Questions for Paul Haney...

Paul:

I know you're a member of Joel Whitburn's Record Research
team. I've been buying his excellent RR chart books for
20 years now, and along w/ Pat's books, I find myself
referencing them almost daily, so I have a couple of
questions I'd like to run by you, if I may...

1) The "Pop Annual" conveniently includes a
"Songwriter(s)" column w/ that info for every "Hot 100"
hit. Are the names in that column exactly as they appear
on the labels of the original 45s??? (The "User's Guide"
at the beginning of the book doesn't say, although I
realize the names are often abbreviated on the record
labels - e.g., only a first initial, followed by the
writer's full last name - whereas the "Pop Annual" always
gives full names.) I ask because in 1985, Rick
Springfield scored a #27 "Hot 100" hit titled "Bruce" - a
novelty song that he wrote in 1978, about often being
mistaken for Bruce Springsteen. Curiously - perhaps as a
joke??? - the "Pop Annual" has always listed the
songwriter credit for "Bruce" as "Bruce Springfield". I
currently own three commercial/stock copies of the
"Bruce" 45, as well as one promo/dj copy, and all of them
list the songwriting credit on the label as "(R.
Springfield)". In fact, in the last two years, I've run
across at least a dozen other commercial/stock copies of
"Bruce" in my record-store travels, and sure enough, they
all had the "(R. Springfield)" credit as well. (And all
copies I've ever seen of the song's parent album,
"Beautiful Feelings", have also stated it that way.) So
my question is this: Does Whitburn's 45 of "Bruce" in the
RR vaults truly bear the "Bruce Springfield" credit, or
more likely, was somebody just having a little fun when
typing the info into the RR database???

2) The "Pop Annual" is definitely the RR book that I open
up most often, after "Top Pop Singles". I've always been
a huge fan of soul/r&b as well (the '70s and '80s, in
particular), so naturally I've always kept up w/ the "Top
R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" books - yet to date there's never
been an "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual" to go along w/ it. So when
RR introduced the "Country Annual" back in the late '90s,
that of course gave me hope. :-) But alas, some seven
years later, the wait goes on. :-( Has Whitburn ever
considered publishing an "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual"??? If so,
when can we expect it??? If not, what would it take to
convince him?!? :-)

Any info appreciated.
Thanks!

Since we're asking Record Research questions, Paul:

A few years ago, someone from Record Research (can't recall who) told me y'all were working on a new edition of "Pop Memories." About a year after that the revised edition of "Pop Hits 1940-1954" came out, so maybe that's what they were referring to.

Any plans for a new edition of "Pop Memories"? I'd like to see one in the same format that "Pop Hits" is in, with separate artist and year-by-year sections. (Plus there are a few errors... Dennis Day's top ten "Christmas in Killarney" is completely missing, for example.)

Thanks for the quick response, Paul...

Paul Haney wrote: I started out as a customer sending in corrections and that eventually led to a full-time research position in 1992...As hard as we try, we're only human and do make an occasional mistake.

Interesting. Several years ago, I did submit a list to RR
of more than 25 errors/omissions that I'd spotted in the
first edition of "Rock Tracks", but not all were fixed
for the second edition. And yes, I've noticed quite a few
in the other RR books as well. But in the case of the
Rick Springfield 45, I wasn't sure, so I just wanted to
double-check, since I'd already put some time into trying
to find a copy w/ the credit shown in the "Pop Annual"...

Paul Haney wrote: I really don't see an R&B Annual in the near future. The problem is that the Country Annual didn't do near as well as we'd hoped. But if enough people ask for one, it could happen someday. I'll put you down for a "yes" vote.

Yeah, I kinda figured that was why the "Country Annual"
had never been updated after all this time (i.e., seven
years). *sigh* Glad RR finally came out w/ the "Top R&B
Albums" book, anyway (even if that one's now getting a
bit old, too). :-) Thanks for the
info...

Hey, Paul,

It's so nice to be able to ask questions about the various Record Research books. They have been the source of so much information in my years of "chart chasing". In fact, for my year-by-year CD series, I'm going straight down the listings in my copy of Pop Annual.

Which brings me to my question.

I really have no problem with how Joel comes by his yearly rankings, with one notable exception, that being how he determines year placement of some songs. Particularly, I'm referring to songs that peak at the end of one year and remain there through the start of the following year. Using peak date alone, to me, doesn't really accurately place a song in the proper year.

The most glaring example of this would have to be "I'm A Believer" by the Monkees. The song spent 7 weeks at #1, making it, in the book, the biggest hit of 1966. However, only one of those weeks was actually in 1966. The other 6 weeks were in 1967. To me, that clearly makes it a 1967 hit.

A better way of determining where to place these "cross-year" songs, in my opinion, would be to apply the same criteria that is used to determine yearly rankings. Place the song in the year where it spent the most weeks at its peak position. Ties could also be broken using the regular criteria (weeks in Top 10, weeks in Top 40, weeks on Chart, and finally points).

Looking back over this, I realize this wasn't so much a question as a comment. Still, I would like to hear your take on this. If nothing else, thanks for listening.

I do have a suggestion for future editions of all Record Research books, Paul.

Regarding Gold Record listings... There are now so many standards for RIAA gold singles: 1,000,000 for pre-1989; 500,000 million post-1989; only 100,000 for digital singles; and I believe it's always been 500,000 for 12" singles. To further add to the confusion, pre-1989 releases that were CERTIFIED post-1989 are (unfairly) only held to the 500,000 gold / 1,000,000 platinum standard. (I called the RIAA and verified this.)

This is very confusing for the reader: For example, anyone glancing at the Supremes' "Stop in the Name of Love" would see a circle next to it and assume it was a million-seller. However, since it was certified in the 1990s, it was only certified for 500,000 copies. Or that "Angel/Into the Groove" was certified for a million, when I believe that as a 12-inch single it was only certified for 1/2 million.

I think Record Research should create a new symbol key to indicate NUMBER of copies certified, and forget about gold, platinum, etc. Say, a triangle for two million, a star for one million, a circle for 1/2 million, and a rectangle for 100,000.

Edited by Brian W.