Race, gender, and the Billboard Top 40 charts between 1997 and 2007

Abstract

An earlier study published in Popular Music and Society examined the gender-related trends on the Billboard Hot 100 music charts between 1997 and 2007 (Lafrance, Worcester, and Burns). Taking frequency distributions as indicators of gender equality, the authors found that male hits on both the sales and the airplay charts outnumbered female hits by a wide margin. More specifically, their findings demonstrated that male artists had more extreme highs and less extreme lows than female artists; men’s worst showings of the decade were often just a few hits away from women’s best showings, and most gender-related trends were not consistent across the sales and airplay charts. Using the same data sets, this paper extends the earlier study by combining the variable of race with the variable of gender. In doing so, it describes the race-related trends on the charts in question while considering them within the context of the gender-related trends reported by Lafrance, Worcester, and Burns. Our key findings indicate that black artists chart more often than white artists; black male artists have more chart success than both black and white female artists; most race-related trends are consistent across the sales and airplay charts, and musical genre must be taken into account in order to understand fully the relationship between race and chart success. In addition to providing a critical assessment of our findings, the paper presents a reflection on two unexpected methodological issues encountered over the course of our research: first, the conceptual complexities of coding for race, and, second, the problems associated with taking frequency distributions as indicators of equality.

Notes

1. It is important to note that the audiences in question—that is, the sales chart audiences and the airplay chart audiences—are likely to vary over time, across space, and according to the medium on and through which the music is accessed. For more on this topic, see Bhattacharjee et al., and Tham.

2. It is worth noting that “Top 40” songs are not created equal: the impact of #40 is different from the impact of #1, and the difference in impact between #39 and #40 is not the same as the difference in impact between #2 and #1. Though we do not explore differences in chart rank in the current study, we do explore them in our previous study. For more on this topic, see Lafrance, Worcester, and Burns, 564–566.

3. On its website, Billboard maintains that factors such as time-of-day and audience size are also used to determine airplay rankings. For more on this topic, see https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/ask-billboard/5740625/ask-billboard-how-does-the-hot-100-work.

4. Our choice of charts is all the more relevant given that both the Top 100 singles sales and the Top 100 airplay are component charts; that is, charts that determine the position of singles on the Billboard Hot 100. In the United States, the Billboard Hot 100 is the standard chart used to determine popularity of a song.

5. ITunes became the top music retailer in the US in 2008 (Apple).

6. We decided to exclude featured artists because, as a general rule, they are more transitory than primary proprietors, making the latter rather than the former more representative of the hit song’s artist.

7. For more on the implications of combining solo artists and group ensembles when coding for gender, see Lafrance, Worcester, and Burns (559–60).

8. AllMusic is widely known as the internet’s largest and most influential database. For more on this topic, see Smith.

9. See Brackett (20–22) for a discussion on the historical implications of the “race music” label.

10. For more in-depth discussions of the Billboard categories of race music as well as its R&B and Hip Hop charts, see Harrison and Arthur; Molanphy; Myer and Kleck; Ramsey; and Whitburn.

11. This technology is known as the Broadcast Data System.

12. This technology is known as the Portable People Meter.