Author |
|
thecdguy MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 633
|
Posted: 05 May 2020 at 2:11pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I noticed the Hot 100 chart for the week of June 26, 1993 listed Snow's "Informer" at #52 and being in its 20th week on the chart, when in reality it was actually in its 25th week and should have been removed from the chart that week as per Billboard's rule of songs being taken off the chart once they reached 20 weeks charted and fell below the Top 50. Was this an oversight on Billboard's part?
Edited by thecdguy on 05 May 2020 at 2:13pm
__________________ Dan In Philly
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Paul Haney MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1742
|
Posted: 05 May 2020 at 2:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
thecdguy wrote:
I noticed the Hot 100 chart for the week
of June 26, 1993 listed Snow's "Informer" at #52 and being
in its 20th week on the chart, when in reality it was
actually in its 25th week and should have been removed
from the chart that week as per Billboard's rule of songs
being taken off the chart once they reached 20 weeks
charted and fell below the Top 50. Was this an oversight
on Billboard's part? |
|
|
Looks like someone changed the weeks charted to 20, so
they kept it on the chart. Hey, mistakes happen!
|
Back to Top |
|
|
edtop40 MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 4996
|
Posted: 05 May 2020 at 5:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
conspiracy!
__________________ edtop40
|
Back to Top |
|
|
thecdguy MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 633
|
Posted: 06 May 2020 at 4:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Has there been any discussion of a possible book of the Radio & Records Charts, similar to the Billboard and Cashbox Charts books? I imagine since their charts varied between 30-50 positions, multiple charts could be printed on the same page and there might not be a need for separate books of individual decades.
__________________ Dan In Philly
|
Back to Top |
|
|
thecdguy MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 633
|
Posted: 06 May 2020 at 5:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Also, will there be any more editions of "The Billboard Book Of Top 40 Hits"? I see the last edition that ends in 2009 in a local book store every time I go in and was thinking about giving that book to a friend as a gift. He's not quite as much of a chart freak like me, so it would be perfect for him.
__________________ Dan In Philly
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Paul Haney MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1742
|
Posted: 06 May 2020 at 9:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
thecdguy wrote:
Has there been any discussion of a
possible book of the Radio & Records Charts, similar to
the Billboard and Cashbox Charts books? I imagine since
their charts varied between 30-50 positions, multiple
charts could be printed on the same page and there might
not be a need for separate books of individual decades.
|
|
|
I'd like to see it someday, but no plans for it at this
time.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Paul Haney MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1742
|
Posted: 06 May 2020 at 9:19am | IP Logged
|
|
|
thecdguy wrote:
Also, will there be any more editions of
"The Billboard Book Of Top 40 Hits"? I see the last
edition that ends in 2009 in a local book store every time
I go in and was thinking about giving that book to a
friend as a gift. He's not quite as much of a chart freak
like me, so it would be perfect for him. |
|
|
There will be no more updates to that particular book.
That's one of the reasons we did the Whitburn Book of Top
10 Hits, so the casual chart fan could have a reference of
the biggest hits.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
jebsib MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline Posts: 173
|
Posted: 06 May 2020 at 10:26am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I's a shame about those "Billboard Books of Top 40 Hits". As they were
available in very visible mainstream book stores, they were an affordable and
digestible entry point into the Record Research world.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Paul Haney MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1742
|
Posted: 06 May 2020 at 11:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
jebsib wrote:
I's a shame about those "Billboard Books
of Top 40 Hits". As they were available in very visible
mainstream book stores, they were an affordable and
digestible entry point into the Record Research world.
|
|
|
I agree! After all, my first few Record Research books
were the Top 40 publications. We wanted to do further
editions, but when Billboard Books was bought up by Random
House, the new management didn't ask us to continue. So
it goes.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
EdisonLite MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 2237
|
Posted: 25 May 2020 at 12:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul, what year did Random House buy Billboard Books? And did they only buy that title, or other Record Research books as well?
