https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Thu, 09 Apr 2026 16:34:00 +0000 Thu, 29 Sep 2022 23:17:29 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=9868 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=9868&PID=61924&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61924 Author: Vince
Subject: 9868
Posted: 29 September 2022 at 11:17pm

Billboard (BB) used different methodologies in different years to calculate the year end chart. From 1962 through 1986 they were based on a simple inverse point system (100 points for #1, 99 points for #2, down to 1 point for #100), referred to as reverse rank. 1962 through 1966, and 1969, no bonus points we awarded. Beginning in 1967 and through though the 70s and early 80s bonus points were awarded for #1 songs. Beginning in 1984, top 10 hits also received bonus points. In 1987, BB changed to a complex inverse point system which was used until Soundscan in 1992.

Without #1 bonus points, non #1s with longevity were able to outrank all the #1s in some years. Had #1 bonus points been awarded in 1965, "Satisfaction" would have been #1 for the year instead of "Wooly Bully". For 1963 either "He's So Fine" or "Sugar Shack" would have been #1 instead of "Surfin' USA", depending on the cut off. BB's revised version for 1966 awarded bonus points, putting "The Ballad of the Green Berets" at the top instead of "California Dreamin'".

Here is a link to a discussion on BB's year end pop singles charts with attempted matches and alternate versions. https://at40fg.proboards.com/thread/4951/billboards-singles- charts-revised-versions]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2022 23:17:29 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61924&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61924 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61919&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61919 Author: RoknRobnLoxley
Subject: 9868
Posted: 28 September 2022 at 8:45am

Hykker wrote: Paul Haney wrote: This is exactly the kind of thing that used to drive Joel Whitburn crazy. I can still hear him saying "How can the #1 record of the year not even make it to #1 on the weekly charts! Doesn't make ANY sense!" So how DID it achieve that ranking? Chart longevity? 18 weeks was a long time to be on the charts in 1965, but one would think that "Satisfaction"'s 4 weeks at #1 would have trumped that.

Excellent question, I've always wondered about this myself. So going by the chart positions week by week:

Satisfaction: ....................67-26--4-2-1-1-1-1-2-2-6-16-31-41
Woolly Bully: 87-82-61-45-24-14-10-8-5-2-2-3-3-4-5-11-17-36

When you add up the inverse points (where a #1 = 100 pts, a #100 = 1 pt), assuming that's what Billboard did for their year-end charts, you get this:
Satisfaction = 1213 inverse points
Woolly Bully = 1399 inverse points

So if you compare head to head like I've lined them up, of the Top 10 weeks Satisfaction wins 8 of them, Woolly wins 1, but Woolly wins 3 weeks after the Top 10, and 6 weeks before the Top 10. So Woolly wins 10 weeks, Satisfaction wins 8.

Comparing inverse points of the Top 10 weeks:
Satisfaction = 889
Woolly = 867

Comparing inverse points of the non-Top 10 weeks:
Satisfaction = 324
Woolly = 532

So while Satisfaction has 22 more Top 10 inverse points, Woolly has 208 more non-Top 10 inverse points. And that's how Woolly beat Satisfaction, more weeks on the chart, and higher positions outside the Top 10.

Fascinating, interesting...]]> Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:45:38 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61919&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61919 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61918&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61918 Author: LunarLaugh
Subject: 9868
Posted: 28 September 2022 at 8:42am

The longer a record remained on the charts, the more "points" it would rack up for end-of-year tabulations. Thus a record
could go to number one and then completely drop off of the charts and not rank very highly on the year-end.
Alternatively, a record could reach number one and then remain somewhere in the Hot 100 for a long time afterwards,
resulting in more points gathered.

Edited by LunarLaugh]]> Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:42:03 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61918&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61918 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61916&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61916 Author: Hykker
Subject: 9868
Posted: 28 September 2022 at 5:27am

Paul Haney wrote: This is exactly the kind of thing that used to drive Joel Whitburn crazy. I can still hear him saying "How can the #1 record of the year not even make it to #1 on the weekly charts! Doesn't make ANY sense!"

