| Author |
|
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 24 November 2005 at 6:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul:
I know you're a member of Joel Whitburn's Record Research
team. I've been buying his excellent RR chart books for
20 years now, and along w/ Pat's books, I find myself
referencing them almost daily, so I have a couple of
questions I'd like to run by you, if I may...
1) The "Pop Annual" conveniently includes a
"Songwriter(s)" column w/ that info for every "Hot 100"
hit. Are the names in that column exactly as they appear
on the labels of the original 45s??? (The "User's Guide"
at the beginning of the book doesn't say, although I
realize the names are often abbreviated on the record
labels - e.g., only a first initial, followed by the
writer's full last name - whereas the "Pop Annual" always
gives full names.) I ask because in 1985, Rick
Springfield scored a #27 "Hot 100" hit titled "Bruce" - a
novelty song that he wrote in 1978, about often being
mistaken for Bruce Springsteen. Curiously - perhaps as a
joke??? - the "Pop Annual" has always listed the
songwriter credit for "Bruce" as "Bruce Springfield". I
currently own three commercial/stock copies of the
"Bruce" 45, as well as one promo/dj copy, and all of them
list the songwriting credit on the label as "(R.
Springfield)". In fact, in the last two years, I've run
across at least a dozen other commercial/stock copies of
"Bruce" in my record-store travels, and sure enough, they
all had the "(R. Springfield)" credit as well. (And all
copies I've ever seen of the song's parent album,
"Beautiful Feelings", have also stated it that way.) So
my question is this: Does Whitburn's 45 of "Bruce" in the
RR vaults truly bear the "Bruce Springfield" credit, or
more likely, was somebody just having a little fun when
typing the info into the RR database???
2) The "Pop Annual" is definitely the RR book that I open
up most often, after "Top Pop Singles". I've always been
a huge fan of soul/r&b as well (the '70s and '80s, in
particular), so naturally I've always kept up w/ the "Top
R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" books - yet to date there's never
been an "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual" to go along w/ it. So when
RR introduced the "Country Annual" back in the late '90s,
that of course gave me hope. :-) But alas, some seven
years later, the wait goes on. :-( Has Whitburn ever
considered publishing an "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual"??? If so,
when can we expect it??? If not, what would it take to
convince him?!? :-)
Any info appreciated.
Thanks!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 24 November 2005 at 8:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Gregg:
Thanks for the kind words about Record Research. I started out as a customer sending in corrections and that eventually led to a full-time research position in 1992. It's been an honor to work on the books these past 13 years.
Now to answer your questions:
1) The songwriters were entered directly from the singles. If there was a mistake on the single, we corrected it. In the case of a pseudonym ("Manic Monday" comes to mind), we entered the real name (Prince) instead of the pen name (Christopher). I'm almost certain the Bruce Springfield listing was just a typo (but it is pretty funny, given the nature of that song). As hard as we try, we're only human and do make an occasional mistake.
2) I really don't see an R&B Annual in the near future. The problem is that the Country Annual didn't do near as well as we'd hoped. But if enough people ask for one, it could happen someday. I'll put you down for a "yes" vote.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
|
| Posted: 24 November 2005 at 2:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Since we're asking Record Research questions, Paul:
A few years ago, someone from Record Research (can't recall who) told me y'all were working on a new edition of "Pop Memories." About a year after that the revised edition of "Pop Hits 1940-1954" came out, so maybe that's what they were referring to.
Any plans for a new edition of "Pop Memories"? I'd like to see one in the same format that "Pop Hits" is in, with separate artist and year-by-year sections. (Plus there are a few errors... Dennis Day's top ten "Christmas in Killarney" is completely missing, for example.)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 24 November 2005 at 4:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Brian:
We are mulling over the idea of an updated version of Pop Memories which would cover 1900-1939 and look like the Pop Hits book. Hopefully that will happen in the next few years.
We now consider the Pop Hits 1940-54 to be the definitive book on the Billboard charts for that era.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 28 November 2005 at 8:28am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick response, Paul...
Paul Haney wrote:
I started out as a customer sending
in corrections and that eventually led to a full-time
research position in 1992...As hard as we try, we're only
human and do make an occasional mistake. |
|
|
Interesting. Several years ago, I did submit a list to RR
of more than 25 errors/omissions that I'd spotted in the
first edition of "Rock Tracks", but not all were fixed
for the second edition. And yes, I've noticed quite a few
in the other RR books as well. But in the case of the
Rick Springfield 45, I wasn't sure, so I just wanted to
double-check, since I'd already put some time into trying
to find a copy w/ the credit shown in the "Pop Annual"...
