
It’s Wednesday morning, so before I even checked my e-mail, I surfed over to this website that lists the weekly sales chart for digital singles. The list is a good indicator of which songs will be riding high on Billboard’s Hot 100, which will be published online tomorrow.
In some form or another, this has been my weekly routine since 1991. I love music charts. I love statistics about music charts. I love knowing that Madonna has the most top ten singles of any pop artist in history, unless you use a slightly tweaked method that puts Elvis two songs in the lead. (It’s not worth getting into the details there. Trust me.)
Similarly, I really dig Oscar trivia. Most acting nominations? Meryl Streep, of course. Youngest acting winner? Tatum O’Neal, Paper Moon. I’ve got loads of this stuff in my head, where I suppose the information about changing my oil or baking my own bread might go.
But why? Why do I like this stuff? Why do so many people like it? I’m asking because this morning, my friend Nelson, who runs this theater company, sent me a link to this fascinating blog post from Bill Simmons at ESPN Magazine.
SImmons argues that we should rank actors just like we rank sports stars, with statistics and point values and all that stuff. That way, he says, we can “validate” our perception of an actor’s greatness with quantifiable proof, the way that knowing Ty Cobb’s career-high batting average can validate our understanding of his awesomeness.
Simmons upends his thesis in his conclusion, though, essentially arguing that actor stats would be just as silly as sports stats are. “The truth is,” he says, “you’re either great or you’re not,” and nobody needs a list of numbers to prove it.
A very good point, sir! I don’t need to know that “Respect” was a number one hit to know that it’s a great song, and the fact that “It’s the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)” only peaked at #69 on the Hot 100 doesn’t mean it isn’t a classic. And even in the more objective world of sports, where you either hit a home run or you don’t, I don’t need to know Babe Ruth’s lifetime averages to understand that he was a great ball player.
In fact, all statistics and ranking systems are marked by some kind subjectivity. No matter the claim, there’s always an asterisk beside it. Case in point: No Dobut’s “Don’t Speak” never appeared on the Hot 100 at all, because it was technically ineligible to chart. So doesn’t that complicate the achievements of songs that were number one during “Don’t Speak’s” heyday?
Yet for all my deep-down knowledge that it doesn’t really prove anything, I am still addicted to this kind of information.
So I ask again: Why? Why do so many of us care about easily manipulated, often distorted statistics? Is it what Simmons said, that they “validate” what we believe to be true? But if that’s true, why do we need validation? Or is there something else going on here, something about the basic human need to create order?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. And even if you just thought, “Psssht. I don’t need some stupid chart to tell me I love a song or a tennis player. I’m a free-thinker!”, I’d encourage you to consider other places in your life that are affected by somewhat arbitrary rankings. Everybody’s got some kind of “chart” that affects them, and I’d love to hash out why.