| Author |
|
Chartman
MusicFan
Joined: 26 February 2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 04 December 2017 at 9:22am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for checking Paul. Give us a heads up when you
start researching the updated Country Songs book (2019?)
and I can send you some updates to consider.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 12 January 2018 at 1:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
Some very interesting points being discussed here.
The difference between the Hot 100 and the whole Country situation is that the Hot 100 has been the Hot 100 since August 1958. That's nearly 60 years! The HCS chart was started in October 2012. Prior to that the Country Airplay chart WAS the HCS chart, and for over 20 years at that.
There have always been tweaks to the Hot 100 formula over the years. Granted, the changes made in recent years are much bigger in scope, but the options for people to consume music these days are also much bigger. If this technology had been around in the 1960s, I'm sure that just about every Beatles album cut, for instance, would've charted. Billboard did try the Pop 100 chart, but they discontinued it due to lack of interest.
In addition to the Hot 100, I always followed the Radio & Records CHR chart, because that one gave a better picture of what I was actually hearing on the radio. With so many different charts published by Billboard each week, it's pretty easy to follow which ones you feel are the best. |
|
|
Most interesting, Paul. I could be interested in a Radio & Records chart book from RRI.
I do like what you’ll be doing with the upcoming updated Country Singles book, going/continuing with the country radio airplay charts for the main data.
Now the kicker: I would also be in favor of you and Joel putting together a new book for the Billboard pop radio airplay charts, say 90s and beyond. A brief discussion for our viewers:
I’m assuming the historical Billboard pop charts / Hot 100 have reflected the “pop” radio format over the decades rather than all radio formats lumped together. I.e., based on pop radio airplay plus pop record store sales, from the 50s up until the early 90s, when things started going haywire with some not-for-sale tracks getting airplay but no sales, and some singles that were selling without getting any airplay. AKA, the problem that American Top 40 had to deal with in choosing non-Hot 100 charts to keep their subscribers happy, due to the influx of rap and heavy metal.
Then in the late 90s, the Hot 100 changed from a “pop” chart to an “everything” chart, where airplay of all radio stations and sales of all recordings were thrown into this “everything” mix. Thus the true “pop” format of pop radio got obliterated on the most famous Billboard chart and replaced with something else. Maybe it would have been better to keep the Hot 100 as a “pop” chart and create a new “everything” chart. Or let the Hot 100 evolve as it did but create a new “pop” chart.
Country still has its format and charts, as does RnB, but “pop” no longer has a main chart, its chart the Hot 100 now becoming an everything chart.
Pure “pop” has been relegated to airplay charts, a series of them over the years, Top 40 Radio Monitor, Hot 100 Airplay, Top 40 Mainstream Radio Airplay, Top 40 Tracks Airplay, Pop 100 Airplay. The Pop 100 (sales and airplay) was an interesting experiment for a while, but it fizzled out in 2009 per Billboard because the influence of digital downloads made the Pop 100 and Hot 100 too similar.
Which leads to my main point: how about you and Joel coming up with a new Billboard pop radio airplay book? You two figure out where it would begin, early 90s, late 90s, or whenever. And which Billboard pop radio charts to use. Keeping the RRI Hot 100 books as they are, for those purists, and creating this new pop radio book for pop purists. This would illuminate and focus on pop music relative to itself over these recent decades without being steam-rolled by other music genres and radio formats.
Probably not much chance of this happening, ha, but thought it worthwhile to mention anyway. Thanks much !!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2240
|
| Posted: 12 January 2018 at 2:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have one modest suggestion, which could satisfy most of us collector/chart nuts:
Could you assemble a book similar to what you've done with the 1960s charts, where each song gets one listing in the book, and that one listing lists all the peak positions and debut dates on the various BB charts? We collectors could use such a book as a checklist for all the songs that charted anywhere in Billboard, without worrying about which particular chart had what position.
I would have loved such a book for the 1990s. I personally lost interest in following the Hot 100 after "Lovefool" and "Don't Speak" were deemed ineligible. I attempted to follow R&R for the second half of the 1990s, but it didn't mesh well with the Billboard data, and I just gave up entirely.
Nowadays, I rely on my Top Hits USA subscription to tell me what was a hit. If a song makes it onto one of the six yearly recurrent discs, then it's a hit in my little world. That averages out to about 105-110 "hits" per year, or roughly everything that hit the top 15 if we go back to typical 1980s chart movements.
Edit: The book I was thinking of is Across The Charts. I love this collection, and will use it as my reference if my year-by-year collecting ever goes back into the '60s.
Edited by crapfromthepast on 12 January 2018 at 2:57pm
__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 13 January 2018 at 5:11am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Don't see much chance of any "Pop" book(s) focusing on the 1990s and beyond. The demand for such a book just isn't there and, quite frankly, Joel doesn't have much interest in that period either.
