The Comparison Book 1954-82
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=8206
Printed Date: 03 May 2025 at 2:20pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Comparison Book 1954-82
Posted By: Paul Haney
Subject: The Comparison Book 1954-82
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 3:23am
|
The latest Record Research book is now up for a pre-publication sale at out website (recordresearch.com).
It's an artist-by-artist compilation/comparison of the three big music trade publications from 1954-82. The printing will be limited, so don't delay, order today! |
Replies:
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 2:07pm
|
That's one I'll definitely be buying. That's a great idea
for a book. |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 07 October 2014 at 6:53am
Just went over to the RR web site and checked it out, including the sample pages - I agree it's definitely a great idea for a new book, Paul!
When I made the above comment in response to another post of yours in a different thread all of three days ago, I had NO idea this new Comparison Book was in the works. The main reason I made that statement was because in 1982 - when Record World ceased publication - the music biz (including top 40 radio) was just starting its huge upward swing after going through the "post-disco slump". Thanks to the dawn of MTV, the "second British Invasion", etc., things were starting to get exciting again - not to mention that was exactly when I started to take a major interest in music myself. :-) So IMHO, Record World couldn't have gone under at a worse time - yet Cash Box still managed to hang on for another 14 years (until 1996), just long enough to cover the last interesting & worthwhile era for music. (I don't think I'm alone in saying that!) So if I may offer some constructive criticism, I just wish that this upcoming Comparison Book could be extended to November 16, 1996 - when Cash Box ended its existence - instead of making 1982 the cut-off date, due to Record World throwing in the towel... I also haven't forgotten the following comments you made only some five months ago (April 22) in the http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8068&KW=spin+doctors - "Cash Box chart question" thread:
If extended to 1996 instead, wouldn't this Comparison Book be an EXCELLENT opportunity to expose those Cash Box vs. Billboard discrepancies that you mentioned above??? Heck, you certainly had my interest piqued back in April - in fact, are you sure that wasn't actually a veiled teaser for this new book, since it clearly would've already been in the works then?!? ;-) RR's books have been a part of my life for 30 years now, and I'm thrilled to see that you guys have acquired the rights to use the CB and RW charts as well. So great work as always, Paul, but I really do think you could be losing some potential customers by making the cut-off date in this new book more than 32 years ago. Is it too late to reconsider??? I know I wouldn't mind any additional delay - and yes, if it means adding another $10 or $20 to the cost of the book, I'd definitely pay it! :-) |
80smusicfreak wrote:Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 08 October 2014 at 4:14am
|
One of our main objectives these days is to keep the costs down whenever possible and to pass the savings on to our customers. I'm sure that most of you are aware of how tough the book publishing business is nowadays. The costs for printing and binding of books has continued to go up (and must be paid by us upfront) while our book prices have stayed stable (and in some cases gone down) ever since I started at RR in 1992. The last book that I bought as a customer of RR was the original 1970s chart book, for which I paid $99.95. That same book today can be had for $10 less! In terms of printing and binding costs, the page count is what matters and in order to keep this book affordable, we had to limit it to around 500 pages. This is why we went to 2 columns per page and made it 1954-82. The focus is the comparison of the pop chart information of the "Big 3" national trades and we believe that this book delivers on that big time.
If you really want the Cash Box info through 1996, the other books ARE still available. However, they won't be around forever - the #101-150 Hit Records book is totally sold-out and the main Hit Records book is getting close to gone. Thanks to everyone here who's already ordered or plans to order the new book. As a fellow chart fanatic, I'm sure you'll enjoy it! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 09 February 2015 at 3:01pm
|
The Comparison Book will be at our offices tomorrow morning (2/10) and we'll be shipping out all the pre-orders this coming week.
Thanks again to everyone here that purchased a copy! |
Posted By: JMD1961
Date Posted: 14 February 2015 at 9:41am
|
Got mine. Another nice book. Lots of interesting information. (Thanks for adding the "coat-tail" information for Music Vendor/Record World.)
