Questions for Paul Haney...
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=534
Printed Date: 19 April 2025 at 3:39am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Questions for Paul Haney...
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Subject: Questions for Paul Haney...
Date Posted: 24 November 2005 at 6:47am
|
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! |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 24 November 2005 at 8:47am
|
Gregg:
Thanks for the kind words about Record Research. I started out as a customer sending in corrections and that eventually led to a full-time research position in 1992. It's been an honor to work on the books these past 13 years. Now to answer your questions: 1) The songwriters were entered directly from the singles. If there was a mistake on the single, we corrected it. In the case of a pseudonym ("Manic Monday" comes to mind), we entered the real name (Prince) instead of the pen name (Christopher). I'm almost certain the Bruce Springfield listing was just a typo (but it is pretty funny, given the nature of that song). As hard as we try, we're only human and do make an occasional mistake. 2) 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. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 24 November 2005 at 2:22pm
|
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.) |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 24 November 2005 at 4:00pm
|
Brian:
We are mulling over the idea of an updated version of Pop Memories which would cover 1900-1939 and look like the Pop Hits book. Hopefully that will happen in the next few years. We now consider the Pop Hits 1940-54 to be the definitive book on the Billboard charts for that era. |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 28 November 2005 at 8:28am
Thanks for the quick response, Paul...
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"...
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... |
Paul Haney wrote:Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 28 November 2005 at 10:22pm
| Welcome back to the message board, 80smusicfreak. It's good to see you posting again! |
Posted By: JMD1961
Date Posted: 30 November 2005 at 10:32am
|
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. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 30 November 2005 at 12:37pm
| Your comment about those year-ending songs makes a lot of sense to me. We are hopefully going to update the Pop Annual in the next year. I think Joel would be pretty reluctant to change the rankings around too much after all these years, but it won't hurt to ask him about it. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 30 November 2005 at 3:07pm
|
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. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 30 November 2005 at 3:10pm
| duplicate |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 2:10pm
Bumping this up for both NightAire and Paul Haney... Paul: Could you please add NightAire's name to the list, too??? :-) Any further discussion w/ Whitburn in the last five-and-a-half years??? (Apparently so, since you guys are sort of taking a small step w/ the new "Top 10 R&B Hits" book.) I really feel you should publish at least ONE detailed edition of the "R&B/Hip-Hop Annual" for all the valuable info it would contain - like RR did w/ the "Country Annual" in 1998 - even if sales may not be spectacular. (And I'd be willing to contribute, as I have w/ other RR books in the past. Heck, I'd even be willing to offer Whitburn some rare pressings of chart records that he apparently isn't aware of, or own in his private collection!) |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 23 June 2011 at 3:59pm
|
I'd buy a copy. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 4:08am
|
I really appreciate all of the support for the Record Research books by everyone here at Pat's board.
The annual section in our new "R&B Top 10" book is the first time we've ever attempted to show the R&B hits in an annual format. It would be nice if we could do a full-blown "R&B Annual" book, but it just isn't in the cards at this time. We have our hands full with our "Big 4" books: Top Pop Singles, Country Songs, R&B Songs and Top Pop Albums. As I stated before, the Country Annual we published years ago didn't do as well as we had hoped (it took us a few years just to break even on the costs). All of that said, I've learned to "never say never" when it comes to what we will eventually publish. I assure you that we would love to do an R&B Annual someday, but right now the economics just won't allow it. We ARE currently working on an update to our "Pop Annual" book (the last one went through 2005). If we can sell enough copies of that book, it just might spur us on to finally do that "R&B Annual". |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 4:18pm
One thing I've noticed with Billboard's year-end charts over the past 8 years or so is that several songs make the year end chart in multiple years (more noticeable on the country charts, but pop charts too), no doubt owing to the time of year they debuted and the increased chart longevity songs have these days. How does RR handle these? |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 5:14pm
|
I got the 1980s charts DVD and have LOVED it; I'd be thrilled with a similar setup, maybe download-only to save production / shipping costs?
It's possible the information I'm looking for is in the online database, but since I'd have to pay per search and don't know if it's in there (and could end up doing THOUSANDS of searches as I look up the R&B singles of the decade) I doubt I'll ever know. Here's hoping for a R&B charts publication, online or otherwise! (Especially a year-end chart like the Top Pop 100 year-end charts!) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 7:00pm
|
Yes, I strongly suggest a different pricing model for the searchable
database. That's the only reason I haven't used it. If there were an affordable, annual (or monthly) unlimited search price, I would have signed up long ago. Paying "per search" is not very appealing. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: mstgator
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 7:57pm
For their yearly rankings, Record Research doesn't split songs between years (aside from hits that are re-released years later). A song's entire chart history goes with whatever year the song first peaked in. (Although I'm not sure how they'll handle those songs that chart for a week or two upon an album's initial release and then return for another chart run a year or two later... that's a relatively recent phenomenon enhanced by digital downloads.) |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 26 June 2011 at 1:23am
I do use Record Vault, and while I don't MIND paying per search... it's not really per search, it's per PAGE. If you search, say, Elvis's hits, you'll come up with multiple pages of results. You're charged per page, not per lookup... and furthermore, I believe that if you hit the "back" button on your browser, you're actually charged for the previously viewed page again. That said, getting the peak dates and weeks for the few books where that info has previously been unpublished ("Pop Memories," for example) is invaluable. But I agree with Aaron -- I'd prefer to pay a flat yearly or six-month fee for unlimited lookups. |
Posted By: mstgator
Date Posted: 28 June 2011 at 4:14pm
|
Just received my copy of the newest Top Pop Singles today... man, this
thing looks like a textbook (and that's a good thing). If RR chooses to publish all their forthcoming books in this size, I'm all for it. |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 04 September 2019 at 6:23am
|
Just found this thread! So I'll add a new question.
