by jon » Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:27 am
You actually have to dig pretty deep -- or just have lived through the period, and still retain your memory -- to get Oldies right. Joel Whitburn's Billboard-based Top Pop Singles books are extremely well compiled, in terms of being statistically correct in the way they analyze the Billboard Hot 100 over time. But still, the results are very skewed during certain time periods.
(1) At least through the end of the 1950s, and perhaps beyond, it was heavily influenced by "non-Top 40" stations and non-Top 40 dayparts on stations that did play Top 40. Example - look at how poorly Little Richard charts in Top Pop Singles. "Long Tall Sally" is his biggest hit at #6.
(2) By the late 1960s, a significant number of radio listeners bought albums instead of singles. This meant that sales of Singles was no longer a valid way to measure a song's success. Example - look at how well Bubble Gum charted. Younger teens still bought singles. Many older teens preferred albums.
(3) I'm not so sure about this one, but, from the people I know, the Disco era saw a lot of them turn off their radios. Given there was a smaller pie of Top 40 radio listeners during that period, should a #1 for 6 weeks Disco hit be rated as highly, as a #1 for 6 weeks Beatles song? Admittedly, that argument would also hurt the earliest Top 40 hits, since it took a little time to build the kind of huge audiences that Top 40 Radio had a few years later. Especially when adults joined the ranks when the Twist suddenly became "acceptable". But, I would argue that those '50s hits were so well known as Oldies by that "later audience" that the familiarity is certainly there.
Finally, of course, Billboard does not reflect how well songs did in your Market. But, with all the migration of folks from one area to another over the last 50 years, how many Local or even Regional Hits should be played?