| Author |
|
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 9:09am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul, what source did you use for Canadian #1's? Wikipedia almost exclusively
cites "RPM", whereas Billboard printed "The Record" in their magazine. Never
certain what is 'official'.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 9:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
jebsib wrote:
Paul, what source did you use for Canadian #1's? Wikipedia almost exclusively
cites "RPM", whereas Billboard printed "The Record" in their magazine. Never
certain what is 'official'. |
|
|
I'll have to double-check with Joel (he compiled the list). But I believe he used the CHUM charts from 1957-64 and the
RPM charts from 1965-89.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 10:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
Then on 12-5-98, Billboard changed the Hot 100 formula
from a combo of singles sales + pop radio station
airplay to an 'everything plus the kitchen sink' chart
= singles sales + airplay from pop + R&B + rock +
country. Thus 'pop' music on the Hot 100 became
devalued. In my opinion, Billboard should have kept
the pop Hot 100, and created a new separate
'everything' chart.
|
|
|
It had to change. When you had massive airplay hits like Don't Speak, Iris which never charted you basically are not properly representing what was on radio and massive at the time. While I don't like today's album bombs the practice really did not start until Taylor Swift's Fearless. If there is one thing I would fix, it would be making sure entire albums cant chart at once, only the songs meant to be the promoted singles at the time they are promoted by the label.
For me a better division of the books that reflects the Hot 100 change would be 1955-1998 and 1999-2021, but oh well I don't make the decisions!
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 11:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Back in 1973 I bought my first RR publication "1955-
1972 Top Pop Singles". It was a paperback book, yellow
cover, and cost a whopping $30 ($184 in today's
dollars)! Had to save all my allowance and paper route
money. I have bought every Top Pop Singles since, but
that will stop with this new edition. I understand the
need to break the book up into volumes, but Joel's
vision of using 1989 as the break point is silliness.
I view this book as a final edition for these years so
it will never be updated - only Volume 2 will be
updated going forward.
I would have chosen a break date where the Hot 100
significantly changed. There could be debate over
which date, but some have suggested 12/5/98. This was
the beginning of the all-genre chart (in comparison to
a Pop chart) and the demise of the availability of a
single to purchase requirement. I have no qualms with
Billboard's decision, but the composition of the Hot
100 significantly changed that date and it's a natural
cut-off date for a book that is based on the Hot 100.
The 1990 Hot 100 was exactly like the the 1989 Hot
100. If you compare today's Hot 100 with those from
the 60s-80s the only characteristic they have in
common is 100 positions. During the past three months
the twitter feed @Army_Connect has single handily made
"Butter" by BTS the #1 song on the Hot 100. WTF.
So now we have the following situation for music
charts:
7/27/40-7/28/58 - combination of Pop charts (Sales,
Airplay, Juke Box)
8/4/58-8/29/98 - Hot 100 Pop charts
9/5/98-current date - Hot 100 all-genre charts
Maybe Volume 1 could be called "Top Pop Singles 1940-
1998" and Volume 2 titled "Hot 100 Singles 1998-2021".
While I still have tremendous respect for Joel (and
have donated mucho dinero to RR coffers), he is wrong
here.
On a side note, I really hate when Billboard compares
modern chart achievements with those from pre-1998.
Definitely apples to oranges.
Edited by Chartman on 09 August 2021 at 11:45am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 12:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Current situation reminds me of two other instances
with RR books.
The initial "Pop Memories 1890-1954" contained the
following combined sections:
1890-1940 - manufactured chart data from a variety of
sources
1940-1954 - manufactured data plus actual data from
Billboard's Pop charts (Sales, Airplay, and Juke
Boxes).
This book always bothered me because the 1940-1954
data was a mix of facts and opinion. Joel's vision
wasn't correct then and later RR updated the book as
"Pop Memories 1900-1940". Now it makes perfect sense
as none of the book's data was derived from an
official Billboard Singles chart.
The book "Hot Country Songs 1944-2012" incorporated
data from the new and improved (many say f*cked up)
Hot Country Songs chart Billboard revealed on
10/20/12. That was another RR mistake but fortunately
corrected in "Hot Country Songs 1944-2017" book as the
Country Airplay chart from 10/20/12 onwards was used
as the "official book" chart. The same philosophy
applies to the R&B charts but wasn't incorporated in
the "Top R&B Singles 1942-2016" book. Maybe future
editions will use the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay as the
official book chart.