Paul, “Icewoman” on the UKMix forums discovered the following anomaly, and asked for opinions. I agreed with her, told her to contact you (haven’t heard back from her yet), but here’s the scoop. May 3, 1941 (issue date) Billboard Best Sellers Chart https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Billboard/40s/1 941/BB-1941-05-03i.pdf scroll down to page 13: 1 Amapola - Jimmy Dorsey 2 Oh, Look At Me Now - Tommy Dorsey 3 Dolores - Bing Crosby 4 Goodbye Now - Horace Heidt 5 Apple Blossom Time - Guy Lombardo 6 Alexander The Swoose - Kay Kyser 7 Intermezzo - Wayne King 8 Tonight - Xavier Cugat 9 Everything Happens To Me - Tommy Dorsey There are 2 noteworthy things here: (1) this isn’t a Top 10 chart, despite the fact that there are 23 different records in the 4 regional charts just to the right of this Top 9 national chart; one of them is surely eligible to be charted to make this a Top 10 chart. Billboard had Top 10 Best Seller charts for every week from July 1940 to Nov 1947 (when it upped to 15 positions), but only this May 3, 1941 chart is less than that, at a Top 9. Why? (2) record #5 is a mismatch of a record title to an artist; as shown in the 4 regional charts to the right, Apple Blossom Time is by The Andrews Sisters. Guy Lombardo’s record is The Band Played On. Both records are listed in 3 of the 4 regional charts, and when you do the math both should seemingly be in the national Top 10 chart. Of the other 8 records in the Top 10 national chart, 2 charted on 4 of the regional charts, 1 charted on 3 of the 4 regionals, and 5 charted on 2 of the regionals. The other 13 regional only records charted on only 1 regional chart. So Billboard obviously made a goof here, whether it was by the chart compiler, or the typesetter/printer. In the following May 10 issue, there was no corrective note. Apple Blossom Time showed up as #5 again, but this time by The Andrews Sisters, and did not have a last week’s position. The Band Played On did not make the national Top 10 this week, but did chart a few weeks later, and in that resulting chart run it did peak at #6. Billboard thus treated Apple Blossom Time by Guy Lombardo as a record, which made this national May 3 chart, but dropped off the next week May 10 chart. But no such record existed, I checked numerous Guy Lombardo online discographies. So what are the possible corrections to fix this May 3, 1941 Best Sellers national chart? 1. Correct the #5 record Apple Blossom Time to show as by The Andrews Sister, drop Guy Lombardo from the chart. 2. Correct the #5 record by Guy Lombardo to show as The Band Played On, drop Apple Blossom Time from the chart. 3. Put both records in at #5 as a tie. Though Billboard did not have (or did not allow?) any ties on this chart until January 1945. But the ties came fast and furious after that, about 80% of the 1945 charts have one and sometimes multiple ties each week! 4. Put Apple Blossom Time by The Andrews Sisters at #5, and The Band Played On by Guy Lombardo at #6. And push records 6 thru 9 down to 7 thru 10. Joel’s ‘fix’ was to do option #1 above. This was implemented at various times (the first in 1973) in 5 books, 2 of which showed his revised Top 9 chart (Pops Hits 1940-1954, and America’s Greatest Hits 1940-2015 Top 10 singles charts), and 4 (overlapping) which showed the usual records by artist listings. But based on the evidence, option 1 is a less likely scenario. Options 3 or 4 seem much more likely to be the case. I think the evidence leads towards option 4, mainly because this should have been a 10 position chart, there were no ties until 1945, and the implied #5 listing shows Apple Blossom Time followed by Guy Lombardo. The goof in the #5 listing created the goof in not showing a #10 listing. Option 4 fixes everything. Thoughts, comments? Thanks much... |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 25 September 2019 at 5:45am
|
A question for Paul, or any of us chart nuts:
Does anyone remember, or know anything about, a Top 20 pop chart that may have been syndicated in newspapers, during the 60s and 70s (and maybe before and after), going by the name of "Young Folks Choose Week's Top Records"? This chart ran in the Lynchburg, Va, Sunday newspaper, starting sometime before 1964, and seemingly ending in May 1974. I recall there being records on this chart in 1972 that were not in Billboard, Cashbox, or Record World, such as "Hi Honey Ho" by Aussie band Daddy Cool. Just trying to find out who put this together, and if it was local, regional, or national. Anyone know anything about this? Thanks !! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 26 September 2019 at 6:08am
Robin, I believe you are referring to "What Young People Think Are The Top Records of the Week" which was compiled by The Gilbert Youth Research Company. Eugene Gilbert (and later Nancy Gilbert) were "youth experts" who ran several syndicated youth "research" articles over the years. Yes, this chart was also syndicated in several U.S. newspapers. I've found them going all the way back to 1958. |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 26 September 2019 at 12:50pm
| Thanks Paul! This is most interesting. Although the title of the Top 20 chart in the Lynchburg paper was "Young Folks Choose Week's Top Records" it could be the same thing. Perhaps Gilbert Youth Research changed it in later years, or the Lynchburg paper truncated the title to save space. I'll do some more exploring with this new info. Greatly appreciate it!! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 26 September 2019 at 1:05pm
|
Robin, yes they did change the wording over the years, but
I'm pretty sure that's it. I'm not sure if Nancy Gilbert was Eugene's daughter, but her name starting appearing in the byline somewhere along the way. |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 19 February 2020 at 11:48am
|
Paul, given the recent resurgence in the cultural importance of Holiday Music
on the charts - along with the regular referencing of the new (ish) Holiday 100 - might you consider updating your "Christmas in the Charts" tome from 2004? |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 25 February 2020 at 9:27am
|
