| Author |
|
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 07 August 2021 at 5:10am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Now taking orders. Printing in late September.
Top Pop Singles
Edited by Paul Haney on 07 August 2021 at 5:18am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul C
MusicFan
Joined: 23 October 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 789
|
| Posted: 07 August 2021 at 10:37am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Is Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen still immediately
followed by Disco Tex & The Sex-O-Lettes?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 07 August 2021 at 11:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul C wrote:
Is Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen still immediately
followed by Disco Tex & The Sex-O-Lettes? |
|
|
Yes.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 07 August 2021 at 3:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul, I know "Top Pop Singles" is being broken into 2 volumes, by date. But is there anything in the new '55-'89 book that we don't already have in previous Top Pop Singles book? Obviously, the '90-'21 book will be of interest to many because it has so many new years since the last one. Also, when is that 2nd volume coming out?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 07 August 2021 at 4:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
You can lock me in as getting both volumes. Will they be available as E-Books too Paul?
If an Artist that appears in the 1955-1989 overlaps and is in the 1990-2021 will there be a reference in that artist pointing back to the first book for the 1973-1989 charters? (Think Aerosmith for example).
Any chance you are getting the 1955-2021 annual out next year too? Usually I notice you update about once every 6 years!
Just a suggestion for the next Pop Annual book...it would be cool to have a listing under each year from 1955-2021 of all the hits that didn't chart on the Hot 100 or bubbling that come from the yearbooks Whitburn did from 1983-2006. That way it gives a great picture of hits that didnt get on either chart but were clearly hits of that year on others (rap, country, R & B etc).....
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eric_a
MusicFan
Joined: 29 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 442
|
| Posted: 07 August 2021 at 6:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul, I’ve never noticed the 24-hit club before. Any significance to that
number? Was an important artist on the edge?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6514
|
| Posted: 07 August 2021 at 8:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
EdisonLite wrote:
| Paul, I know "Top Pop Singles" is being broken into 2 volumes, by date. But is there anything in the new '55-'89 book that we don't already have in previous Top Pop Singles book? Obviously, the '90-'21 book will be of interest to many because it has so many new years since the last one. Also, when is that 2nd volume coming out? |
|
|
> All Top 10 Albums, plus other key LPs = 1000s of albums listed with full chart data
> 16 pages, artist-by-artist, devoted to early, key R&B/Rock ‘n’ Roll songs and artists
> Return of prices for any records valued at $25 or more
__________________
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: 1743
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 1:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I see that Aaron beat me to the new features (thanks, Aaron!).
I'm thinking that the Pop Annual may come next year (2022), but don't quote me on that.
The 24 Hit Club has been around for a few editions now. No huge significance to that number, just one that Joel
thought sounded good.
Please keep in mind that it's basically just me and Joel working on these books nowadays. I wish we could pump out
more product, but there's only so many hours in the day. This one alone took me a month just to edit the artist
section!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 5:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I just bought the 1955-2018 book a year or so ago, so
I'll probably pass on this but curiously how will songs
that spanned 1989-90 be handled? Both books or just the
one that saw the majority of chart action?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 6:17am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
I just bought the 1955-2018 book a year or so ago, so
I'll probably pass on this but curiously how will songs
that spanned 1989-90 be handled? Both books or just the
one that saw the majority of chart action?
|
|
|
I was wondering about that as well. I imagine it would be easier to just go by whichever year the song reached its peak position? For instance, Michael
Bolton's "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You" went to #1 in January 1990, but had already been on the chart for several weeks at the end of 1989. So
maybe it would be easier to just put it in the 1990-2021 book with its debut date in 1989 listed with a "+" sign to show that it peaked in 1990?
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 6:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
This book (1955-1989) contains every song that charted in 1989 (even if it peaked in 1990).
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 7:17am | IP Logged
|
|
|
So then it's going by Debut date, which makes perfect sense and something I should have thought about before. =-)
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 8:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yeah, I wish nothing but success & longevity to Joel & Paul, but for the first
time in 35 years, I'll have to pass.