While I appreciate the added features found in the new
Top Pop Singles, they do not provide much more than
what is contained in the 2018 edition. The charts the
past 3 year have really been "interesting" but not in
a good way. Suspect Billboard will be changing their
formulas and rules again.
I wish Joel and Paul all the best, but with this
latest Pop Singles Volume 1 choice and my
disappointment with the "Rock Tracks 1981-2020"
(mentioned awhile ago), I'm afraid this loyal customer
is no more.
Edited by Chartman on 09 August 2021 at 12:08pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul C
MusicFan
Joined: 23 October 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 789
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 4:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
EdisonLite wrote:
And Paul - this reminds me - a question about the
Billboard 2000's Hot 100 chart book. I have the book
but at the moment don't have time to go through every
page to answer this :) I remember there were about 2
or 3 weeks where Billboard published its Pop 100 and
not the Hot 100. It was dedicated to mainstream
airplay (and I believe sales) - and not the multi-
genre chart that the Hot 100 combined. Each week
was alternating: hot 100, pop 100, hot 100, pop 100,
and then always hot 100 again (or something like
that). In your decades book for the '00s, did it
just include the Pop 100 for the few weeks in
question? Or did it determine the Hot 100 (from the
"Last week column" of the next chart, to keep a
consistent Hot 100 for every week? I'm guessing it's
the first scenario; also, with the 2nd option, there'd
be a few gaps for songs that fell off the Hot 100 and
weren't on the next chart. |
|
|
What alternated for two months (May and June of 2005)
was that one week the Hot 100 would encompass a full
page and the Pop 100 half a page, and the next week
the Pop 100 would be a full page and the Hot 100 half
a page. This proved to be extremely unpopular, and
after only two months, Billboard went back to
giving the Hot 100 a full page every week. The four
weeks that the Hot 100 was only a half page were May
7, May 21, June 4, and June 18, 2005. In these four
issues, the Hot 100 contained no writer or producer
credits.
The Pop 100 existed from 2005 until 2010 (in its last
year it was available only online). Its methodology
was essentially the same as the Hot 100, except that
the airplay component was based solely on Top 40
airplay. Its methodology was actually very similar to
that of the Hot 100 from November 1991 until November
1998.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul C
MusicFan
Joined: 23 October 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 789
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 5:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
jebsib wrote:
Paul, what source
did you use for Canadian #1's? Wikipedia almost
exclusively
cites "RPM", whereas Billboard printed "The Record" in
their magazine. Never
certain what is 'official'. |
|
|
I'll have to double-check with Joel (he compiled the
list). But I believe he used the CHUM charts from
1957-64 and the
RPM charts from 1965-89. |
|
|
RPM was published from 1964 until 2000. The
Record published charts from 1983 until 2001.
There was no national Canadian chart prior to 1964.
Unfortunately, some people treat the CHUM chart from
1957-64 as the Canadian chart, but this is like
treating the chart of a New York station as the
American chart. (In both 1966 and 1967, a song reached
#1 on the CHUM chart without even making the Top 40
nationally.)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 5:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chartman wrote:
I would have chosen a break date where the Hot 100
significantly changed. There could be debate over
which date, but some have suggested 12/5/98. This was
the beginning of the all-genre chart (in comparison to
a Pop chart) and the demise of the availability of a
single to purchase requirement. I have no qualms with
Billboard's decision, but the composition of the Hot
100 significantly changed that date and it's a natural
cut-off date for a book that is based on the Hot 100.
|
|
|
I agree with you to a point, but I'd imagine the
decision to use 1989 as the cutoff was chosen as a
mid-point in the rock era.
Since when was the Hot 100 ever a pop-only chart?
I think you're blaming the messenger here...it's not
RR's fault that BB took so long to acknowledge that a
song could be a hit without being released as a
single. Yeah, the current charts are a mess,
personally IMHO the concept of a "Hot 100" is an
anachronism. There really are no across-the-board
hits anymore.
Paul C wrote:
There was no national Canadian chart prior to 1964.
Unfortunately, some people treat the CHUM chart from
1957-64 as the Canadian chart, but this is like
treating the chart of a New York station as the
American chart. |
|
|
So what would you do instead? Even if it was possible
to collate charts from every key Canadian station pre-
1964 to create a pseudo-national chart, radio charts
are subjective by definition.
