1966 Billboard Year End chart

I've also noticed at least two differences in the
Billboard year-end lists on Wikipedia and what was played
on the American Top 40 year-end countdowns. For instance,
in 1973, Kris Kristofferson's "Why Me" was #2 on the AT40
year-end, but is listed at #6 for the year on Wikipedia.
In the AT40 year-end for 1977, Andy Gibb's "I Just Want
To Be Your Everything" is #1, but the listing from
Billboard on Wikipedia has it at #2 for the year, with
Rod Stewart's "Tonight's The Night (Gonna Be Alright)"
being #1. Don't know how those discrepancies occured
since AT40 was based on Billboard.

Those AT40 countdowns do not use Jan. through the end of Dec. chart stats to tabulate their year-end countdowns. AT40 usually included the chart statistics through the end of November and then started the process of tabulating their countdown.

I know, I've heard Casey Kasem mention that at the end of the year-end countdowns that air on iHeart Radio. What I'm saying is that I thought AT40 just
aired what Billboard printed.

I can't help, but I can give you more information.



It wasn't just 1966 that has this glaring discrepancy - 1963, too.



For the record, the chart topped by the Mamas and Papas was physically
printed by Billboard magazine at the time (12/24/66 issue), so for years, it was
'canon'.



The SSgt Barry Sadler chart started to circulate around the internet about 20
years ago and I believe it is now recognized on Wikipedia as "canon". (Unless
it's been changed back - I'm going by when I researched all this about a year
ago).



Seems that while it is by now widespread, the new charts have never officially
been recognized or published by Billboard.



So where did they come from? Google around enough and you will find that in
the 70s, the Billboard chart department re-ran any year-end that didn't seem
accurate ('63 and '66 to their eye) and circulated the revised charts
INTERNALLY. The story goes that these charts leaked out over the years,
leading to the current confusion.



Not sure if that's the real story, but its what I've heard.

It appears that David's original question has been answered. As far as AT40 goes, there are some years
where the AT staff did their own calculations.

For the record, Joel Whitburn never really cared for those year-end charts. It was the main reason he
decided to publish the Pop Annual, which is based mainly on peak position. Joel's argument was that a
higher peak position was always better. There are certainly lots of different formulas that can be applied.
when compiling such lists.

I can confirm that the Billboard year-end Research Packets they sold did have 'some' changes from the year-end charts as published. I bought the singles and albums packets from Billboard (late 70s?) and observed the differences, I want to say some as late as the mid 70s even, if my memory is correct (too lazy to pull them out and look at them, ha). I didn't write down the discrepancies.

In a related vein, Fred Bronson recalculated the year-end charts for his book "Billboard's Hottest Hot 100 Hits", based on putting records that were split into 2 years into just 1 year, so they weren't penalized by being split. That does seem most fair, and what Record Research did with their annuals.

Groovy fab gear keen !!