FYI, Record Research is publishing a new book, "The Whitburn Book of Top 10 Hits 1950-2020", which credits all US charted records with the highest Top 10 peak it achieved on Billboard, Cashbox, Record World/Music Vendor, or Radio & Records. A very fab idea!
It'd be even more kool if Paul & Joel could revise the Comparison Book for all 4 of these charts, and for 1950-2009. Take my money, please !! I'll even pay you to take my money !! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 25 February 2020 at 10:30am
We are discussing the possibility of an updated book. |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 01 March 2020 at 9:45am
| I have a question about The Knack's "My Sharona". The Pop Singles book I have says the 1994 listing of the song which peaked at #91 is the same version as the 1979 version that went to #1. However, I know there was a remix for the song at the time and the '94 single is listed on Discogs as being Remixed by Dave Jerden. It's only listed as "Edit" and has about the same running time as the original single. Is the notation of "Same Version" simply an error, or did '94 commercial copies actually have the same version/mix as the '79 single? |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 02 March 2020 at 10:28am
Pat's database says that it's the 45 version (remixed). I just listened to the cassette single and it says it was remixed by Dave Jerden. If it is indeed a remix, it's pretty subtle, at least to my ears. |
Posted By: Bellenger1981
Date Posted: 02 March 2020 at 11:04am
|
Indeed. The '94 version is a remix.
Compare the '79 mix and the '94 remix side by side. While both versions appear to use the same instruments, the '94 version is a "beefier" mix. Compare the drums. They stand out much more in the '94 remix. ------------- Jason Bellenger Byron Center, Michigan, USA |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 27 March 2020 at 7:55pm
|
Paul,
Just curious but do you have a spreadsheet or document for all 4500 plus airplay hits you list in the 1955-2018 Top Pop Singles book either by year or by artist? I would like to go through my archives and collections and pull them all out to see if I have them, but it is agonizing going artist to artist to gather the airplay hits up. I have always bought Record Research books (Annual, Top Pop Hits, 1940-1954 Albums and Singles, 1900-1940 Book etc. and your E-Books) So I am a loyal customer already to Record Research just looking for a quick way to get all these airplay hits without turning pages... I know I have mentioned this before but why is Joel against adding some hits (All At Once by Whitney Houston, Miles Away by Madonna) that were clearly played on the radio but never charted? What magic criteria allows Joel to add the hit as an airplay and exclude certain songs otherwise? I am always interested in hearing his logic. Also been wondering this for a long time, but a good edition to the Hot 100 annual is all the radio edits that were on promo 45's or CD singles that were the versions we all grew up on. If I were just to pick up the 2016 Hot 100 Annual I wouldnt even know shorter versions exist of many songs that were commercially available. Just my two cents where you can go in 2022 when you come out with the new book :) PS Also did Joel decide on the 2010-2019 PDF charts either in book or PDF form yet? Or is it too many pages to consider due to formatting changes at Billboard? ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 4:30am
Sorry, but we don't have any spreadsheets available. Also, not sure what you mean by "excluding" some airplay hits. Obviously, if they charted, then we include them. Perhaps you're referring to the "non Hot 100 classics"??? We are considering publishing the Hot 100 charts for the decade just passed. It would have to be in two volumes because of the way Billboard now publishes them. We are currently scanning the 2010-2014 charts and will most likely have that volume available later this year. We're just not sure if the demand will warrant a second volume or not. As far as other projects in the works, we are just about finished scanning the 1980s Cash Box Top 100 charts. We've also started work on an updated Rock Tracks (Mainstream/Alternative) book. Also, look for a possible video chat series with me and Joel that we hope to launch soon! |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 5:26am
| Really looking forward to a new Rock Tracks book! I have the 2008 edition. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 4:44pm
I am referring to the classic non hot 100 hits. I mentioned All At Once and Miles Away as examples of hits that radio played that never charted on the Hot 100, but are considerable hits for Whitney and Madonna. Cry by Rihanna was released outside the USA but was a hit otherwise in other countries. Not sure if it got airplay here but these are just a few examples. Plenty I could post here that should be included but are overlooked... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 4:49pm
I'm not Joel or Paul, but as far as the songs specifically marked with the airplay [AIR] symbol, those would've had to chart on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay chart to be eligible for inclusion, right? ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 5:58pm
|
Aaron,
I think All At Once got radio airplay, but can't confirm. I know Miles Away got airplay on the radio, but it never charted or even bubbled under. It did make it to the dance chart if I recall. All At Once was released as a single in the UK and other countries but not here even though it was played here. tps://www.discogs.com/Whitney-Houston-All-At-Once/master/225428 - tps://www.discogs.com/Whitney-Houston-All-At-Once/master/225 428 Miles Away was released as a single but never charted on the Hot 100 https://www.discogs.com/Madonna-Miles-Away/release/1585791 - https://www.discogs.com/Madonna-Miles-Away/release/1585791 ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 6:06pm
|
"All At Once" was the B-Side of the "Saving All My Love For You" single in the US, and I know I heard it on a few AC stations in my area. I guess it didn't have enough airplay points at any one time to be listed as a double-sided hit on the chart along with "Saving". ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 6:20pm