Maybe a better option is to ignore Canadian hits older
than '64?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 6:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
I agree with you to a point, but I'd imagine the decision to use 1989 as the cutoff was chosen as a mid-point in the rock era.
|
|
|
If you want to argue in favor for 1989 as a cut off, you can look at it like Whitburn does as the end of the vinyl 45 age and the dawn of the Cassette/CD Promo/CD/Digital download era which is from 1990 on.
Today's Hot 100 is a hot mess of songs from all backgrounds, pop, country, r & b, hip hop etc. Not for the better. Plus the crazy album drops and of course whether something gets streamed on Tik Tok or Youtube factors in.
I miss the days when a hit was a hit. Now whole albums are a hit and the latest youtube sensation is a hit too...
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 10 August 2021 at 11:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
Since when was the Hot 100 ever a pop-only chart?
I think you're blaming the messenger here...it's not
RR's fault that BB took so long to acknowledge that a
song could be a hit without being released as a
single...
|
|
|
Obviously C&W and R&B songs made the Hot 100 since
it's inception, but as crossover hits, i.e. C&W and
R&B songs that were played on Pop Stations. Starting
with the 12/5/98 chart Billboard not only increased
the percentage of charts points from radio play, but
they also increased the number and TYPE of radio
stations surveyed. Consequently many songs that
received airplay on C&W and R&B stations only (and not
pop) made the chart (unlike before) and would not be
considered as crossover hits. That's a significant
change.
Per Joel Whitburn Top Pop Singles 1955-2002 page xi
"December 5, 1998, the date that Billboard introduced
its MOST REVISED revised Hot 100 EVER" and Top Pop
Singles 1955-2018 page 5 "On December 5, 1998,
Billboard debuted a completely revised Hot 100, which
included, for the first time, songs that were not
commercially available as singles. The revised chart
now included ALL FORMATS of music, so Country, Latin
and Christian music were well represented on the Hot
100 and Bubbling Under charts". This marked the end of
the old 1958-1998 Hot 100.
A quick look at the 12/5/98 chart shows that "I'm Your
Angel" by R. Kelly & Celine Dion had been on the new
Hot 100 (test charts) for 6 weeks and jumped from 46
to 1. This was the first appearance on the Hot 100 so
what kind of chart run would this song have had under
the old format? "From This Moment On" by Shania Twain
had been on the new Hot 100 for 27 weeks and jumped
from 34 to 5. This was its first appearance (although
the song had been on the Airplay chart for quite some
time) on the Hot 100. Whitburn notes in his "Billboard
Hot 100 Charts, The Nineties "On this date, Billboard
DRAMATICALLY revised their Hot 100-compilation
methodology".
Edited by Chartman on 13 August 2021 at 4:24pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 10 August 2021 at 11:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
PopArchivist wrote:
If you want to argue in favor for 1989 as a cut off,
you can look at it like Whitburn does as the end of
the vinyl 45 age and the dawn of the Cassette/CD
Promo/CD/Digital download era which is from 1990 on.
|
|
|
The official date when Billboard switched over from
the 45 to cassette single was the 7/28/90 chart. The
only change to the chart was the catalog number
listed. The charts noted that the "Catalog no. is for
7-inch vinyl single" prior to this date to "Catalog
number is for cassette single". The chart compilation
methodology wasn't changed at all. Does this change
really merit that much significance. You can decide.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Scanner
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: 13 August 2021 at 10:15am | IP Logged
|
|
|
After the publication of the Record World 101-150
book, I feel that Record Research began to lose sight
of its purpose – to provide an authoritative and
accurate picture of the charts without judgment,
embellishment and editorializing. Like others, I
purchased the 101-150 book assuming it would list
every song that ever peaked on Record World’s 101-150
chart. Every other Record Research book I purchased
to that point was that comprehensive. Instead, I
ultimately discarded an incomplete reference that only
included songs that never charted in Billboard.
Artist credits became judgmental instead of accurate.
Most people think “Whenever I Call You ‘Friend’” is a
duet. But, Stevie Nicks was never credited on the 45.
