| Author |
|
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 28 December 2020 at 10:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's another great eye deer for a different type of comparison book, a Billboard singles comparison book featuring:
--best sellers
--DJ airplay
--juke boxes
--honor roll of hits
--Top 100
--Hot 100
--bubbling under
--Christmas charts
--anything else I've forgotten
--having an appropriate cut off point, say from 1-1-1940 (or even late 30s if including the Record Buying Guide) to perhaps when the Honor Roll of Hits chart ended in 1963
So for each record that appeared on any of these Billboard charts, we'd get to see the peak and # of weeks they appeared on all of these charts. Once and for, the whole story of each record across all the charts.
Hooze wit me ??
Edited by RoknRobnLoxley on 28 December 2020 at 10:51am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 28 December 2020 at 8:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
As far as 2 volumes of Top Pop Singles goes,
all I can say is...STAY TUNED! |
|
|
Why not give us an idea of what Joel is thinking about - with his
blessing of course - so forum members can offer their input. Maybe a
brilliant idea will surface or one of Joel’s idea may not be received
favorably.
Seeking input from your loyal customers is a sound practice - give them
what they want. You’ll really never be 100% sure unless you ask them!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 28 December 2020 at 8:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
| As far as 2 volumes of Top Pop Singles goes, all I can say is...STAY TUNED! |
|
|
The 2 volumes would be great. I just don't know what else can be done to to add any more information to the artists track listings. You already include the bubbling under and the non-chart hits.
I know I look forward to it being in 2 volumes.
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 29 December 2020 at 7:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Question to ponder: if the Top Pop Singles were to be split into 2 volumes, how best to split them?
--By time period, say 1955-1989 and 1990-2020?
--Or alphabetical by artist, A-K and L-Z?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 29 December 2020 at 10:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
Question to ponder: if the Top
Pop Singles were to be split into 2 volumes, how best to
split them?
--By time period, say 1955-1989 and 1990-2020?
--Or alphabetical by artist, A-K and L-Z? |
|
|
Answer: By time period.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
kingofskiffle
MusicFan
Joined: 19 November 2018
Online Status: Online
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 29 December 2020 at 12:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
Question to ponder: if the
Top
Pop Singles were to be split into 2 volumes, how best to
split them?
--By time period, say 1955-1989 and 1990-2020?
--Or alphabetical by artist, A-K and L-Z? |
|
|
Answer: By time period. |
|
|
I like that. Makes it similar to the Pop Hits 1940-1955 book from about 2002 in
that you have a book for a period and those interested buy that period.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 29 December 2020 at 12:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The plan right now is to split Top Pop Singles into 2 volumes (1955-1989 & 1990-2020). We're still working out some of
the details. Look for some kind of official announcement in the first quarter of 2021.
Edited by Paul Haney on 29 December 2020 at 12:47pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 29 December 2020 at 2:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
The plan right now is to split Top Pop Singles into 2 volumes (1955-1989 & 1990-2020). We're still working out some of
the details. Look for some kind of official announcement in the first quarter of 2021. |
|
|
I'm confused, if Top Pop Singles goes alphabetically from A to Z, wouldn't it be better to go by letter (A to M and then N to Z) then by creating an artificial year divide?
That way if I want Paula Abdul's complete chart history ohn the Hot 100, its not broken up, I can just look under A in the first volume.....
Edited by PopArchivist on 29 December 2020 at 2:19pm
__________________
"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: 124
|
| Posted: 29 December 2020 at 7:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
The plan right now is to split Top Pop Singles
into 2 volumes (1955-1989 & 1990-2020). We're still working out some
of
the details. Look for some kind of official announcement in the first
quarter of 2021. |
|
|
Why choose 1990 as the cut-off date? I don’t know how many listings
would occupy each volume but I’m guessing it may be equal or possibly
even more after 1990. So customers would buy the 1955-89 book once
but then buy the second volume every 3-4 years when updated. That
second volume will get pretty big quickly. Probably should start off
smaller.
Always thought the break point should be when a significant chart
change occurred. Always thought you should have done a 1940-1958
book because that was the Pre Hot 100 period. Then pick it up based
solely on the Hot 100. Maybe when the Hot 100 included airplay only
songs would be a good breaking point?
Edited by Chartman on 29 December 2020 at 7:58pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 29 December 2020 at 8:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chartman wrote:
| Why choose 1990 as the cut-off date? |
|
|
I agree. It is more logical it should be 1955-1991 because that was the era before soundscan. The charts after the changeover in late 1991 make a bit more sense as 1992-2020 has been a totally different era of tabulation starting with soundscan and ending with streaming numbers and digital downloads...
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Scanner
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: 30 December 2020 at 8:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
If the volumes will be by date, then the cutoff should
be 12/5/98 when the Hot 100 transitioned from a record
chart to a song chart. I always cringe when
Billboard's writers compare the chart stats compiled
by today's artists to those achieved in the past.
Drake has charted the most songs ever since his album
tracks can chart - something that could not be done
by, say, the Beatles in the '60's or Elton in the
'70's. How many more Hot 100 or even Top 10 hits
would artists like them have amassed if their album
tracks had been able to chart? All the tracks from
albums like "Rumours" or "Thriller" would have
probably charted...disregarding that Jackson
ultimately mined "Thriller" for seven singles anyway!
Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift may have charted more
times than Aretha Franklin. But, how many of their
charted songs only lasted a week like Swift's or
charted as by a featured artist like Minaj's when
compared to Franklin?
I must admit I would prefer by artist. I would rather
see an artist's entire chart history together than in
two volumes. What would be done for songs that re-
chart? Brenda Lee's "Rockin..." first charted and
peaked in the '60's, but reached a new peak in 2019.
Should the song be included in the book when it was
first released or when it peaked? Reference would be
needed in one that it is in the other as the song was
a success in both book eras. From a financial
standpoint, it would also require readers to purchase
both volumes every time the books are updated.
Undoubtedly, publishing two volumes will be more
expensive which will be reflected in the price.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 30 December 2020 at 11:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Now the Hot 100 is definitely NOT a Pop Singles chart anymore. It’s an
all-genre chart that bears NO resemblance to the Hot 100 of past
years. Maybe call the first volume Top Pop Singles and the second
volume Hot 100 Singles. 1998 could be a good cut off date.
Not a big fan of dividing the book by artists. Every 3-4 years you would
need to buy two books. You know the price of two books would be more
than the current price of just one book.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Underground Dub
MusicFan
Joined: 10 July 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 348
|
| Posted: 31 December 2020 at 3:54am | IP Logged
|
|
|
There's really no perfect way to divide these though, is there?
A clean break at the turn of the century may work better than 1990. Something like "Vol. 1 - The 1900s" and "Vol. 2 - The 2000s".
As mentioned, the chart did significantly change at the very end of 1998 which would add just one transitional year to the first book.
However, Top Pop Singles likely does well because it promises a complete overview of the Hot 100 since its inception despite all of Billboard's criteria machinations over the past 30 years. Breaking it up by century could negatively affect the appeal of each, with the first volume feeling like an edited rehash of every edition released since 1999, and the second feeling lopsided without the bulk of more legitimate Hot 100 eras to anchor it.
And I don't see dividing by artist as being beneficial to anyone other than possibly the publishers.
My unsolicited "focus group" contribution:
Having bought so many volumes over the years - and given the current state of the charts and world - I'm happy hitting pause with the latest edition that runs up to 2018 in a single book. I'm especially unlikely to buy an update if it's split into two expensive volumes regardless of how it's done. Maybe a decade from now when more time has passed, a new generation of acts have emerged and there's more data to document and contrast? (Assuming the Hot 100 is even still a thing.)
Finally, I don't say this to be harsh as the work and love that goes into these books is obvious and very much appreciated, but... It would be nice if more effort went into discerning between authentic single sleeve art and the "fan-made" ones that pollute google's image results. We're all such sticklers for accuracy I think this is a fair concern to raise as several fakes have graced not only interior pages but in some cases the COVERS of these books in recent years.
I really do appreciate all that has gone into keeping these books updated and in print for decades, and that an effort is made to speak directly with chart enthusiasts on these forums. Thanks!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 31 December 2020 at 5:48am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chartman wrote:
Not a big fan of dividing the book
by artists. Every 3-4 years you would
need to buy two books. You know the price of two books
would be more
than the current price of just one book. |
|
|
I agree. While it might be good for RR's bottom line
to force customers to buy 2 books in order to update,
but it could backfire too. The primary reason I
bought the most recent one was that the copy I had
only went to 1996, and I wanted a reference on newer
songs. The old one was perfectly adequate for the era
it covered.
We could debate forever where the Vol 1/vol 2
transition should be, but realistically it should
probably be at a point where both volumes would be
roughly the same size.
How would the 2 volume system compare cost-wise to the
single volume? Most of us don't have an unlimited
budget.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 31 December 2020 at 8:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I appreciate reading all of the comments here.
Frankly, I'd love to keep it at one volume myself, regardless of how big it's getting. But, ultimately Joel is the one who
makes that decision.
The decision has already been made that the first volume will cover 1955-1989. Believe me, I raised all of your points (and
then some) in our conversations these past few months. Joel's explanation to me is that 1955-89 covers the era of the 45 rpm
single and thus is a logical time frame.
The plan is to release the first volume and then work will begin on the next volume, so we won't hit our customers with both
books at the same time.
There are some other details with the exact contents of the book that I'm not at liberty to divulge at this time. As I
mentioned before, we will be making a formal announcement in the first quarter of 2021.
Even though I work extensively on these books, I was a customer for many years before that and I'm first and foremost a fan of
these books like many of you are and I know that Joel is still very passionate about delivering a quality product.
Edited by Paul Haney on 31 December 2020 at 8:25am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KentT
MusicFan
Joined: 25 May 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 650
|
| Posted: 31 December 2020 at 9:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Another thing to note about Cash Box in 1989, the Cash Box
murders related to chart rigging for bribes. A sad and
sordid history Nashville really swept under the rug.
Related to the Independent country charts, especially the
lower positions. I suspect the after effects of this is
what killed off Cash Box.