Casey K taught me the fun of the Rock Era being one continuum and while I
ABSOLUTELY understand the logistics of now 2 volumes, the division fractures
too many artist / record histories. There are simply too many big artists who
are cleaved in two, with their chart accomplishments incomplete.
For Rock icons - particularly in this day of veteran artists charting every
Christmas - it's been rewarding to see where they wind up on an all-time list,
not relegated to a 'vinyl era'. But I hope it hits its target audiences and sells
well - great luck!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 1:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree with all of jebsib's sentiments.
So I assume that the 1990-2021 book will not include songs that debuted in 1989 and peaked in 1990 (even if a 1990 peaker spent one week on the charts in 1989). Is that right, Paul? It makes sense that an overlapping song would only be in one book, not both, though your answer didn't specifically state that.
And Paul - this reminds me - a question about the Billboard 2000's Hot 100 chart book. I have the book but at the moment don't have time to go through every page to answer this :) I remember there were about 2 or 3 weeks where Billboard published its Pop 100 and not the Hot 100. It was dedicated to mainstream airplay (and I believe sales) - and not the multi-genre chart that the Hot 100 combined. Each week was alternating: hot 100, pop 100, hot 100, pop 100, and then always hot 100 again (or something like that). In your decades book for the '00s, did it just include the Pop 100 for the few weeks in question? Or did it determine the Hot 100 (from the "Last week column" of the next chart, to keep a consistent Hot 100 for every week? I'm guessing it's the first scenario; also, with the 2nd option, there'd be a few gaps for songs that fell off the Hot 100 and weren't on the next chart.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Scanner
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
|
| Posted: 08 August 2021 at 4:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
What are the criteria for the albums included/excluded
in this book? At first, I thought it was just Top 10
albums based on the sample page for the Beatles. But,
then the samples provided for David Bowie, the Hollies
and Buddy Holly include lower charting albums.
Is the All-Time ranking just for this volume's time
period or for the entire Pop era? If the latter,
which book(s) will contain the full ranking? I
suppose updating the All-Time ranking for each entry
in this volume will require someone to repurchase this
book each time the second volume is updated.
I agree this should have been an alphabetical split
(A-M, N-Z) than by year. An artist's entire chart
history would not be broken up between volumes and it
would better justify repurchasing both volumes when
updated in the future.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 1:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Gordon, the Hot 100 was never "replaced" by the Pop 100. They were always separate charts. We've never done any
research on the Pop 100. Also, the 1990-2021 book will include everything that debuted from 1990-on.
These books will be treated as separate volumes. There will be no combined, overall rankings between the books.
Also, it's not just Top 10 albums, but any album that Joel felt should be included (especially if it was a big
seller or won industry awards).
I get where you guys are coming from. Personally, I would've loved to see it kept to one volume, regardless
of size. But at the end of the day, Joel's name is on the cover, so the final decisions of what to include and not include
rests with him. My job is to get the book ready so it fits his vision. The decision to buy or not to buy is yours.
Edited by Paul Haney on 09 August 2021 at 3:37am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 1:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul, I remember the "Pop 100" was the big page for 2 or 3 issues. (Does anyone else remember this?) During those weeks, was the Hot 100 printed in a smaller font on another page? I didn't mean so much that it replaced the Hot 100. I meant that Billboard chose to make the dominant chart the "Pop 100" in a couple/few issues. I was able speaking to Billboard editor Geoff Mayfield at the time. (I was the one who gave him the idea to compile and print a "Pop 100" and luckily, he liked the idea.) But when he started its inclusion by alternating which chart seemed to be the most "present" chart in the magazine, I had commented that I felt this would seem confusing to readers. It wasn't much longer that they dropped printing the Pop 100 altogether.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jebsib
MusicFan
Joined: 06 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 5:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I DO recall the Pop 100 being printed full page and the Hot 100 relegated to a
smaller chart format - it happened 4 times between May and June 2005. It
WAS a confusing move and I think was dumped as it have the Hot 100 less
prominence.