Paul Haney wrote:
I really don't see an R&B Annual in
the near future. The problem is that the Country Annual
didn't do near as well as we'd hoped. But if enough
people ask for one, it could happen someday. I'll put
you down for a "yes" vote. |
|
|
Yeah, I kinda figured that was why the "Country Annual"
had never been updated after all this time (i.e., seven
years). *sigh* Glad RR finally came out w/ the "Top R&B
Albums" book, anyway (even if that one's now getting a
bit old, too). :-) Thanks for the
info...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 28 November 2005 at 10:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Welcome back to the message board, 80smusicfreak. It's good to see you posting again!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JMD1961
MusicFan
Joined: 29 March 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: 30 November 2005 at 10:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hey, Paul,
It's so nice to be able to ask questions about the various Record Research books. They have been the source of so much information in my years of "chart chasing". In fact, for my year-by-year CD series, I'm going straight down the listings in my copy of Pop Annual.
Which brings me to my question.
I really have no problem with how Joel comes by his yearly rankings, with one notable exception, that being how he determines year placement of some songs. Particularly, I'm referring to songs that peak at the end of one year and remain there through the start of the following year. Using peak date alone, to me, doesn't really accurately place a song in the proper year.
The most glaring example of this would have to be "I'm A Believer" by the Monkees. The song spent 7 weeks at #1, making it, in the book, the biggest hit of 1966. However, only one of those weeks was actually in 1966. The other 6 weeks were in 1967. To me, that clearly makes it a 1967 hit.
A better way of determining where to place these "cross-year" songs, in my opinion, would be to apply the same criteria that is used to determine yearly rankings. Place the song in the year where it spent the most weeks at its peak position. Ties could also be broken using the regular criteria (weeks in Top 10, weeks in Top 40, weeks on Chart, and finally points).
Looking back over this, I realize this wasn't so much a question as a comment. Still, I would like to hear your take on this. If nothing else, thanks for listening.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 30 November 2005 at 12:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Your comment about those year-ending songs makes a lot of sense to me. We are hopefully going to update the Pop Annual in the next year. I think Joel would be pretty reluctant to change the rankings around too much after all these years, but it won't hurt to ask him about it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
|
| Posted: 30 November 2005 at 3:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I do have a suggestion for future editions of all Record Research books, Paul.
Regarding Gold Record listings... There are now so many standards for RIAA gold singles: 1,000,000 for pre-1989; 500,000 million post-1989; only 100,000 for digital singles; and I believe it's always been 500,000 for 12" singles. To further add to the confusion, pre-1989 releases that were CERTIFIED post-1989 are (unfairly) only held to the 500,000 gold / 1,000,000 platinum standard. (I called the RIAA and verified this.)
This is very confusing for the reader: For example, anyone glancing at the Supremes' "Stop in the Name of Love" would see a circle next to it and assume it was a million-seller. However, since it was certified in the 1990s, it was only certified for 500,000 copies. Or that "Angel/Into the Groove" was certified for a million, when I believe that as a 12-inch single it was only certified for 1/2 million.
I think Record Research should create a new symbol key to indicate NUMBER of copies certified, and forget about gold, platinum, etc. Say, a triangle for two million, a star for one million, a circle for 1/2 million, and a rectangle for 100,000.
Edited by Brian W. on 30 November 2005 at 3:11pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
|
| Posted: 30 November 2005 at 3:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
duplicate
Edited by Brian W. on 30 November 2005 at 3:10pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 23 June 2011 at 2:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
80smusicfreak wrote:
| 2) The "Pop Annual" is definitely the RR book that I open up most often, after "Top Pop Singles". I've always been a huge fan of soul/r&b as well (the '70s and '80s, in particular), so naturally I've always kept up w/ the "Top R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" books - yet to date there's never been an "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual" to go along w/ it. So when RR introduced the "Country Annual" back in the late '90s, that of course gave me hope. :-) But alas, some seven years later, the wait goes on. :-( Has Whitburn ever considered publishing an "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual"??? If so, when can we expect it??? If not, what would it take to convince him?!? :-) |
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
Now to answer your question:
2) I really don't see an R&B Annual in the near future. The problem is that the Country Annual didn't do near as well as we'd hoped. But if enough people ask for one, it could happen someday. I'll put you down for a "yes" vote. |
|
|
Bumping this up for both NightAire and Paul Haney...