What I found most interesting was the #1 hits list. Finally, I can see a chronological list of all #1 hits from the 50s to the early 80s. Again, thanks for all the work. |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 17 February 2015 at 3:34pm
|
Santa brought my last gift today, and considering it's colder now than it was December 25th, and that there's maybe two inches of snow on the ground vs. none on 12/25, it's all the more timely.
Paul, what a great research tool/time-waster! :) The best part for me is being able to easily locate the many sub-100 (or thereabouts) charters from my college radio years in one super-convenient book. It's also a great way to quickly date some non-Billboard unreported extras that were played on stations but never listed on their surveys. Well done! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 18 February 2015 at 4:51am
| Glad you guys like the new book. As a fellow chart fanatic, it's a dream come true to see all the data put together in one handy volume. |
Posted By: Santi Paradoa
Date Posted: 18 February 2015 at 7:09pm
|
I got my copy yesterday and I've yet to put the book
down. It is great having all the information there in the one volume. This might be the most important release ever for Record Research. Now a question for Pat and/or any others who may have important information to add to this discussion. There are many songs in this book that have, if you were to take the three chart peaks and average them out, an average that would seem to qualify the song for inclusion in the online Top 40 database. Here is just one example I came across: "So Close" by Jake Holmes from 1970. The three numbers are 27 (RW), 29 (CB) and 49 (BB) for a total of 105 or an average of 35 (rounding up). So the question is: Are there any other music charts that would also be factored in to determine if this song merits inclusion in the online database? BTW, even tho this song never made the Billboard Top 40, Casey Kasem actually played the song on the first year of AT40 for the Dec. 19 countdown. It was #39 instead of the correct song "Love The One You're With" by Stephen Stills. I recently heard the error on a replay at the end of last year. I read on this board that there were a few of these mistakes but never actually heard one myself until now. ------------- Santi Paradoa Miami, Florida |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 18 February 2015 at 8:25pm
How did something like this happen? Were the charts that BB sent to Watermark Productions preliminary and subject to change, or was this a mistake on the part of AT40's producers? |
Posted By: Santi Paradoa
Date Posted: 18 February 2015 at 8:28pm
chart so my guess is the error was made by someone involved with AT40. ------------- Santi Paradoa Miami, Florida |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 12:15am
The specific incident that Santi Paradoa refers to was detailed nicely in Rob Durkee's excellent 1999 book, American Top 40: The Countdown of the Century (pgs. 112-113):
If you're an "AT40" fan, I HIGHLY recommend this book! Unfortunately, it's long out-of-print, and now goes for big $$$. (Bought mine off the shelf back when it first came out; cover price was $24.95.) Listing/reviews on Amazon, where you can currently buy it from third-party sellers, starting at $85: http://www.amazon.com/American-Top-Forty-Countdown-Century/dp/0028648951/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424325369&sr=1-3&keywords=american+top+40 - ROB DURKEE - "American Top 40: The Countdown of the Century" (1999) I first became an "AT40" addict in 1982, and like many regular listeners, it wasn't long before I started writing down all of the songs and keeping track, week after week. The first (and only) time I heard such an error on the show was in the Summer of '83. On August 6, 1983, the group Charlie entered the Billboard top 40 for the first time ever, w/ "It's Inevitable", and I was listening. In fact, it was the first time I'd ever heard the song, and I thought it was catchy as heck - so I quickly ran out and bought the entire album on cassette. The following week - August 13, 1983 - "It's Inevitable" peaked at #38, spending its second and final week in the top 40. (It only got as high as #43 in Cash Box, so alas, it's not included in Pat's db.) However, "AT40" played a DIFFERENT (non-top 40) song at #38 instead (can't remember which one it was, off the top of my head). At that time, I'd just started buying Billboard every week off the newsstand, and noticed that one of my new favorite songs had somehow been CHEATED from being played on the show, and couldn't understand why. Sure enough, near the beginning of the following week's countdown (August 20, 1983), Casey came on and explained how there'd been a "mistake" in the previous week's show, and that Charlie should've been at #38, instead of "XXX" - while adding that we wouldn't be hearing "It's Inevitable" on the show ever again, because it had now fallen out of the top 40, to number fifty-something. :-( I recall Casey saying that the error was due to some sort of last-minute change in the tabulation of the "Hot 100" that prior week... |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 5:00am
My copy arrived on Wednesday, and yes, I've been spending quite a bit of time flipping through it, too. :-) I agree that it's fantastic having the charts from all three publications in one book...