Airplay or not, that's why I was trying to understand how Joel and Paul view the Classic Non-Hot 100 Hits and how they determine what goes in the book or not. To exclude All At Once is to ignore its impact in the AC market. It clearly got played, B-side or not.. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 6:21pm
|
I definitely understand your point, Rich, but “All At Once” certainly
would’ve been included with the [AIR] symbol next to the appropriate peak position had it charted on the Hot 100 Airplay chart, right? That’s all I was trying to confirm. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 28 March 2020 at 7:16pm
Understood. I dont have access to the airplay 1985-1986 charts so I would not know. Paul might... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 3:48am
Have you tried looking at individual Billboard issues for the Hot 100 Airplay charts? Check out this site: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Billboard-Magazine.htm - https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Billboard-Magazine.htm |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 4:12am
Really no need for that. Aaron is correct. If a song made the Hot 100 Airplay chart, then it's in with the artist's regular listings. The "non Hot 100 classics" is a separate issue entirely. The initial idea was to include songs that were ineligible for the Hot 100, but eventually became "classics" (example: "Stairway To Heaven" by Led Zeppelin). This idea quickly mushroomed into including a whole host of non-charted songs that both Joel and I felt should be included. Yes, it's a subjective thing, and just about every music fan could come up with their own list. We did add every #1 hit from another singles chart (R&B, Country, A/C, etc.) and any song that got a major industry award, but we feel that there are more than enough of the others to give a good representation. Yes, "All At Once" got some airplay, but not enough to make the AC chart and "Miles Away" didn't even get enough airplay to "Bubble Under", so there's that. At the end of the day, it's Joel's book and he makes the final decision on what's included, as far as that category goes! PS: "Miles Away" by Madonna did hit #1 on the Hot 100 Sales chart, but then again it often only took a few hundred units sold to do that in any given week, so it was really not that difficult a feat. |
Posted By: cmmmbase
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 5:56am
|
For what it's worth, All At Once spent 4 weeks in the
significant action column of Radio & Records' CHR chart in July of 1986, but never got more than 25 reporting stations. |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 6:48am
|
All at Once DID chart.
R&R AC chart - #23 on 8/8/86. It was an album cut, ineligible for BB's AC charts at the time. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 10:08am
Interesting! It also peaked at #23 on the Gavin Report AC chart on August 29, 1986. That's at least some amount of airplay, but I'd hardly call it a classic. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 10:22am
Like you said Paul, it's subjective. It's considered one of Whitney's classic hits, included on her Greatest Hits, and on Disc 2 of the Best of Compilation Deluxe Edition and off her 1985 self titled album. While it may not be Stairway to Heaven it deserves some consideration. That's why I asked if you had a system or some ranking to determine if it was a Non-Hot 100 Classic. As far as the Madonna track you might have a better argument, but it did get radio airplay here in New York and was released as a CD Single. Not only that it's one of the better tracks off her 2008 album. I can see the argument for not including it as stronger then the Whitney Houston track though. But if the whole point is to be subjective, what does Joel lose by including one or both? Personally I think both stand on their own. I guess you have to draw a line somewhere.... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 11:29am
|
I have never heard Miles Away on any radio station, but heard AAO on various
(AC) stations around the country in the late 80s. There was also a Chart Beat column by Paul Grein back in 1986 or 87 suggesting that All at Once was considered as a 5th WH single but it was cancelled as they wanted her #1 string intact for the Whitney LP roll-out. |
Posted By: Paul C
Date Posted: 29 March 2020 at 2:39pm
|
Paul, both Pop Hits Singles & Albums 1940-1954 and its 1994
predecessor indicate that Dinah Shore’s version of “Bibbidi-Bobbidi- Boo” charted for one week at #25 on the Best Sellers chart. It actually spent the lone week that it charted on the Disc Jockey chart. As for “All At Once”, bear in mind that the Billboard airplay chart at the time was based on reported airplay. Since I don’t believe Arista ever actively promoted the song, there were likely more stations playing it than were actually reporting that they were playing it. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 30 March 2020 at 3:53am
|
Thank you, Paul C! I made that Dinah Shore correction to
our database. |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 06 April 2020 at 12:15pm
Good to hear about this. A long time ago I sent you some corrections for the 2008 book (all were carry overs from the first edition - before your time) so I'm not sure if you ever updated your database. They are in a excel format you can grab here: https://ufile.io/z5xjtpyl |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 07 April 2020 at 6:07am
|
How about the Adult songs book, has there been any talk of updating it? Last edition I know of ran up to 2006. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 07 April 2020 at 7:00am
We had to decide between Rock Tracks and Adult. Rock Tracks is a better seller, so we went with that. However, an Adult update may be in the cards next year. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 07 April 2020 at 7:07am
I made those corrections awhile ago. Thanks again! |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 07 April 2020 at 7:24am
|
Great to hear the Adult book may be updated finally.
