only" charts for the HOT 100. With Or Without You, ISHFWILF both hit #1 in airplay. Desire hit #5, One #7, Mysterious Ways #11, Discotheque #22, Beautiful Day #19, Vertigo #31.

The sell of singles has not been very relevant since the early 1980s. With the I-tunes craze taking off now, this may change.

Agreed. The only major anamoly is Discotheque, which despite only reaching #22 on the airplay chart, hit #9 on the sales chart which helped spur it on to a #10 position on the Hot 100.
 
phanan said:


Agreed. The only major anamoly is Discotheque, which despite only reaching #22 on the airplay chart, hit #9 on the sales chart which helped spur it on to a #10 position on the Hot 100.

It actually hit #2 on the sales chart. The single sold almost 60,000 copies the first week of release.
 
^ It's funny how the band keeps acting like their latest album reaches out to a new audience, yet it was "Discotheque" that probably fared the best in reaching people that NEVER would've really listened to the band otherwise (techno junkies)....
 
STING2 said:


It actually hit #2 on the sales chart. The single sold almost 60,000 copies the first week of release.

We must have two different sources. According to the Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn (my music bible :wink: ) it only hit #9 in sales. It did hit #1 on the Modern Rock Chart, though.
 
Has anyone got the full history of U2's chart performance on the Hot 100 AIRPLAY charts? One correction to STING 2's short list is that Vertigo reached #30 not #31.

By the way, although SOS fell pretty quickly after debuting at #8, it eventually rose back up to #10 indicating that airplay eventually took over from sales.
 
phanan said:


We must have two different sources. According to the Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn (my music bible :wink: ) it only hit #9 in sales. It did hit #1 on the Modern Rock Chart, though.

Joel Whitburn latest edition must have a mistake. I remember going into the Newstand back in mid February 1997 to look at the latest Billboard Magazine to see how Discotheque did on the chart. I had told everyone the previous week to buy the single the week of release as I had a feeling it would chart very high. I was stunned to see the results. I can't remember which artist kept U2 from the top slot, but I do know that it hit #2 on the sales chart.

If anyone has access to old Billboard Magazines from a Library, they will be able to confirm this. Notice that back then, Sales counted for 50%, while airplay counted for the other 50%.

#2 Sales + #22 Airplay, is obviously going to produce a HOT 100 chart position of around #10. On the other hand, #9 sales + #22 Airplay, would probably produce a HOT 100 position of around #15. Of course, its not exact, just a rough estimation for a time when sales and airplay were counted equally.
 
STING2 said:


Joel Whitburn latest edition must have a mistake. I remember going into the Newstand back in mid February 1997 to look at the latest Billboard Magazine to see how Discotheque did on the chart. I had told everyone the previous week to buy the single the week of release as I had a feeling it would chart very high. I was stunned to see the results. I can't remember which artist kept U2 from the top slot, but I do know that it hit #2 on the sales chart.

If anyone has access to old Billboard Magazines from a Library, they will be able to confirm this. Notice that back then, Sales counted for 50%, while airplay counted for the other 50%.

#2 Sales + #22 Airplay, is obviously going to produce a HOT 100 chart position of around #10. On the other hand, #9 sales + #22 Airplay, would probably produce a HOT 100 position of around #15. Of course, its not exact, just a rough estimation for a time when sales and airplay were counted equally.

Well, unless there's a typo, it wouldn't be a mistake, that's for sure.
 
phanan said:


Well, unless there's a typo, it wouldn't be a mistake, that's for sure.

Just to add, Joel Whitburns books do have typo's in them and they are based on the chart information that is posted in billboard magazine, which is what I was looking at.

But, the only to confirm the whether it hit #2 or #9 on the sales chart is for someone to go back and look at that particular issue of Billboard Magazine from February/March 1997.
 
Back
Top Bottom