https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Sun, 05 Apr 2026 22:39:13 +0000 Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:55:40 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=8206 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum//images/Top-40-Music-on-CD-Forum-Logo.png https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57071&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57071 Author: kingofskiffle
Subject: 8206
Posted: 12 January 2021 at 3:55pm

I think it is a good idea to include and your right it is at least a place to
start. Most do download but suppose the download of the album isn’t
available? Or downloading isn’t an option. I think it’s always worth the
effort.   Looking forward to my copy when it arrives (don’t live in the US
so international post awaits) ]]> Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:55:40 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57071&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57071 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57070&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57070 Author: Paul Haney
Subject: 8206
Posted: 12 January 2021 at 2:55pm

Yes, there are numerous issues with physical product these days. This entire project was done in just a few months and I
just couldn't spend hours looking up a single album (I probably spent too much time cross-checking some as it was). Maybe
we should've just left the numbers out, but I thought it was important to show them and at least give our readers a place to
start if they did want to track down the physical product. Again, not sure if it was worth the effort I did put in as most
people just download the songs anyway.

Edited by Paul Haney]]> Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:55:29 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57070&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57070 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57069&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57069 Author: Chartman
Subject: 8206
Posted: 12 January 2021 at 2:00pm

Paul Haney wrote: I should also note that even the Billboard chart department has been struggling in recent years with these issues. That's one reason why they no longer show such info on their charts. They even have a hard time coming to a consensus on some song titles and artist billings! Not like the old days when we could just look at one physical configuration (single and/or album).

It's like most songs have three different labels
listed - everyone wants a piece of the action. Have
noticed that Billboard often switches up the labels
listed on their charts through a songs run. Have you
looked at the number of songwriters listed. Some
spanish songs have 10 writers each with four names in
their individual names.

Another issue is that an artist will release a deluxe
or special edition of a popular CD that includes only
a new song or two but has a different label number.
Suppose that new song makes the rock chart. Are you
going to list a different label number for the same CD
just for that new song?

A problem that is pronounced in the alternative world
is the releasing of a digital only song which then
becomes popular. So they release an EP, then a year
later a full fledge album that contains the song. Case
in point, "Broken" by lovelytheband was first released
as a single in April 2017. Started getting some
airplay so they released an EP (Everything I Could
Never Say) in September 2017, Became a big hit so they
released the album "Finding It Hard To Smile" in
August 2018. You listed that last album in your book,
however while it's true the song is on the album, the
album wasn't available when most were listening to the
song. There are many other examples of this situation
occurring. Reminds me of the situation where they
would release a 45 of a song not available on an album
so you had to buy the 45. Then a few months later, an
album came out that contained the song. Weren't the
Beatles famous for releasing 45 only songs?

Edited by Chartman]]> Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:00:07 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57069&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57069 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57066&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57066 Author: Paul Haney
Subject: 8206
Posted: 12 January 2021 at 3:32am

I should also note that even the Billboard chart department has been struggling in recent years with these
issues. That's one reason why they no longer show such info on their charts. They even have a hard time coming
to a consensus on some song titles and artist billings! Not like the old days when we could just look at one
physical configuration (single and/or album).]]> Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:32:43 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57066&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57066 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57062&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57062 Author: Paul Haney
Subject: 8206
Posted: 11 January 2021 at 2:50pm

Yes, the labels and numbers are confusing! I made the best attempt that I could on tracking those down. I used a number
of different sources, including most of those posted above. We seriously considered leaving the numbers out for that very
reason, but decided to go with what we thought was correct. I certainly have no problem in making corrections where they
may be needed. Not sure how many people even care about that info (especially nowadays when most people obtain things
digitally), but we tried our best under a tight deadline!

Edited by Paul Haney]]> Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:50:47 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57062&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57062 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57061&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57061 Author: Chartman
Subject: 8206
Posted: 11 January 2021 at 10:26am

Let me add an example to show you why I'm confused:

For Machine Gun Kelly's "Tickets To My Downfall"

The Billboard chart shows the label as Bad Boy,
EST19XX
Amazon lists the label as Interscope
iTunes lists the label as Bad Boy/Interscope
Barnes and Nobles lists the label and number as
Interscope 003243803
allmusic lists the label and number as Bad
Boy/Interscope/Polydor 0736906
Discogs lists the labels and number as B0032788-02 on
either Bad Boy, Interscope or EST19XX
The back cover of the actual CD lists the label as Bad
Boy/Interscope
The label number on the CD is B003278802

You show the label and number as EST19XX 032438.
Generally I would go with "In Whitburn We Trust"
however there seem to be other options worth
considering.

Bad Boy/Interscope 032788 would be my
choice (going with the CD) but I'm not the expert
here.

Edited by Chartman]]> Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:26:43 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57061&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57061 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57058&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57058 Author: Chartman
Subject: 8206
Posted: 10 January 2021 at 1:21pm

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]]> Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:21:07 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57058&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57058 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57010&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57010 Author: Scanner
Subject: 8206
Posted: 03 January 2021 at 5:31pm

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]]> Sun, 03 Jan 2021 17:31:17 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=57010&title=the-comparison-book-195482#57010 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=56976&title=the-comparison-book-195482#56976 Author: PopArchivist
Subject: 8206
Posted: 01 January 2021 at 9:12pm

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.]]> Fri, 01 Jan 2021 21:12:05 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=56976&title=the-comparison-book-195482#56976 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=56973&title=the-comparison-book-195482#56973 Author: kingofskiffle
Subject: 8206
Posted: 01 January 2021 at 7:00am

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).]]> Fri, 01 Jan 2021 07:00:33 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8206&PID=56973&title=the-comparison-book-195482#56973