I would love to see the book's research expanded to include peaks in R&R (1973-2006) and Record World (1967-1972, 1980-1982). (Of course, R&R and Billboard were the same from 2006 until R&R's end in 2009.) There were some interesting disparities among the publications. R&R's AC chart was initially more Pop than Billboard's. Even when the R&R chart became more mellow, there were still some major differences between the two like Billboard Number Ones by Al Stewart ("Time Passages" - 10 weeks) and Maxine Nightingale ("Lead Me On" - 7 weeks) both only peaking at No. 2 in R&R. Of course, the charts really diverged in the mid-90's when R&R was the first to split the AC and Hot AC charts. Many R&R AC hits never charted in Billboard since those songs did not have any or sufficient Hot AC airplay. |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 07 April 2020 at 10:03am
|
Record World's 1980's AC chart leaned more Pop as well.
"Bette Davis Eyes" went to No. 1 AC in Record World, but only No. 7 in R&R and No. 15 in Billboard. Rocky Burnette's "Tired Of Toein' The Line" was No. 11 in Record World, No. 20 in R&R and No. 39 in Billboard. Songs like Irene Cara's "Fame" (No. 28 RW) and Donna Summer's "The Wanderer" (No. 39 RW) missed both the Billboard and R&R charts. Dionne Warwick's ballad "No Night So Long" spent three weeks at No. 1 in Billboard and reached No. 3 in R&R, but only climbed to No. 10 in Record World. |
Posted By: torcan
Date Posted: 10 April 2020 at 12:27pm
That would definitely be of interest! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 11 April 2020 at 9:08pm
|
As I was going through some records, I came across a copy of "Saving All My Love For You" b/w "All At Once," and a Post-It note on the record, courtesy of jimct, says "KC 101 - All At Once." This prompted me to browse the ARSA database, and sure enough, "All At Once" was a pretty big hit for New Haven, CT. Here's the top 10 from the survey where it peaked at #4:
***KC101 MUSIC SURVEY FOR JULY 25, 1986*** 1. Peter Gabriel - Sledgehammer 2. Peter Cetera - Glory Of Love 3. Janet Jackson - Nasty 4. Whitney Houston - All At Once 5. Jermaine Stewart - We Don't Have To Take Our Clothes Off 6. Rod Stewart - Love Touch 7. Kenny Loggins - Danger Zone 8. Madonna - Papa Don't Preach 9. Bananarama - Venus 10. Genesis - Invisible Touch ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 12 April 2020 at 1:03pm
|
We may have played All At Once at K104 in Erie PA but I
can't find any documentation online. Somewhere I have a Top 104 of 1986 from K104 but I'd have to go searching. ------------- John Gallagher Erie, PA https://www.johngallagher.com" rel="nofollow - John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment / Snapblast Photo Booth |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 13 April 2020 at 7:46am
|
I still hear "All At Once" on the radio, but cannot tell
you the last time I heard some of her Number Ones like "Where Do Broken Hearts Go," "All The Man That I Need" or "Exhale (Shoop Shoop)." |
Posted By: AutumnAarilyn
Date Posted: 13 April 2020 at 7:06pm
|
Maybe there should be a chart based on current oldies
airplay. As time goes on, highest chart position in the year of release becomes less and less relevant. |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 05 May 2020 at 2:11pm
|
I noticed the Hot 100 chart for the week of June 26, 1993 listed Snow's "Informer" at #52 and being in its 20th week on the chart, when in reality it was actually in its 25th week and should have been removed from the chart that week as per Billboard's rule of songs being taken off the chart once they reached 20 weeks charted and fell below the Top 50. Was this an oversight on Billboard's part? ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 05 May 2020 at 2:18pm
Looks like someone changed the weeks charted to 20, so they kept it on the chart. Hey, mistakes happen! |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 05 May 2020 at 5:00pm
|
conspiracy!