So how DID it achieve that ranking? Chart longevity? 18 weeks was a long time to be on the charts in 1965, but one would think that
"Satisfaction"'s 4 weeks at #1 would have trumped that.]]> Wed, 28 Sep 2022 05:27:35 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61916&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61916 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61912&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61912 Author: Paul Haney
Subject: 9868
Posted: 27 September 2022 at 10:23am

RoknRobnLoxley wrote: Take for example "Woolly Bully" by Sam The Sham and The Pharaohs. Peaked at #2 on the weekly charts, but was the Billboard #1 record of the year for 1965. I love this record, hearing it always puts a big smile on my face !!

This is exactly the kind of thing that used to drive Joel
Whitburn crazy. I can still hear him saying "How can the
#1 record of the year not even make it to #1 on the weekly
charts! Doesn't make ANY sense!"]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:23:50 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61912&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61912 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61911&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61911 Author: RoknRobnLoxley
Subject: 9868
Posted: 27 September 2022 at 7:22am

Take for example "Woolly Bully" by Sam The Sham and The Pharaohs. Peaked at #2 on the weekly charts, but was the Billboard #1 record of the year for 1965. I love this record, hearing it always puts a big smile on my face !!]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:22:34 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61911&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61911 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61908&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61908 Author: Hykker
Subject: 9868
Posted: 27 September 2022 at 5:44am

Charts have always been inexact. How do you account for "turntable hits" (ie-songs that got a lot of airplay, but didn't sell very well),
especially in a year-end chart? And before the 90s, sales and airplay reports were pretty subjective too not to mention backroom hanky panky at
the publications themselves.

Agree that year-end peakers are behind the 8 ball...even if the chart year is Nov-Nov, a lot of these songs were "over" by the end of December,
yet appear on the following year's chart.

Then there are the "flash in the pan" songs like "Ballad Of The Green Berets", or most novelty records. A lot of initial interest, but 6 months
later no one wants to hear them.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a totally objective ranking of song popularity, it all depends on how you sort the not-always-accurate
data.]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:44:00 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61908&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61908 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61904&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61904 Author: torcan
Subject: 9868
Posted: 26 September 2022 at 12:47pm

I agree that the Billboard year-end charts are flawed,
but mostly because of the cut-off dates. There were some
years the cut-off was something like early October, which
didn't allow for a true year-end ranking. I never
understood why the cut-off for some of those years was so
early - does it really take them that long to figure it
out?

When ranking the top songs of the year, both peak
position and chart longevity have to be taken into
consideration. Ignoring one isn't a true reflection of
the year's top hits.

Cases in point: in 1982, John Cougar's "Hurts So Good"
peaked at No. 2 for four weeks, but spent 16 weeks in the
top 10 - one of the longest of the '80s - and 28 weeks on
the Hot 100. Certainly this song was a bigger hit
overall than Lionel Richie's "Truly", which spent two
weeks at No. 1, 10 weeks on the top 10 but only 18 on the
entire Hot 100.

REO Speedwagon's "In My Dreams" spent 30 weeks in the
chart in 1987 but only peaked at No. 19. Tom Petty's
"Jammin' Me" may have peaked a notch higher, but only
spent 12 weeks on the entire chart. The REO song had
much more staying power.

I consider Breathe's "Hands To Heaven" - a No. 2 hit from
1988 - to be a much bigger hit than Michael Jackson's
"Dirty Diana", which hit No. 1 for one week. "Hands To
Heaven" spent more than twice as long on the chart.

Those lower-peaking songs sold and were played enough to
remain among the top 100 songs for much longer periods of
time, so they would have accumulated more sales and
airplay over the course of the chart run than those
higher-peaking hits.

To me, you have to consider both to get a true ranking.
I think chart longevity does count for something.]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:47:12 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61904&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61904 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61902&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61902 Author: davidclark
Subject: 9868
Posted: 26 September 2022 at 11:09am

Yeah, those year-end charts are very flawed and do indeed contain errors. By
my "points" calc, Grand Funk "Some Kind Of Wonderful" would be about 88,
so no way it should've been at #6.]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2022 11:09:20 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61902&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61902 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61899&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61899 Author: Paul Haney
Subject: 9868
Posted: 26 September 2022 at 9:55am

And then there's "Some Kind Of Wonderful" by Grand Funk. Billboard's year-end Top 100 placed it at #6 for the
year 1975, in what was most likely a huge calculation error. Even as a kid, I thought that was strange.

Edited by Paul Haney]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:55:17 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9868&PID=61899&title=1966-billboard-year-end-chart#61899