IMO, the Across The Charts - The 1960s book was a terrific idea, but it just didn't sell very well. That, combined with our ever-dwindling staff and resources, doesn't bode well for any future volumes.
We have to devote our resources to the bread-and-butter books (Top Pop Singles, Pop Annual, Pop Albums, Country and R&B Singles) to stay in business. Any "specialty" books will be based on how well the basic ones continue to sell.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 13 January 2018 at 7:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've got it, a NEW book: Pop Albums ANNUAL !! Yeah, baby...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
torcan
MusicFan
Joined: 23 June 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 13 January 2018 at 1:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I believe a Pop Albums Annual was considered once - I
remember one of the flyers about 20 years or so ago
indicating it was upcoming. Nothing ever came of it,
unfortunately. I'd love to see one.
I'd also still like to see the Cashbox charts series
books continue - I'd buy an '80s book in a second.
I guess were only two years away from the '10s Hot 100
book too!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 13 January 2018 at 3:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Pop Albums Annual - never happen. Ever since Billboard allowed catalog albums on the Top 200, an older album can always hit a new peak position. Besides, we'd have to fill in all of the weeks in Top 10, Top 40, etc. Would be a logistical nightmare.
Cashbox & Record World chart book series both have a very good chance of continuing. Again, just a matter of time for us to work on it.
The Billboard weekly Hot 100 charts of the 2010s decade may NOT be a slam dunk. Billboard is only printing 25-30 issues per year. The Hot 100 is now spread out over 2-3 pages and we're not sure how we'd handle the non-printed charts. Also, we're not sure how much demand there even is for charts from the current decade.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 14 January 2018 at 11:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
Cashbox & Record World chart book series both have a very good chance of continuing. Again, just a matter of time for us to work on it.
|
|
|
Paul, if each continues, what would likely be tne next books for each? I have Cash Box Top 100 Charts - The 60s, and The 70s, so I'm guessing the 80s. But what about Record World?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 14 January 2018 at 1:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
EdisonLite wrote:
| Paul, if each continues, what would likely be tne next books for each? I have Cash Box Top 100 Charts - The 60s, and The 70s, so I'm guessing the 80s. But what about Record World? |
|
|
We'd like to do the 1950s for Cash Box, but we need to track down some missing charts. So, the 1980s would likely be next.
Record World Volume 2 would be 1973-82 (they ceased publication in April 1982), so that would complete that series.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 14 January 2018 at 1:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul, Any chance of a Radio & Records book?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 14 January 2018 at 3:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Call me a nut (I am), but for a Pop Albums Annual (if it were ever to come to pass), I’d really prefer to see the yearly peak of an album for EVERY YEAR it appeared on the charts. Not just its absolute peak in its peak year. This would allow us to see the ebb and flow popularity of an album over time, as it actually occurred.
Yeah, that would result in more pages and ink, but the extra cost would be worth it to me. Take my money, please…
(Same thing for the Pop Singles Annual, ha.)
Thanks for listening, Paul…
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 14 January 2018 at 5:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
Record World Volume 2 would be 1973-82 (they ceased publication in April 1982), so that would complete that series. |
|
|
In my list of books, I see I have:
Hit Records (Record World) 1954-1982
which, I believe, indicates peak positions, weeks on, etc. for each song within those years. So what is the "Record World Volume 1" book? Is that a printing of each weekly chart? Maybe I missed it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 14 January 2018 at 5:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley - Re: the Pop 100 - back during that time period, I was on the phone with the Editor of Charts at Billboard a lot (I believe his name was Geoff Mayfield, if I'm not mixing him up with someone else at Billboard.) I had suggested he do a "Pop 100" because the "Hot 100" was an all-charts combo, and if country, rock, R&B, rap, etc. got their own self-contained chart, I argued that pop deserved one, too - a main chart in the book, not just a minor chart - one based on pop/mainstream airplay and pop/mainstream sales. (Basically - the way they always did it for the previous 40+ years). On the first phone call, he said he'd consider it. After several months, he told me they were doing it. But it would switch off every week between the "Pop 100" and the "Hot 100". It wasn't ideal in my eyes, but at least it would be there half the time. Of course, it turned out to be very confusing to readers and they stopped the Pop 100 after a very short time. But I, too, am like you and wish there were a combo of airplay and sales for pop. In my arguments to Geoff, I pointed that AT40 and other countdown audio/radio shows never used the Billboard Hot 100 anymore because it didn't represent any stations (e.g. CHR) that played pop/top 40. He understood that no countdowns were using the Billboard Hot 100 anymore and understood why. (And I didn't tell him this but I've known so many people in the music industry that have told me the Hot 100 is useless for their purposes - whether they be songwriters, producers, A&R, etc. I'm not saying everyone feels that way. I'm just saying a lot of industry professionals have made this comment to me.)