At some point, Record Research began crediting Nicks
for the song. Solo efforts by group members were
sometimes being attributed to the group instead of the
artist. Barry Gibb may have still been a Bee Gee when
he charted with his Streisand duets and his own “Shine
Shine.” But, Record Research has flipped between
crediting these to Gibb or to the Bee Gees. With this
new edition, we will be getting a Pop Singles book
that includes an arbitrary listing of “important”
albums released by the artist. If I want to reference
album data, I will purchase an albums book!
Now, we are dealing with another RR judgment in how
Pop Singles should be published. If date needs to be
the criterion, dividing the volumes between the record
(1955-98) and song (1998 – present) eras would have
been far more logical and consistent with the source
of the data, Billboard. The 1990s will always be a
flawed era for the Hot 100 as it did not reflect all
songs that were truly hits then. But, it was still a
record chart regardless of the physical format (vinyl,
cassette, CD) that dominated the marketplace. That
all changed on 12/5/98 when airplay only tracks could
chart and all music formats, not just pop, were
eligible. In the 1990’s, country songs like “Achy
Breaky Heart” and “It’s Your Love” reached the Top 10
mostly due to sales. If these songs were released
after 12/5/98, they could have possibly charted even
higher with their Country airplay also factored in.
Later, album tracks charted more frequently when
streaming exploded. As we have often discussed on
this board, this is when analyzing the Hot 100 became
an apples to oranges comparison. Nicki Minaj may have
charted more times than Aretha Franklin. But, how
many of Minaj’s songs were actually hits or even
intended to be singles as was required prior to 1999?
Billboard insists that the definition of “Pop” has
changed through the years and the Hot 100 has
reflected that. If one believes that, then this
reference should be split alphabetically to capture an
artist’s entire Hot 100 history. Some artists like
Cher and Santana achieved their greatest success in
the second volume, but most of their success in the
first. Other artists like Madonna and Whitney Houston
were equally successful in both volumes. I should not
need to reference two volumes to get the entire chart
histories of each artist based on such a subjective
criterion as when 45s ceased to be the primary
physical medium by which singles were sold.
This does make me wonder what will happen when the Pop
Albums book must be divided because it will be too
cumbersome to publish 60 years of data in just one
volume. If a date is chosen as the criterion for
publishing two volumes, what will it be? The start of
the Soundscan era? The Billboard 200 was tracking
sales before this date. Soundscan was just a
different means to do so. What about the introduction
of streaming and track equivalents to the album
charts? Back to apples and oranges again. How many
albums are charting high now because of the success of
just one or two of its tracks instead of the entire
album? The song “Fancy Like” by country artist Walker
Hayes is currently charting high on the Hot 100 and
Country Songs charts helping his “Country Stuff” EP to
climb the Billboard 200 and Country Albums charts.
One could easily assume the sales and streaming of the
other tracks on that EP are negligible and hardly
contributing to the chart placement of the EP as much
as “Fancy Like” is. Billboard would again state the
Billboard 200 reflects how albums are being consumed
today. If this was used by Record Research as the
cutoff, an artist like Taylor Swift would have her
chart history divided in two. Should Swift’s success
be looked at as when she sold albums versus streamed
them or as one cohesive whole?
From a sheer business standpoint, an alphabetical
split would require someone to purchase both volumes
each time the book is updated. You may need to spend
more money and resources to manufacture more books,
but you can also profit more by selling more books as
well! If this split sticks, future purchases will
only be for Volume 2. This will also create a
“volume” inconsistency. The new 1955-1989 book
(Volume 1) is the 17th Edition. Future 1990-20??
(Volume 2) will be 18th and higher editions.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 13 August 2021 at 12:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
That
all changed on 12/5/98 when airplay only tracks could
chart and all music formats, not just pop, were
eligible. |
|
|
I don't understand this way of thinking about a "Pop
Chart" versus an "All Genre" chart. Doesn't "Pop" mean
"Popular", meaning any song of any genre could make the
HOT 100 as long as it met the eligibility requirements?
We're all familiar with the many Country, R&B, Rap,
Metal, Easy Listening and such hits that have made the
charts prior to 1998, so I really don't get where the Hot
10O was ever anything other than "All-Genre".