------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 06 May 2020 at 4:56am
|
Has there been any discussion of a possible book of the Radio & Records Charts, similar to the Billboard and Cashbox Charts books? I imagine since their charts varied between 30-50 positions, multiple charts could be printed on the same page and there might not be a need for separate books of individual decades. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 06 May 2020 at 5:33am
|
Also, will there be any more editions of "The Billboard Book Of Top 40 Hits"? I see the last edition that ends in 2009 in a local book store every time I go in and was thinking about giving that book to a friend as a gift. He's not quite as much of a chart freak like me, so it would be perfect for him. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 06 May 2020 at 9:18am
I'd like to see it someday, but no plans for it at this time. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 06 May 2020 at 9:19am
There will be no more updates to that particular book. That's one of the reasons we did the Whitburn Book of Top 10 Hits, so the casual chart fan could have a reference of the biggest hits. |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 06 May 2020 at 10:26am
|
I's a shame about those "Billboard Books of Top 40 Hits". As they were
available in very visible mainstream book stores, they were an affordable and digestible entry point into the Record Research world. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 06 May 2020 at 11:00am
I agree! After all, my first few Record Research books were the Top 40 publications. We wanted to do further editions, but when Billboard Books was bought up by Random House, the new management didn't ask us to continue. So it goes. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 25 May 2020 at 12:42pm
| Paul, what year did Random House buy Billboard Books? And did they only buy that title, or other Record Research books as well? |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 26 May 2020 at 4:13am
I don't remember the exact year. They only bought the rights to the Top 40 Hits series. We never did own that series, we just compiled the information for Billboard Books. All of the actual Record Research publications are owned by us 100%. |
Posted By: Underground Dub
Date Posted: 27 June 2020 at 10:44pm
|
I love the new Top 10 Hits book, but why doesn't "What's It Gonna Be?!" by Busta Rhymes and Janet Jackson count towards her overall tally, while Busta and Mariah Carey's collaboration "I Know What You Want" counts towards hers?
(One could argue Herb Alpert's "Diamonds" should count towards Janet's overall count, too, though she didn't take a marquee credit on the single label.) |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 28 June 2020 at 4:21am
We currently have Janet in as a "Featuring" credit only. As you probably are aware, we don't count "Featuring" credits under the secondary artist(s). Perhaps we need to revisit that one. These credits have been a major headache for us in recent years! |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 28 June 2020 at 2:52pm
|
In Billboard, "IKWYW" was credited as Busta Rhymes and Mariah Carey (so she
was considered a lead artist, not a featured one like Janet). Record Research did the right thing… Unlike "A Love Bizarre", Paul! :-) |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 09 September 2020 at 6:25pm
|
Has Record Research ever considered re-doing the Record
World 101-150 book? I never understood why the book only included songs that charted exclusively in Record World that peaked in positions 101-150. I know I would have certainly preferred a book that included all songs that peaked at Nos. 101-150 in Record World regardless of whether they charted elsewhere. Since the research has been done and publshed in the Comparison Book, the project is already partly done! Another idea - update the Record World "Hit Records" book to include the 101-150 hits. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 09 September 2020 at 7:05pm
| I like both those ideas as well. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 09 September 2020 at 10:41pm
|
Nice site redesign Paul! ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 10 September 2020 at 3:39am
Thanks! The website sorely needed to be upgraded. It was a pretty big investment, hope it pays off! As for redoing the Record World book(s), I just don't see it happening. The Comparison Book has all the info, which is why it's my personal favorite Record Research book! |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 10 September 2020 at 7:17am
| I'm sure we'd all go for an expanded Comparison Book, a new 1952 to 1996 (vs. the current 1954 to 1982). Extra years of comparing Cashbox to Billboard !! |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 10 September 2020 at 7:34am
Agreed....ending the Comparison Book in 1982 was too soon. Heck, I would add R&R to the book as well. Although R&R was exclusively an airplay chart, that was an era when sales and airplay generally were in sync unlike today. Paul, what was the rationale for not including all 101-150 hits in the Record World book? This is the only Record Research book I can think of that was published with such a condition that made the book an incomplete resource. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 10 September 2020 at 7:48am
At the time, Joel was only interested in finding "new" titles, that never appeared in other Record Research books. Eventually, I did the entire research and thus we were able to do the Comparison book. I would love to see that book expanded with more years and the R&R numbers too. Maybe someday! |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 10 June 2021 at 7:54am
|
Paul, a question raised in another forum (UKMix) by KingOfSkiffle:
The various UK charts of the 50s and 60s (NME, Record Mirror, Melody Maker, Disc, Record Retailer) were compiled by averaging together record charts of individual record shops. Each shop produced their own ranked chart (without sales numbers), which they forwarded to their home music paper, who averaged all the rankings together. Thus these 5 major UK charts were not compiled by adding together individual record shop sales. Until the new BMRB chart began in Feb 1969 (forerunner of what came to be known as the 'official' chart), which compiled its chart by adding up actual sales of sampled record shops. Question: When did the 3 major US record charts begin adding up actual sales of sampled record stores to produce their charts? I note that the Cash Box singles chart from 1944 to sometime in the 70s was based on sales only. Was this sales data based on adding up actual record sales of sampled stores, or was it based on an averaging of rankings of individual record store sales? In the 1940's and the early 1950's, up until sometime in 1955, they showed the "sales per 1000 singles sold" right there on the chart, for the current and previous weeks. Inquiring minds need to know, ha. Thanks !! |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 11 June 2021 at 9:37am