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Paul Haney MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1742
|
Posted: 26 May 2020 at 4:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
EdisonLite wrote:
Paul, what year did Random House buy
Billboard Books? And did they only buy that title, or
other Record Research books as well? |
|
|
I don't remember the exact year. They only bought the
rights to the Top 40 Hits series. We never did own that
series, we just compiled the information for Billboard
Books. All of the actual Record Research publications are
owned by us 100%.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Underground Dub MusicFan
Joined: 10 July 2006
Online Status: Offline Posts: 348
|
Posted: 27 June 2020 at 10:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I love the new Top 10 Hits book, but why doesn't "What's It Gonna Be?!" by Busta Rhymes and Janet Jackson count towards her overall tally, while Busta and Mariah Carey's collaboration "I Know What You Want" counts towards hers?
(One could argue Herb Alpert's "Diamonds" should count towards Janet's overall count, too, though she didn't take a marquee credit on the single label.)
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Paul Haney MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1742
|
Posted: 28 June 2020 at 4:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Underground Dub wrote:
I love the new Top 10 Hits book,
but why doesn't "What's It Gonna Be?!" by Busta Rhymes
and Janet Jackson count towards her overall tally, while
Busta and Mariah Carey's collaboration "I Know What You
Want" counts towards hers?
(One could argue Herb Alpert's "Diamonds" should count
towards Janet's overall count, too, though she didn't
take a marquee credit on the single label.) |
|
|
We currently have Janet in as a "Featuring" credit only.
As you probably are aware, we don't count "Featuring"
credits under the secondary artist(s). Perhaps we need
to revisit that one. These credits have been a major
headache for us in recent years!
|
Back to Top |
|
|
jebsib MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline Posts: 173
|
Posted: 28 June 2020 at 2:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
In Billboard, "IKWYW" was credited as Busta Rhymes and Mariah Carey (so she
was considered a lead artist, not a featured one like Janet). Record Research
did the right thing… Unlike "A Love Bizarre", Paul! :-)
Edited by jebsib on 28 June 2020 at 2:54pm
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Scanner MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Online Status: Offline Posts: 214
|
Posted: 09 September 2020 at 6:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Has Record Research ever considered re-doing the Record
World 101-150 book? I never understood why the book
only included songs that charted exclusively in Record
World that peaked in positions 101-150. I know I would
have certainly preferred a book that included all
songs that peaked at Nos. 101-150 in Record World
regardless of whether they charted elsewhere. Since the
research has been done and publshed in the Comparison
Book, the project is already partly done!
Another idea - update the Record World "Hit Records"
book to include the 101-150 hits.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
EdisonLite MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 2237
|
Posted: 09 September 2020 at 7:05pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I like both those ideas as well.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
PopArchivist MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018 Location: United States
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1524
|
Posted: 09 September 2020 at 10:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Nice site redesign Paul!
__________________ "I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Paul Haney MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline Posts: 1742
|
Posted: 10 September 2020 at 3:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks! The website sorely needed to be upgraded. It was a pretty big investment, hope it
pays off!
As for redoing the Record World book(s), I just don't see it happening. The Comparison Book
has all the info, which is why it's my personal favorite Record Research book!
|
Back to Top |
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline Posts: 92
|
Posted: 10 September 2020 at 7:17am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm sure we'd all go for an expanded Comparison Book, a new 1952 to 1996 (vs. the current 1954 to 1982). Extra years of comparing Cashbox to Billboard !!
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Scanner MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Online Status: Offline Posts: 214
|
Posted: 10 September 2020 at 7:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
I'm sure we'd all go for an
expanded Comparison Book, a new 1952 to 1996 (vs. the
current 1954 to 1982). Extra years of comparing
Cashbox to Billboard !! |
|
|
Agreed....ending the Comparison Book in 1982 was too
soon. Heck, I would add R&R to the book as well.
Although R&R was exclusively an airplay chart, that
was an era when sales and airplay generally were in
sync unlike today.
Paul, what was the rationale for not including all
101-150 hits in the Record World book? This is the
only Record Research book I can think of that was
published with such a condition that made the book an
incomplete resource.
|
Back to Top |
|
|