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Scanner
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: 13 August 2021 at 1:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
...only if they crossed over. Take Rosanne Cash. She
scored 11 # 1 Country singles, but only one ("Seven
Year Ache") reached the Hot 100. (Another, "Blue Moon
With Heartache," bubbled under at #104.) Why? Pop
(then considered Top 40) radio played that song as
well. Today, it's a given that a # 1 Country Song
will reach the Hot 100 since its airplay at Country
(and all other formats) factors into its Hot 100
position unlike during Cash's commercial heyday in the
1980's. Without airplay at Top 40 then, Cash's songs
could have only charted if they sold very, very well.
Reba McEntire is another example. Prior to 12/5/98,
she only reached the Hot 100 twice with "Till You Love
Me" (# 78) and "What If" (# 50). Both songs were
available as cassingles and charted only based on
sales. After 12/5/98, Reba became a fixture on the
Hot 100 because now her country airplay was being
factored into the Hot 100 calculation. "Till" was a
#2 Country hit which could have been a much bigger hit
on the Hot 100 if its Country airplay was included.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 13 August 2021 at 4:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Scanner wrote:
...only if they crossed over. Take Rosanne Cash. She
scored 11 # 1 Country singles, but only one ("Seven
Year Ache") reached the Hot 100. (Another, "Blue Moon
With Heartache," bubbled under at #104.) Why? Pop
(then considered Top 40) radio played that song as
well. Today, it's a given that a # 1 Country Song
will reach the Hot 100 since its airplay at Country
(and all other formats) factors into its Hot 100
position unlike during Cash's commercial heyday in the
1980's. Without airplay at Top 40 then, Cash's songs
could have only charted if they sold very, very well.
Reba McEntire is another example. Prior to 12/5/98,
she only reached the Hot 100 twice with "Till You Love
Me" (# 78) and "What If" (# 50). Both songs were
available as cassingles and charted only based on
sales. After 12/5/98, Reba became a fixture on the
Hot 100 because now her country airplay was being
factored into the Hot 100 calculation. "Till" was a
#2 Country hit which could have been a much bigger hit
on the Hot 100 if its Country airplay was included. |
|
|
With all due respect, these examples still don't negate the chart being multi-genre prior to 1998. Comparing
both eras is an apples to oranges kind of comparison - different rules, different requirements for being
able to get on the chart.
If the Hot 100 hadn't been a mixture of all genres prior to '98, I seriously doubt that the chart would be
as revered as it is. It probably wouldn't be as quoted, collectors might not go to great lengths just to get
that obscure song that charted at #100 for 1 week and then dropped off, and many of us here may not be
frequenting forums like this. The mixture of different genres would appear to be a big reason why so many
people have followed the chart for so long. When you have say, Johnny Cash replacing Merle Haggard at #1 on
the Country Chart, that's great, but not unexpected because they're country artists. When you have someone
like Louis Armstrong, Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra all replacing The Beatles at #1, that's saying
something, considering that all 3 of them are about as opposite as you can possibly get from The Beatles.
It seems more accurate to say that the chart as of 12/5/98 allowed more songs from different
genres to chart, not that it just suddenly became all-genre on that particular date.
Edited by thecdguy on 13 August 2021 at 4:30pm
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 13 August 2021 at 4:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Scanner wrote:
After the publication of the Record
World 101-150 book, I feel that Record Research began
to lose sight of its purpose – to provide an
authoritative and accurate picture of the charts
without judgment, embellishment and editorializing.
Like others, I purchased the 101-150 book assuming it
would list every song that ever peaked on Record
World’s 101-150 chart. Every other Record Research
book I purchased to that point was that comprehensive.
Instead, I ultimately discarded an incomplete
reference that only included songs that never charted
in Billboard.
|
|
|
Interesting that you mentioned the "Hit Records 101-
150" book. Joel errored by not including all songs
that peaked at positions 101-150 (wondered when most
people found out), but I always wondered why didn't he
just come out with one book for the Music Vendor /
Record World charts that included all songs that made
the primary Top 100 charts plus their "bubbling under"
charts. On a side note here - Joel didn’t have a complete set of charts
as there were a few not at his disposal., i.e. 2/1/64 and 4/11/64. There
are 13 missing Looking Ahead songs plus “You Can’t Do That” by the
Beatles was #51 on 4/11/64 (it’s only week in the Top 100) which is not
reflected in any RR book. Worth a mention in his book. Also thought
Joel should have an errors and omission page on his website for these
inevitable occurrences, particularly for books that will not be updated.