|
'baukew' at UKMix discovered a Billboard chart that compiled actual sales starting June-24-1957. I did some more poking around and found this:
Good find baukew !! To clarify for others, this now actual sales based chart was the Best Sellers chart. So up thru June-17-1957, the Best Sellers chart was not based on counting records, and starting the next week it was. The other charts were 'DJ airplay' and 'jukebox play'. These 3 were combined into the Top 100 (1955) / Hot 100 (1958). And combined with the sheet music charts into the Honor Roll Of Hits song chart. There's an excellent article in the Oct-20-1958 issue of Billboard as well, explaining why they were ending the Best Sellers chart, and were now going to use that actual sales data in the Hot 100 chart going forward. As in, (a) the old Hot 100 had not been using actual sales (even though they had that data from the revised Best Seller charts since June-24-1957) + radio + jukebox, (b) but had been using some kind of 'approximation of sales' + radio + jukebox, and (c) was now going to switch over entirely to actual sales only, no more radio + jukebox !! Billboard was continually changing the components of the Top 100 / Hot 100 over the years. Originally both were airplay + jukebox + sales, but they kept changing things, taking things out, putting them back in. Sometime after Oct-20-1958 when the Hot 100 went to actual sales only, they eventually added back in radio + jukebox. It's a zoo, but you can read all the changes by looking at the info box at the top of the charts Top 100 / Hot 100 over the years. Here's the info box blurb on the Hot 100 chart for Oct-13-1958 (the last week of the Best Sellers chart): "These 100 sides are listed in order of their national POPULARITY, as determined by weekly local studies prepared for The Billboard in markets representing a cross-section of the United States. These studies take into consideration such factors as disk jockey plays, juke box activity, and record sales." Then the next week Oct-20-1958 when the Best Sellers chart was no more, the info box blurb on the Hot 100 gets changed to: "These 100 sides are listed in order of their national POPULARITY, as determined by weekly local studies prepared for The Billboard in markets representing a cross-section of the United States. These studies reflect sales registered for each disk up to press time." Fascinating, interesting... |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 11 June 2021 at 12:40pm
|
With Record World (1982), Cashbox (1996) and R&R
(2009) all out of print, who owns the rights to these publications? Billboard purchased R&R and still uses the copyrighted "Radio & Records" in its weekly newsletters. Although there are websites for Cashbox and Record World, neither one is reminiscent of the magazines published last century...and their chart rankings often leave me asking "Who?" or "WTF?" As Record Research has added (and hopefully will continue to add!) books sourced from these trades, I have wondered from whom (if anyone) Record Research needed to obtain permission to publish data from these magazines when they and the companies that published them are now defunct. Same issue with Randy Price's Cashbox site which has the Top 100 Pop and Country charts. Are these trades considered public domain? |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 11 July 2021 at 7:28am
|
How are the dates for a song's regin at #1 determined? For instance, Whitney Houston's "Saving All My Love For You" was #1 for the week ending
Saturday, October 26, 1985. So is this to say it was #1 from Sunday, October 20 to Saturday, October 26? Or does it go by the issue of Billboard dated October 26, meaning it was #1 from Sat. 10/26/85 to Friday 11/1/85? In other words, is it Sunday to Saturday or Saturday to Friday? Casey Kasem always referred to "Week Ending" dates at the end of his show, which made me think it was Sunday to Saturday. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 12 July 2021 at 2:37am
"Week Ending" means just that. So, it's Sunday to Saturday. Also, keep in mind that in the old days, the information was already a week old by the time the magazine was printed. |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 20 December 2021 at 12:21pm
|
Paul,
I am curious how this will play out: Billboard's website has all of their charts online, including all the historical pre- internet charts. eg - If you want to see the Hot 100 from Jan 1, 1960, just click on the calendar icon and voila. Not often, but I have found some discrepancies between what they are currently presenting and what was actually published back in the day. A very small but recent example of one I found today is that they now show Lionel Richie "My Destiny" at #75 on Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) on 1/16/93, when it never reached the chart (same with the Wynona song at #74) At this point, if these discrepancies were brought to your attention, would you alter the data in your books to reflect the 'new' chart info (assuming BB is correcting data mistakes that they published years ago) - or ignore it (assuming BB is just making mistakes)? The digital world makes things so complicated! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 21 December 2021 at 5:59am
|
Not sure how and/or if we would approach such discrepancies. I'm inclined to think we'd stick to
what was actually published at the time. I certainly don't have the time or inclination to go thru every single online chart looking for possible differences! |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 21 December 2021 at 10:27am
|
What a crazy can of worms. I do know Billboard 'changed' their year-end charts, and were doing so back in the 70s. I bought several of those 'sold by Billboard' chart packages, such as Top 100 singles/albums of the year going back to the 50s and/or earlier. I observed that a few of the 70s charts in the package were different from what they had published in the Billboard year-end issues from just a few years prior.