The Pop 100 sounded great on paper and would have worked incredibly well if
it had launched in 2001 (at the beginning of the "airplay-only, R&B / Hip-Hop
tsunami, no-pop prominence" era). Unfortunately by the time the Pop 100
started, digital sales had suddenly infused the Hot 100, restoring genre
balance and basically rendering the Pop 100 D.O.A.. Sad, I liked it as an
alternative.
One thing I learned for the very first time last week was that back in 1961 - the
week the Adult Contemporary chart launched - Billboard started something
called "The Teen Beat Chart" (A sort of antithesis to the new AC list). Not sure
when it ended, but intriguing chart idea!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
RoknRobnLoxley
MusicFan
Joined: 25 October 2017
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 7:09am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I wish Joel & Paul would do a Pop Chart book based on the 'pop only charts', starting in the early 90s.
As you'll recall, at that point in time, many records began charting on the Hot 100 that had high sales but low airplay. Those being mostly rap and heavy metal, that Top 40/pop stations would not play. Stations that carried American Top 40 complained, so AT40 switched charts, from the Hot 100 to the Hot 100 Airplay chart (aka Top 40 Radio Monitor chart), then to the Top 40 Mainstream pop chart, and eventually to the Radio & Records CHR/Pop Top 50 chart.
Then on 12-5-98, Billboard changed the Hot 100 formula from a combo of singles sales + pop radio station airplay to an 'everything plus the kitchen sink' chart = singles sales + airplay from pop + R&B + rock + country. Thus 'pop' music on the Hot 100 became devalued. In my opinion, Billboard should have kept the pop Hot 100, and created a new separate 'everything' chart.
So I'm thinking it would be super kool if Joel/Paul would create a true pop chart book for 1990 and beyond, using the various Billboard pop airplay charts. It would especially fit in nicely now that they're splitting the Top Pop Singles book into 2 volumes, the 2nd covering 1990 and beyond.
Or they could produce volume 2 to include both the Hot 100 and the pop radio airplay charts. 2 sets of chart numbers per record. Now that would be sweet, and would be an extra incentive for more sales.
Who's with me?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
torcan
MusicFan
Joined: 23 June 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 09 August 2021 at 7:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RoknRobnLoxley wrote:
Then on 12-5-98, Billboard changed the Hot 100 formula
from a combo of singles sales + pop radio station
airplay to an 'everything plus the kitchen sink' chart
= singles sales + airplay from pop + R&B + rock +
country. Thus 'pop' music on the Hot 100 became
devalued. In my opinion, Billboard should have kept
the pop Hot 100, and created a new separate
'everything' chart.
|
|
|
I agree with you to a degree. The Hot 100 didn't seem
to be working properly anymore by the end of 1998.
There were so many "promo only" single releases that
were ineligible to chart because they weren't
commercially available, but they were extremely
popular. When looking at charts from the mid-90s, the
average person might think "where's this song, it was
huge?" It wasn't realistic anymore.
I agree with letting popular airplay-only hits on the
chart, but I think they went overboard with what they
allowed on. Look at charts today (and for the last
decade or so), where artists like Taylor Swift, Drake
or Ed Sheeran are charting "12 singles" from one album
- all the album tracks appear for a week or two then
disappear. This I don't like.
I think they should have allowed these tracks on the
chart only if they were being promoted as a single to
radio, or were so popular they had staying power.
These one- and two-week entries for album tracks which
aren't being promoted throw everything out of whack.
To me, this isn't realistic.
You really have to separate charts from 12-5-98 before
and after - you can't compare the Beatles to Taylor
Swift (for example) because they were working under
two different sets of rules.
Make sense?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Top Pop Singles Vol.1 (1955-89)