Paul: Could you please add NightAire's name to the list, too??? :-) Any further discussion w/ Whitburn in the last five-and-a-half years??? (Apparently so, since you guys are sort of taking a small step w/ the new "Top 10 R&B Hits" book.) I really feel you should publish at least ONE detailed edition of the "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual" for all the valuable info it would contain - like RR did w/ the "Country Annual" in 1998 - even if sales may not be spectacular. (And I'd be willing to contribute, as I have w/ other RR books in the past. Heck, I'd even be willing to offer Whitburn some rare pressings of chart records that he apparently isn't aware of, or own in his private collection!)
Edited by 80smusicfreak on 23 June 2011 at 2:12pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 23 June 2011 at 3:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'd buy a copy.
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 24 June 2011 at 4:08am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I really appreciate all of the support for the Record Research books by everyone here at Pat's board.
The annual section in our new "R&B Top 10" book is the first time we've ever attempted to show the R&B hits in an annual format. It would be nice if we could do a full-blown "R&B Annual" book, but it just isn't in the cards at this time. We have our hands full with our "Big 4" books: Top Pop Singles, Country Songs, R&B Songs and Top Pop Albums. As I stated before, the Country Annual we published years ago didn't do as well as we had hoped (it took us a few years just to break even on the costs). All of that said, I've learned to "never say never" when it comes to what we will eventually publish. I assure you that we would love to do an R&B Annual someday, but right now the economics just won't allow it.
We ARE currently working on an update to our "Pop Annual" book (the last one went through 2005). If we can sell enough copies of that book, it just might spur us on to finally do that "R&B Annual".
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1385
|
| Posted: 24 June 2011 at 4:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
JMD1961 wrote:
I really have no problem with how Joel comes by his yearly rankings, with one notable exception, that being how he determines year placement of some songs. Particularly, I'm referring to songs that peak at the end of one year and remain there through the start of the following year. Using peak date alone, to me, doesn't really accurately place a song in the proper year. |
|
|
One thing I've noticed with Billboard's year-end charts over the past 8 years or so is that several songs make the year end chart in multiple years (more noticeable on the country charts, but pop charts too), no doubt owing to the time of year they debuted and the increased chart longevity songs have these days. How does RR handle these?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
NightAire
MusicFan
Joined: 20 February 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 997
|
| Posted: 24 June 2011 at 5:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I got the 1980s charts DVD and have LOVED it; I'd be thrilled with a similar setup, maybe download-only to save production / shipping costs?
It's possible the information I'm looking for is in the online database, but since I'd have to pay per search and don't know if it's in there (and could end up doing THOUSANDS of searches as I look up the R&B singles of the decade) I doubt I'll ever know.
Here's hoping for a R&B charts publication, online or otherwise! (Especially a year-end chart like the Top Pop 100 year-end charts!)
__________________
Gene Savage
http://www.BlackLightRadio.com
http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage
Owasso, Oklahoma USA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 24 June 2011 at 7:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes, I strongly suggest a different pricing model for the searchable
database. That's the only reason I haven't used it. If there were an
affordable, annual (or monthly) unlimited search price, I would have
signed up long ago. Paying "per search" is not very appealing.
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mstgator
MusicFan
Joined: 06 September 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 24 June 2011 at 7:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
JMD1961 wrote:
I really have no problem with how Joel comes by his yearly rankings, with
one notable exception, that being how he determines year placement of
some songs. Particularly, I'm referring to songs that peak at the end of
one year and remain there through the start of the following year. Using
peak date alone, to me, doesn't really accurately place a song in the
proper year. |
|
|
One thing I've noticed with Billboard's year-end charts over the past 8
years or so is that several songs make the year end chart in multiple years
(more noticeable on the country charts, but pop charts too), no doubt
owing to the time of year they debuted and the increased chart longevity
songs have these days. How does RR handle these?
|
|
|
For their yearly rankings, Record Research doesn't split songs between
years (aside from hits that are re-released years later). A song's entire
chart history goes with whatever year the song first
peaked in. (Although I'm not sure how they'll handle those songs that
chart for a week or two upon an album's initial release and then return for
another chart run a year or two later... that's a relatively recent
phenomenon enhanced by digital downloads.)
Edited by mstgator on 24 June 2011 at 7:59pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
|
| Posted: 26 June 2011 at 1:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
aaronk wrote:
Yes, I strongly suggest a different pricing model for the searchable
database. That's the only reason I haven't used it. If there were an
affordable, annual (or monthly) unlimited search price, I would have
signed up long ago. Paying "per search" is not very appealing. |
|
|
I do use Record Vault, and while I don't MIND paying per search... it's not really per search, it's per PAGE. If you search, say, Elvis's hits, you'll come up with multiple pages of results. You're charged per page, not per lookup... and furthermore, I believe that if you hit the "back" button on your browser, you're actually charged for the previously viewed page again.