He also had separate versions for Cash Box Pop
Charts and their Looking Ahead charts. A single volume
would have been nicer and matched what he did with the
Billboard charts. Joel finally put them all together
when he came out with the Comparison Book so he kinda
of caught on. I've said in the past, I just wish that
Joel had asked for opinions PRIOR to beginning work on
his projects.
Edited by Chartman on 14 August 2021 at 7:04am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 13 August 2021 at 4:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Scanner wrote:
From a sheer business standpoint, an alphabetical
split would require someone to purchase both volumes
each time the book is updated. You may need to spend
more money and resources to manufacture more books,
but you can also profit more by selling more books as
well! If this split sticks, future purchases will
only be for Volume 2. This will also create a
“volume” inconsistency. The new 1955-1989 book
(Volume 1) is the 17th Edition. Future 1990-20??
(Volume 2) will be 18th and higher editions.
|
|
|
So Volume 1 will be 1955-1989 covering 35 years.
Volume 2 will be 1990-2021 covering 32 years. Let's
start planning for Volume 3.
The current Pop Singles book is 1200 pages or so.
Volume 1 looks like it will be 850 pages per the RR
web site. I estimate that Volume 2 will be a bit
thinner than Volume 1, but that might change when it
gets the first update. Would it make more sense to
have a larger Volume 1 now (and smaller Volume 2) so
that the second could be update for a longer time
period before Volume 3 becomes necessary?
Joel had to provide something to encourage previous
customers to buy Volume 1. Cut out half the pop
singles, charge the same amount, but let's throw the
kitchen sink at them! The "new" stuff just increased
the size of the book, which was the primary purpose
for the split. Is anyone really excited about the new
format. The new stuff just made it less readable, in
my humble opinion. We'll see how many customers who
own 1955-2016 will be buying Volume 1.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AutumnAarilyn
MusicFan
Joined: 22 August 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: 13 August 2021 at 6:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Billboard originally had a philosophy in the creation
of all of its charts. It would reflect sales and
airplay at radio stations that programmed that format.
If a song sold well, that didn't always mean it was
huge on the pop chart. Billboard wanted to pinpoint
just how popular a song was in a given format and
amongst that group of listeners. There were actually
songs that did better on the pop chart than on R&B
which according to current methodology would be
impossible today.
Club playlists, radio playlists, and sales were
factored in when creating the myriad of charts.
Today's chart doesn't hone in the demographics like
calling stores that sold mostly R&B because stores are
less relevant today. Just because a song gets
downloaded alot doesn't mean it belongs on a certain
chart. There was never a style based criteria with
Billboard but a dedication to what the buyers bought
and what radio was playing in a given format. With
downloading we lost some of the demographic detail.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 14 August 2021 at 2:41am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Interesting comments here...
First off, I'm in complete agreement on the #101-150 book. I pleaded with Joel to include all the data, but that
would've delayed the book at a time when we needed to get it done. Thankfully, I was able to go back and research the
rest of it in time for the Comparison Book (which is my all-time favorite RR book).
I also made the argument about splitting the new Top Pop Singles book alphabetically, instead of chronologically, but
Joel decided otherwise. Again, his name is on the cover, so he makes the final decisions. FWIW, the orders have been
very good so far and the positive comments far outweigh the negative ones, at least from those who have called or e-
mailed us.
As for any future volumes, we just don't plan that far in advance. Who knows, maybe we'll find a way to get it back to
one volume again. If it's one thing I've learned over the past 30 years, it's to "never say never".
One last thought. As a former customer of RR, I think I'm able to share with Joel that perspective. I don't always
agree with how he does things, but I'm grateful that he started the company 51 years ago and that he hired me to work
on something that started as a hobby when I was just 8 years old.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 14 August 2021 at 5:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Personally, I think that RR made the right move by
splitting the book chronologically. Some may quibble
about where the dividing line should be, but it makes
more sense to me than splitting it alphabetically.
Yes, it pretty much makes the 1955-89 edition a one-
and-done purchase, and may split some artists'
listings but IMHO it would alienate a lot of customers
to make them buy 2 rather pricey books every time
there's an update.
I can't comment on the 101-150 book since I don't have
it, and have minimal interest in a relatively obscure
publication's charts.
Edited by Hykker on 14 August 2021 at 5:38am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Top Pop Singles Vol.1 (1955-89)
