| Author |
|
davidclark
MusicFan
Joined: 17 November 2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1100
|
| Posted: 25 September 2022 at 12:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This question might be for Paul Haney. In my attempts to gather and then
make playlists of the Billboard Yearend song’s charts, I have come across an
anomaly with 1966. I’ve found two different charts, one with The Mamas and
the Papas “California dreaming“ as #1 (which is what the Dec 24 1966
Billboard magazine chart shows), however another list shows Staff Sergeant
Barry Sadler‘s “The Ballad of the Green Berets“ as number one. Can anyone
shed any light on this?
I know the charts themselves are not the best representation of the songs for
each year as the songs at the end each year are severely penalized (many
billboard number ones and other big hits don’t even appear on a billboard year
end chart!), however they are what they are.
Edited by davidclark on 25 September 2022 at 12:05pm
__________________
dc1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 25 September 2022 at 12:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've also noticed at least two differences in the
Billboard year-end lists on Wikipedia and what was played
on the American Top 40 year-end countdowns. For instance,
in 1973, Kris Kristofferson's "Why Me" was #2 on the AT40
year-end, but is listed at #6 for the year on Wikipedia.
In the AT40 year-end for 1977, Andy Gibb's "I Just Want
To Be Your Everything" is #1, but the listing from
Billboard on Wikipedia has it at #2 for the year, with
Rod Stewart's "Tonight's The Night (Gonna Be Alright)"
being #1. Don't know how those discrepancies occured
since AT40 was based on Billboard.
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Santi Paradoa
MusicFan
Joined: 17 February 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1117
|
| Posted: 25 September 2022 at 1:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Those AT40 countdowns do not use Jan. through the end of
Dec. chart stats to tabulate their year-end countdowns.
AT40 usually included the chart statistics through the end
of November and then started the process of tabulating
their countdown. The only way they could have gone from the
first week of the year to the final week was to tabulate
and air their year-end shows in January of the following
year once all 52 weeks' charts were available.
__________________
Santi Paradoa
Miami, Florida
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 25 September 2022 at 2:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
Those AT40 countdowns do not use Jan. through the end of
Dec. chart stats to tabulate their year-end countdowns.
AT40 usually included the chart statistics through the end
of November and then started the process of tabulating
their countdown. |
|
|
I know, I've heard Casey Kasem mention that at the end of the year-end countdowns that air on iHeart Radio. What I'm saying is that I thought AT40 just
aired what Billboard printed.
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
davidclark
MusicFan
Joined: 17 November 2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1100
|
| Posted: 25 September 2022 at 3:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Sorry, I was hoping to learn about the BILLBOARD yearend chart, as published
in BB magazine at the end of each year.
__________________
dc1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: 25 September 2022 at 5:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I can't help, but I can give you more information.
It wasn't just 1966 that has this glaring discrepancy - 1963, too.
For the record, the chart topped by the Mamas and Papas was physically
printed by Billboard magazine at the time (12/24/66 issue), so for years, it was
'canon'.
The SSgt Barry Sadler chart started to circulate around the internet about 20
years ago and I believe it is now recognized on Wikipedia as "canon". (Unless
it's been changed back - I'm going by when I researched all this about a year
ago).
Seems that while it is by now widespread, the new charts have never officially
been recognized or published by Billboard.
So where did they come from? Google around enough and you will find that in
the 70s, the Billboard chart department re-ran any year-end that didn't seem
accurate ('63 and '66 to their eye) and circulated the revised charts
INTERNALLY. The story goes that these charts leaked out over the years,
leading to the current confusion.
Not sure if that's the real story, but its what I've heard.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Vince
MusicFan
Joined: 19 August 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: 25 September 2022 at 5:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
As Jesib said, the version with "California Dreamin'" at
#1 was what was originally published in Billboard (BB) in
1966.
The version with "The Ballad of the Green Berets" was a
revised version that BB sold as part of a Research Packet
starting around 1970 through the early 80s. It was never
printed in a BB issue. They did revise 1963 as well. The
Research Packets has correction for 1972 and 1975, but
they were not completely redone like 1963 and 1966.
The revised versions turned up over the years on the
internet. While I don't have any of the BB Research
Packets to tell for sure, I have seen a lot of changes
from what was published in BB in the Wikipedia postings.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 26 September 2022 at 4:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
It appears that David's original question has been answered. As far as AT40 goes, there are some years
where the AT staff did their own calculations.