Edited by KentT on 31 December 2020 at 10:12pm
__________________
I turn up the good and turn down the bad!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
kingofskiffle
MusicFan
Joined: 19 November 2018
Online Status: Online
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 01 January 2021 at 7:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
The decision has already been made that the first volume will cover 1955-
1989. Believe me, I raised all of your points (and
then some) in our conversations these past few months. Joel's explanation to
me is that 1955-89 covers the era of the 45 rpm
single and thus is a logical time frame.
I know that Joel is still very passionate about delivering a quality product.
|
|
|
I think I agree, and I know everybody wants to make a quality product. Have
you considered bring back research such as the Single Sales / Airplay only
charts which where in the books till 2005 or so? That's one way to increase
sales and a sizeable chuck of that data (at least till 2005 or so) would already
be within the Record Research database. Particularly as size would not be an
issue for the 1955-1989 volume as it would be significantly less than currently
I would imagine).
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 01 January 2021 at 9:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
I appreciate reading all of the comments here.
Frankly, I'd love to keep it at one volume myself, regardless of how big it's getting. But, ultimately Joel is the one who
makes that decision.
The decision has already been made that the first volume will cover 1955-1989. Believe me, I raised all of your points (and
then some) in our conversations these past few months. Joel's explanation to me is that 1955-89 covers the era of the 45 rpm
single and thus is a logical time frame.
The plan is to release the first volume and then work will begin on the next volume, so we won't hit our customers with both
books at the same time.
There are some other details with the exact contents of the book that I'm not at liberty to divulge at this time. As I
mentioned before, we will be making a formal announcement in the first quarter of 2021.
Even though I work extensively on these books, I was a customer for many years before that and I'm first and foremost a fan of
these books like many of you are and I know that Joel is still very passionate about delivering a quality product. |
|
|
I don't understand how the Pop Artist book would be best served as a 1955-1989, 1990-2020 rather then an alphabetical divide. If I wanted Paul Abdul's complete Hot 100, I would have to buy both books. If it were divided by alphabet I could just buy the A-N book. Plus it keeps it consistent with the way the book is now. I respect Joel but this decision baffles me 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 |
|
| |
Scanner
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: 03 January 2021 at 5:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
As I stated above, I would also prefer two volumes
divided alphabetically. However, I appreciate the
rationale behind this decision. Although the Hot 100
is a now 60+ year old chart, it is simply impossible
to compare the accomplishments on today's Hot 100
versus those achieved 30-60 years ago. Drake recently
landed seven songs in the Top 10 surpassing the
Beatles' long held record of five. Drake achieved
this under far different circumstances than the
Beatles from the media used to access and hear his
music to chart rules allowing album tracks to chart
now unlike during the Beatles' era. We could argue
endlessly whose achievement was greater. As a chart
enthusiast, I would prefer a more meaningful cutoff
for the first volume either in 1991 when Soundscan was
introduced or in 1998 when the chart transitioned from
records to songs. Thanks to cassingles, 45s were
already harder to find in 1990. The other dates, to
me, would define chart and music eras better.
I have multiple questions which will likely be
answered when the books are announced, but I'll ask
anyway!
* Will the books include Sales and Airplay dataT
There were many songs that reached these charts,
but never made the Hot 100 that should still be
documented for posterity. It would also be nice to
see this info in Book 1 to see how much one or the
other contributed to a record's peak.
* How will the books handle chart re-entries? With
so many songs now re-charting every holiday season or,
sadly, when an artist passes away, will the song be
listed in both books? For example, several songs
by Whitney Houston and Prince that re-entered in the
2010's (Book 2) were originally released in the 1980's
(Book 1). Will these songs be entries in both books
or footnoted in Book 1 with the original chart entry?
* Since Book 1 will be a record book, will songs
that were re-released and charted more than once be
listed separately? Olivia Newton-John's #1 "I
Honestly Love You" was first released in
1974, but re-released as a different 45 with a
different B-side in 1977 to promote her first
"Greatest Hits" album peaking at #48. Will Book 1
credit "Honestly" twice?
* Similarly, how will re-recordings be treated?
Olivia re-recorded and re-released "I Honestly Love
You" in 1998 with production by David Foster and
background vocals by Babyface peaking at #67. Will
this record appear in Book 2 as its own entry or be
footnoted in Book 1?
* B-side and 45 record numbers will pertain to every
entry in Book 1. Will this information be included in
Book 2 for all relevant songs?
Edited by Scanner on 04 January 2021 at 8:18am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: 10 January 2021 at 1:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hey Paul,
Was reading through the new Rock book and had a general question
about album labels and numbers. Is there a source (hopefully online
and free) that lists this information? The reason I ask is that the
billboard charts use to have this but no longer. So now if you search
through a variety of sources they usually do not agree.
iTunes will have a label which could be different than what is found on
Amazon which could be different than allmusic or discogs which tends
to list multiple labels. You can find label numbers on discogs, Barnes
and nobles and allmusic but they also vary. Some might have the same
basic number but add extra numbers in the beginning and at the end.
Thanks
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: The Comparison Book 1954-82