We need some explanation from Billboard as to why and what they are doing here. Are they revising based on errors, or are they revising based on applying future formulas to past charts. I no likey. If Billboard is going to play this game, they will need 2 sets of charts, one as published back in the day, and one as corrected, subject to multiple future corrections, ugh. I would agree with Paul, stick to what was originally published. |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date Posted: 21 December 2021 at 11:55am
|
I have always assumed they are transcription errors when the charts are copied
down. They seem to be records swapping positions (or at least the ones I found!) due to possible errors in artist/titles or confusion when printing error changes a lwk position. Other reasons do abound of course. But I simply believed them to be transcription errors, rather than an attempt to correct/amend history. I would assume that the original data to create the charts, at least for the pre 1991 era, may well be long gone? Even digital databases have errors in them (I found and highlighted an error in the UK Official Charts Company database recently whereby their sales database had separated the sales for a version of a song that should have been combined - error went un-noticed for the last 15 years but it was an example of them making an error, not trying to re-write history.) |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 21 December 2021 at 12:52pm
|
It should be noted that for many of the charts prior to 1984 (including the Hot 100) Record Research gave Billboard the
weekly files from our internal database. One of my (many) jobs was proofing those files. This was done many years ago. I can't speak to anything after 1984 (when Billboard began computerizing their charts). Don't forget, humans enter the data, so there's always the possibility for mistakes. |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 22 December 2021 at 6:18pm
|
More fun: Not sure if RR will ever update their Dance book, but back in the
80s the chart ran 50 titles deep and under the chart was a fluctuating numbered list of songs called “Breakouts”… (“titles with future chart potential”). BB’s retro charts are now showing those breakout songs as if they were on the actual chart back then. (Thus the number 6 breakout song is listed now as 56 that week.). Which changes the title’s ‘weeks on’ and debut date retroactively if it eventually graduated to the official dance chart. Mess. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 29 December 2021 at 7:36pm
|
How's the 1955-2020 annual coming?
Just curious but where does it go from here. I was thinking wouldnt it be cool if you put in the rankings from 1940-1954 so it covers 80 years of music? I would love something where I can look at all the airplay hits that didnt chart on the Hot 100 for each year of the annual but were huge hits now that they were left out of the new two book set of 1955-1989 and 1990-2021. You do this for 1990's hits that never charted on the Hot 100. Like having a listing after each year of the classic Non-Hot 100 Airplay Hits for each year. Just a thought... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 30 December 2021 at 2:54am
|
We haven't started work on a Pop Annual update yet. There actually weren't that many huge non-Hot 100 Airplay hits
prior to 1990, that was really a trend of that decade. The Radio & Records book (and the upcoming Gavin Report book) will shine a light on those, but again it's not like they were all over the place. |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 15 July 2022 at 9:59am
|
Hey Paul, I think I remember years ago on one of the
Record Research mailers seeing a wantlist of Joel's and one of the things he was looking for was Natalie Cole's "Starting Over Again" on Cassette Single. I was just wondering if he ever found one, because I checked Discogs and the song doesn't have a listing for a Cassette Single in the US, just a vinyl 45, 12" test pressing and promo CD Single. I collected Cassette Singles at the time and was looking for it myself, but could never find one. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 24 October 2022 at 1:43pm
|
Paul - question:
Was just looking through the 2002 Pop Singles and saw that you included all relevant Airplay / Sales peaks. Do you recall how you handled that odd transition period in 1991 when there were two published airplay charts (Monitored vs Playlists)? Was there a transition date that you used for all data or did you just use the higher of each hit's two airplay peaks? |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 25 October 2022 at 4:26am
Check out the bottom of page xiii of the introduction for an explanation. |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 26 October 2022 at 1:17pm
|
Thanks for replying.
So a song like Michael Bolton's "Love is a Wonderful Thing" has an official Record Research airplay peak of #2 (from the playlists chart) despite getting no higher than #8 on the Radio Monitor (now called Radio Songs)... as the Monitor did not become the official 'canon' airplay chart till 6/8/91. Got it. What a nightmare that period must have been. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 02 November 2022 at 7:41pm
|
I am going to guess its going to be another year or two for the Pop Annual (1955-2022) right?
Also is the 2nd Top Pop Singles Book (1990-2021) coming out soon? I thought it was going to be released this year. Thanks in advance Paul. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 03 November 2022 at 2:56am
Hoping that the Pop Annual will be sometime next year (2023). Top Top Pop Singles Volume 2 will cover 1990-2022 and be out sometime next year (2023). Obviously, Joel's passing kind of pushed everything back a bit. It's basically just me doing most of the work on the books and they take a lot of time to put together correctly. |