For the record, Joel Whitburn never really cared for those year-end charts. It was the main reason he
decided to publish the Pop Annual, which is based mainly on peak position. Joel's argument was that a
higher peak position was always better. There are certainly lots of different formulas that can be applied.
when compiling such lists.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
davidclark
MusicFan
Joined: 17 November 2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1100
|
| Posted: 26 September 2022 at 6:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is great information, thanks. I never knew the listings that I saw online for
years was not what appeared in the original BB magazine (for 1963 and 1966
in particular).
Yeah, as I mentioned the Year-end charts suffer greatly by not taking into
account songs that peaked towards the end of the year. However, they are "a
part of history" and that makes it interesting for me.
Further to what Paul states about how the (great) Pop Annual came to be, I've
actually computed the yearend rankings for songs based solely on chart
position, taking no "bonuses" into account. Interesting seeing those listings as
opposed to Pop Annual and BB Yearend.
Edited by davidclark on 26 September 2022 at 7:13am
__________________
dc1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 26 September 2022 at 6:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I can confirm that the Billboard year-end Research Packets they sold did have 'some' changes from the year-end charts as published. I bought the singles and albums packets from Billboard (late 70s?) and observed the differences, I want to say some as late as the mid 70s even, if my memory is correct (too lazy to pull them out and look at them, ha). I didn't write down the discrepancies.
In a related vein, Fred Bronson recalculated the year-end charts for his book "Billboard's Hottest Hot 100 Hits", based on putting records that were split into 2 years into just 1 year, so they weren't penalized by being split. That does seem most fair, and what Record Research did with their annuals.
Groovy fab gear keen !!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul C
MusicFan
Joined: 23 October 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 789
|
| Posted: 26 September 2022 at 7:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
When Billboard released its 1986 year end chart, the
folks at Arista were quite upset when Whitney Houston's
"Greatest Love Of All" was shown at #11, complaining that
the formula used seemed to reward chart longevity over
chart peak. The song had been #1 for three weeks but
spent only 18 weeks on the chart. "I Miss You" by Klymaxx
was shown as the #3 song for the year, in spite of it
never having been higher than #5 on the Hot 100. The
song, however, had spent 29 weeks on the chart.
A 'letter to the editor' from Arista ended with words
akin to "Everybody knows that 'Greatest Love Of All' was
not the #11 song of the year."
("I Miss You" is a terrific record, but I don't believe
I've heard it on the radio since 1986.)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 26 September 2022 at 9:55am | IP Logged
|
|
|
And then there's "Some Kind Of Wonderful" by Grand Funk. Billboard's year-end Top 100 placed it at #6 for the
year 1975, in what was most likely a huge calculation error. Even as a kid, I thought that was strange.
Edited by Paul Haney on 26 September 2022 at 9:55am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
davidclark
MusicFan
Joined: 17 November 2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1100
|
| Posted: 26 September 2022 at 11:09am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yeah, those year-end charts are very flawed and do indeed contain errors. By
my "points" calc, Grand Funk "Some Kind Of Wonderful" would be about 88,
so no way it should've been at #6.
__________________
dc1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
torcan
MusicFan
Joined: 23 June 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 26 September 2022 at 12:47pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree that the Billboard year-end charts are flawed,
but mostly because of the cut-off dates. There were some
years the cut-off was something like early October, which
didn't allow for a true year-end ranking. I never
understood why the cut-off for some of those years was so
early - does it really take them that long to figure it
out?
When ranking the top songs of the year, both peak
position and chart longevity have to be taken into
consideration. Ignoring one isn't a true reflection of
the year's top hits.
Cases in point: in 1982, John Cougar's "Hurts So Good"
peaked at No. 2 for four weeks, but spent 16 weeks in the
top 10 - one of the longest of the '80s - and 28 weeks on
the Hot 100. Certainly this song was a bigger hit
overall than Lionel Richie's "Truly", which spent two
weeks at No. 1, 10 weeks on the top 10 but only 18 on the
entire Hot 100.
REO Speedwagon's "In My Dreams" spent 30 weeks in the
chart in 1987 but only peaked at No. 19. Tom Petty's
"Jammin' Me" may have peaked a notch higher, but only
spent 12 weeks on the entire chart. The REO song had
much more staying power.
I consider Breathe's "Hands To Heaven" - a No. 2 hit from
1988 - to be a much bigger hit than Michael Jackson's
"Dirty Diana", which hit No. 1 for one week. "Hands To
Heaven" spent more than twice as long on the chart.