That said, getting the peak dates and weeks for the few books where that info has previously been unpublished ("Pop Memories," for example) is invaluable.
But I agree with Aaron -- I'd prefer to pay a flat yearly or six-month fee for unlimited lookups.
Edited by Brian W. on 26 June 2011 at 1:25am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mstgator
MusicFan
Joined: 06 September 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 28 June 2011 at 4:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Just received my copy of the newest Top Pop Singles today... man, this
thing looks like a textbook (and that's a good thing). If RR chooses to
publish all their forthcoming books in this size, I'm all for it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 91
|
| Posted: 04 September 2019 at 6:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Just found this thread! So I'll add a new question.
Paul,
“Icewoman” on the UKMix forums discovered the following anomaly, and asked for opinions. I agreed with her, told her to contact you (haven’t heard back from her yet), but here’s the scoop.
May 3, 1941 (issue date) Billboard Best Sellers Chart
https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Billboard/40s/1 941/BB-1941-05-03i.pdf
scroll down to page 13:
1 Amapola - Jimmy Dorsey
2 Oh, Look At Me Now - Tommy Dorsey
3 Dolores - Bing Crosby
4 Goodbye Now - Horace Heidt
5 Apple Blossom Time - Guy Lombardo
6 Alexander The Swoose - Kay Kyser
7 Intermezzo - Wayne King
8 Tonight - Xavier Cugat
9 Everything Happens To Me - Tommy Dorsey
There are 2 noteworthy things here:
(1) this isn’t a Top 10 chart, despite the fact that there are 23 different records in the 4 regional charts just to the right of this Top 9 national chart; one of them is surely eligible to be charted to make this a Top 10 chart. Billboard had Top 10 Best Seller charts for every week from July 1940 to Nov 1947 (when it upped to 15 positions), but only this May 3, 1941 chart is less than that, at a Top 9. Why?
(2) record #5 is a mismatch of a record title to an artist; as shown in the 4 regional charts to the right, Apple Blossom Time is by The Andrews Sisters. Guy Lombardo’s record is The Band Played On. Both records are listed in 3 of the 4 regional charts, and when you do the math both should seemingly be in the national Top 10 chart. Of the other 8 records in the Top 10 national chart, 2 charted on 4 of the regional charts, 1 charted on 3 of the 4 regionals, and 5 charted on 2 of the regionals. The other 13 regional only records charted on only 1 regional chart.
So Billboard obviously made a goof here, whether it was by the chart compiler, or the typesetter/printer.
In the following May 10 issue, there was no corrective note. Apple Blossom Time showed up as #5 again, but this time by The Andrews Sisters, and did not have a last week’s position. The Band Played On did not make the national Top 10 this week, but did chart a few weeks later, and in that resulting chart run it did peak at #6.
Billboard thus treated Apple Blossom Time by Guy Lombardo as a record, which made this national May 3 chart, but dropped off the next week May 10 chart. But no such record existed, I checked numerous Guy Lombardo online discographies.
So what are the possible corrections to fix this May 3, 1941 Best Sellers national chart?
1. Correct the #5 record Apple Blossom Time to show as by The Andrews Sister, drop Guy Lombardo from the chart.
2. Correct the #5 record by Guy Lombardo to show as The Band Played On, drop Apple Blossom Time from the chart.
3. Put both records in at #5 as a tie. Though Billboard did not have (or did not allow?) any ties on this chart until January 1945. But the ties came fast and furious after that, about 80% of the 1945 charts have one and sometimes multiple ties each week!
4. Put Apple Blossom Time by The Andrews Sisters at #5, and The Band Played On by Guy Lombardo at #6. And push records 6 thru 9 down to 7 thru 10.
Joel’s ‘fix’ was to do option #1 above. This was implemented at various times (the first in 1973) in 5 books, 2 of which showed his revised Top 9 chart (Pops Hits 1940-1954, and America’s Greatest Hits 1940-2015 Top 10 singles charts), and 4 (overlapping) which showed the usual records by artist listings.
But based on the evidence, option 1 is a less likely scenario. Options 3 or 4 seem much more likely to be the case. I think the evidence leads towards option 4, mainly because this should have been a 10 position chart, there were no ties until 1945, and the implied #5 listing shows Apple Blossom Time followed by Guy Lombardo. The goof in the #5 listing created the goof in not showing a #10 listing. Option 4 fixes everything.
Thoughts, comments? Thanks much...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Questions for Paul Haney...