Of course now, things are so different - with streaming, YouTube, downloading, Pandora, Spotify, "talking about songs on Twitter" and all the different types of top 40 stations (some leaning more urban than others), I wouldn't even know what would be best now.
But I do believe in the late '90s and through most of the '00s, a true pop chart, as a main (100 or 75 position) full page chart would have been great.
Edited by EdisonLite on 14 January 2018 at 5:53pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 14 January 2018 at 6:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
PS - We've talked elsewhere on this site about the inclusion of YouTube plays in the Hot 100. And I, like some others, said I have issues with it. I never really went into details about why I feel that way, so this seems as good a time as any. I understand the argument that times have changed and YouTube should be represented in the point system for the Hot 100. While I agree with that in general, I have 2 or 3 problems with that.
After a music video ends, an automatically generated music video is set to come up in the queue next (and ... I imagine those videos that are set to play next are paid for by the record labels), and unless you hit cancel in 5 to 10 seconds, it starts playing - and whether you wanted to hear it or not, now your play of the first song has generated a play (and equal points) for the 2nd song you have no interest in hearing.
Second, some people check out a song and don't like it at all and turn it off after, say, 20 seconds. Should this count the same as a person who likes the song and listened all the way through? I don't think so. But even playing a song for 1 or 2 seconds on YouTube counts as a listen. If someone bought a single and kept it, it counts as a sale. If someone bought a 45 and returned it, eventually that return would be accounted for and that sale wouldn't have counted. Likewise, if a person listens to a portion of a video and turns it off because they don't like the song, I really don't feel it should count the same way that a full listen does.
Lastly, based on the new rules, Rebecca Black's "Friday" would have likely been #1 (and perhaps for several weeks). The song quickly got the reputation for being the "worst song of all time" and it caused millions of people to check it out on YouTube. Many people agreed it was really bad - maybe some others thought it was marginally bad or ok or even good. But the majority of people checked it out because they wanted to see how bad it was. This song is an exception to the rule, of course. As it turns out, it wasn't a big hit on the Hot 100. But based on current standards and rules, with the multi-millions of views it got, it would have likely been a #1 hit (and perhaps for many weeks.) And I don't feel that it in any way should be considered along the lines of other #1 hits like, say, "Bette Davis Eyes", "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You", etc. What I'm saying is that there's no way to tell if a person is playing a YouTube video because they like it or because they heard it's awful. I guess I'd be more ok with YouTube's inclusion toward Hot 100 points if the song was listened all the way through. That would at least have some merit in most cases (though not the Rebecca Black case).
Edited by EdisonLite on 14 January 2018 at 6:09pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 15 January 2018 at 5:53am | IP Logged
|
|
|
EdisonLite wrote:
| Paul, Any chance of a Radio & Records book? |
|
|
I've been lobbying for it for the past several years now. Hopefully someday!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 15 January 2018 at 5:58am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
Call me a nut (I am), but for a Pop Albums Annual (if it were ever to come to pass), I’d really prefer to see the yearly peak of an album for EVERY YEAR it appeared on the charts. Not just its absolute peak in its peak year. This would allow us to see the ebb and flow popularity of an album over time, as it actually occurred.
Yeah, that would result in more pages and ink, but the extra cost would be worth it to me. Take my money, please…
(Same thing for the Pop Singles Annual, ha.)
Thanks for listening, Paul…
|
|
|
I agree, you're a nut! :)
A Pop Albums Annual will never happen at Record Research. Just too much work for too little payoff. We have to make a profit to keep the doors open, simple as that.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 15 January 2018 at 5:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
EdisonLite wrote:
In my list of books, I see I have:
Hit Records (Record World) 1954-1982
which, I believe, indicates peak positions, weeks on, etc. for each song within those years. So what is the "Record World Volume 1" book? Is that a printing of each weekly chart? Maybe I missed it. |
|
|
Yes, it's scans of the actual weekly charts. Volume 1 covered 1964 (when the magazine started) - 1972.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 15 January 2018 at 10:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul, please also consider a pre-cursor to your Record World chart books = Music Vendor Singles Charts 1954-1963. I've heard that good copies of some / most of these charts might be hard to find. If so, typed up weekly charts would be an acceptable substitute, better than nothing at all. Cheers!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 16 January 2018 at 3:51am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
| Paul, please also consider a pre-cursor to your Record World chart books = Music Vendor Singles Charts 1954-1963. I've heard that good copies of some / most of these charts might be hard to find. If so, typed up weekly charts would be an acceptable substitute, better than nothing at all. Cheers! |
|
|
We're considering it! As you stated, good quality copies would be the major hurdle for that book.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 18 January 2018 at 8:58am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Groovy Paul!
Since we can't have a Pop Albums Annual, I propose the next best thing: a Pop Albums Comparison Book, album peaks across all 3 BB, CB, & RW charts. The 50s to 80s. Super duper fab gear groovy keen! Take my money, please!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Pop Annual 1955-2016
