| Author |
|
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 10 August 2006 at 7:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
pat....the db says that the 45 states the run time listed on the label is 3:59.....my commercial 45 states the run time as 4:34......are there 2 commercial 45's of this 45??.....there might be some confusion because the b-side song "motion is lost" states a run time of 3:59......is it possible that's where you got your run time data from???
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Pat Downey
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 11 August 2006 at 5:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
My DJ copy of this 45 states a running time of (3:59) and runs (4:34). Joel Whitburn's Pop Annual states a running time of (3:59) and he usually lists commercial 45's so I assumed thzt the commercial 45 running time was stated incorrectly on the label also. Perhaps Paul Haney can help determine if Record Research used the dj copy as the source for the time of (3:59).
Edited by Pat Downey on 15 August 2006 at 7:20pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 11 August 2006 at 6:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Our database currently states the run time as 4:34, so it must have been corrected since the 1999 edition. For those interested, the new Pop Annual will be out later this year, with several updated single timings.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
torcan
MusicFan
Joined: 23 June 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 11 August 2006 at 10:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've got two copies of the commercial 45. One with a timing listed of 3:59, the other with 4:34. They both run 4:34. I guess they corrected the incorrect timing later in the pressing.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 21 August 2006 at 4:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Paul Haney wrote:
For those interested, the new Pop
Annual will be out later this year, with several updated
single timings. |
|
|
Definitely looking forward to it (just received the
latest quarterly RR catalog promoting it a couple days
ago); hopefully you've already corrected the songwriting
credit for Rick Springfield's #27 hit from 1985,
"Bruce"... :-)
While we're on the subject, Paul, I'd like to ask about
something else in the "Pop Annual" that I feel should be
corrected: I like how when the same song makes two
separate runs up the "Hot 100" - and the "peak date" for
those runs falls in two different calendar years - it's
usually listed w/ separate entries under both years,
along w/ its respective chart performance from the year
in question (e.g., "Into the Night" by Benny Mardones in
both 1980 and 1989, "At This Moment" by Billy Vera & the
Beaters in 1981 and '87, "Hot in the City" by Billy Idol
in 1982 and '88, "What About Me" by Moving Pictures in
1983 and '89, etc., etc.). But I've noticed that
exceptions were made for at least three songs: 1) "Baby,
Come to Me" by Patti Austin with James Ingram (peaked at
#73 in 1982 during its first run, then went all the way
to #1 in 1983 in a second run), 2) "**1999**" by Prince
(peaked at #44 in 1982 during its first run, then hit #12
in 1983 in a second run), and 3) "You Can Call Me Al" by
Paul Simon (peaked at #44 in 1986 during its first run,
then hit #23 in 1987 in a second run). Currently, these
songs are all listed w/ only one entry under the latter
year in question, w/ the stats from the two separate
chart runs combined, and I've always wondered: Why???
(And of course, there is no footnote under each entry
indicating that the songs made more than one run, the
week-by-week history shown under "Baby, Come to Me"
notwithstanding.)
If this was just an oversight in all three cases, is it
too late to fix/split those entries for the new 7th
edition (the new RR catalog says it's scheduled to be
published in "late September")??? Just feel like it would
make more sense, if not for the sake of consistency...
Oh, and one other omission that needs to be fixed, if it
hasn't already: The footnote that should be under "At
This Moment"'s 1987 entry regarding its initial 1981
chart run is missing...
:-)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
torcan
MusicFan
Joined: 23 June 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 22 August 2006 at 11:55am | IP Logged
|
|
|
80smusicfreak wrote:
I like how when the same song makes two
separate runs up the "Hot 100" - and the "peak date" for
those runs falls in two different calendar years - it's
usually listed w/ separate entries under both years,
along w/ its respective chart performance from the year
in question (e.g., "Into the Night" by Benny Mardones in
both 1980 and 1989, "At This Moment" by Billy Vera & the
Beaters in 1981 and '87, "Hot in the City" by Billy Idol
in 1982 and '88, "What About Me" by Moving Pictures in
1983 and '89, etc., etc.). But I've noticed that
exceptions were made for at least three songs: 1) "Baby,
Come to Me" by Patti Austin with James Ingram (peaked at
#73 in 1982 during its first run, then went all the way
to #1 in 1983 in a second run), 2) "**1999**" by Prince
(peaked at #44 in 1982 during its first run, then hit #12
in 1983 in a second run), and 3) "You Can Call Me Al" by
Paul Simon (peaked at #44 in 1986 during its first run,
then hit #23 in 1987 in a second run). :-) |
|
|
I believe Whitburn lists it as one entry if the song re-charted within a six-month period. If it took longer than that to re-chart, then it's listed separately.
An interesting thing about the Billboard charts back then: from the late '70s, well into the '80s when a song re-charted they reset the number of weeks back to 1, and a cumulative total wasn't listed. The only exception I can think of was "Baby Come To Me". It was around 1986 or 1987 that they started listing the total number of weeks when a song re-charted. Same thing happened on the album chart. (Maybe the chart director at that time was too lazy to look it up?!) :)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 22 August 2006 at 12:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
torcan wrote:
| I believe Whitburn lists it as one entry if the song re-charted within a six-month period. If it took longer than that to re-chart, then it's listed separately. |
|
|
Torcan is correct. Our rule of thumb is that it must be off at least 6 months (26 weeks) before it is considered a separate chart run.
"Baby, Come To Me" was off for 21 weeks.
"1999" and "You Can Call Me Al" were both off for 19 weeks.
The rule USED to be one full year (52 weeks), however that was deemed too long, so it was changed to six months. This change was made somewhere between the 1994 and 1999 Pop Annual editions.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: lisa lisa/cult jam "lost in emotion"