Those lower-peaking songs sold and were played enough to
remain among the top 100 songs for much longer periods of
time, so they would have accumulated more sales and
airplay over the course of the chart run than those
higher-peaking hits.
To me, you have to consider both to get a true ranking.
I think chart longevity does count for something.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 27 September 2022 at 5:44am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Charts have always been inexact. How do you account for "turntable hits" (ie-songs that got a lot of airplay, but didn't sell very well),
especially in a year-end chart? And before the 90s, sales and airplay reports were pretty subjective too not to mention backroom hanky panky at
the publications themselves.
Agree that year-end peakers are behind the 8 ball...even if the chart year is Nov-Nov, a lot of these songs were "over" by the end of December,
yet appear on the following year's chart.
Then there are the "flash in the pan" songs like "Ballad Of The Green Berets", or most novelty records. A lot of initial interest, but 6 months
later no one wants to hear them.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a totally objective ranking of song popularity, it all depends on how you sort the not-always-accurate
data.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 27 September 2022 at 7:22am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Take for example "Woolly Bully" by Sam The Sham and The Pharaohs. Peaked at #2 on the weekly charts, but was the Billboard #1 record of the year for 1965. I love this record, hearing it always puts a big smile on my face !!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 27 September 2022 at 10:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
Take for example "Woolly Bully" by
Sam The Sham and The Pharaohs. Peaked at #2 on the weekly
charts, but was the Billboard #1 record of the year for
1965. I love this record, hearing it always puts a big
smile on my face !! |
|
|
This is exactly the kind of thing that used to drive Joel
Whitburn crazy. I can still hear him saying "How can the
#1 record of the year not even make it to #1 on the weekly
charts! Doesn't make ANY sense!"
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 28 September 2022 at 5:27am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
This is exactly the kind of thing that used to drive Joel
Whitburn crazy. I can still hear him saying "How can the
#1 record of the year not even make it to #1 on the weekly
charts! Doesn't make ANY sense!" |
|
|
So how DID it achieve that ranking? Chart longevity? 18 weeks was a long time to be on the charts in 1965, but one would think that
"Satisfaction"'s 4 weeks at #1 would have trumped that.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LunarLaugh
MusicFan
Joined: 13 February 2020
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 364
|
| Posted: 28 September 2022 at 8:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
The longer a record remained on the charts, the more "points" it would rack up for end-of-year tabulations. Thus a record
could go to number one and then completely drop off of the charts and not rank very highly on the year-end.
Alternatively, a record could reach number one and then remain somewhere in the Hot 100 for a long time afterwards,
resulting in more points gathered.
Edited by LunarLaugh on 28 September 2022 at 8:43am
__________________
Listen to The Lunar Laugh!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 28 September 2022 at 8:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
Paul Haney wrote:
This is exactly the kind of thing that used to drive Joel
Whitburn crazy. I can still hear him saying "How can the
#1 record of the year not even make it to #1 on the weekly
charts! Doesn't make ANY sense!" |
|
|
So how DID it achieve that ranking? Chart longevity? 18 weeks was a long time to be on the charts in 1965, but one would think that
"Satisfaction"'s 4 weeks at #1 would have trumped that. |
|
|
Excellent question, I've always wondered about this myself. So going by the chart positions week by week:
Satisfaction: ....................67-26--4-2-1-1-1-1-2-2-6-16-31-41
Woolly Bully: 87-82-61-45-24-14-10-8-5-2-2-3-3-4-5-11-17-36
When you add up the inverse points (where a #1 = 100 pts, a #100 = 1 pt), assuming that's what Billboard did for their year-end charts, you get this:
Satisfaction = 1213 inverse points
Woolly Bully = 1399 inverse points
So if you compare head to head like I've lined them up, of the Top 10 weeks Satisfaction wins 8 of them, Woolly wins 1, but Woolly wins 3 weeks after the Top 10, and 6 weeks before the Top 10. So Woolly wins 10 weeks, Satisfaction wins 8.
Comparing inverse points of the Top 10 weeks:
Satisfaction = 889
Woolly = 867
Comparing inverse points of the non-Top 10 weeks:
Satisfaction = 324
Woolly = 532
So while Satisfaction has 22 more Top 10 inverse points, Woolly has 208 more non-Top 10 inverse points. And that's how Woolly beat Satisfaction, more weeks on the chart, and higher positions outside the Top 10.
Fascinating, interesting...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: 1966 Billboard Year End chart