Excellent example. In fact, before I came on here late last night and read your post, I'd already noticed the same thing for some different songs. However, I was going to refrain from inquiring about it here, for fear of opening up a can of worms - but now that you brought it up first, I'll go ahead and weigh in w/ some additional examples and questions... :-) Based on this post that I remembered from Pat, which he left on 08 April 2013 in response to edtop40 over in the http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7383&KW=franklin - "aretha franklin ain't no way" thread, it would certainly seem that RW, CB, and BB are the only sources:that he uses to determine which songs should qualify:
So w/ that methodology in mind, don't forget, besides ADDING songs like Jake Holmes' "So Close" to the db, the reverse would also be true - i.e., we'd be DELETING some as well! Case in point, which I just spotted while looking through the new Comparison Book: Gene Cotton's 1978 hit, "Like a Sunday in Salem (The Amos & Andy Song)". It hit #37 in CB, #40 in BB, and #46 in RW, for a total of 123, or an average of 41 - yet Pat DOES currently include it in the db! Now don't get me wrong, as I've said this here before, I'm not looking to get "Sunday in Salem" removed, as I'm all for having as many songs in the db as possible, whether they were consensus top 40 hits or not. :-) But I feel an explanation is in order here, too... Of course, another song that's always been included in the db but I've questioned in the past (see http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3577&KW=blues - here ) is the 1980 hit, "What I Like About You" by the Romantics. It hit #49 in BB, #53 in CB, and #64 in RW, for a total of 166, or an average of 55.3. Heck, it didn't actually crack the top 40 in ANY of the big-three publications! So if we're going to be consistent and stick to the apparent methodology, this now-classic would unquestionably need to be cut loose, too... We can easily take this debate even further, by going past the April 10, 1982, cut-off date in RR's new Comparison Book (when Record World ceased publication), and continue through November 16, 1996, when only Billboard and Cash Box were left. Again I will quote Paul Haney from the http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8068&KW=chart - "Cash Box chart question" thread last year:
Looking at just the three songs that Paul cited (although I'm sure he knows of others, which I'd be curious to learn about!), 1990's "Nothin' to Hide" hit #39 BB and missed in CB altogether, 1991's "You Could Be Mine" hit #29 BB and #104 CB, and 1992's "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong" hit #17 BB while also missing in CB altogether. "You Could Be Mine" has a total of 133, or an average of 66.5, yet it's in the db. Technically, "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong" shouldn't qualify, either, yet it's also in there. However, conversely, "Nothin' to Hide" is (ahem) nowhere to be found - go figure... But we can also flip this: If a song was only a #17 hit in BB, while missing in CB altogether (like "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong") - and that is enough to qualify it for inclusion in the db - then surely a song that went all the way to #1 in CB should also be included, even if it missed in BB altogether, right??? So why is Wayne Newton's 1992 smash, "The Letter", not in the db??? This is NOT meant to be an assault on all the time & hard work that Pat has understandably put into compiling the db over the years! Just some food for thought, as I think this could get interesting... :-) |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 5:11am
|
That 1983 song was "Pieces Of Ice" by Diana Ross. I remember that particular AT40 show very well.
Probably the biggest AT40 "blunder" was the show for June 29, 1974. According to Rob Durkee's excellent book (which I also HIGHLY recommend), Billboard didn't get the Hot 100 to AT40 on time, so they just guessed at the Top 40 that week! That's how ZZ Top's "La Grange" got played at #33 that week, despite only peaking at #41 in Billboard. In fact, iHeart Radio has been playing that show on their classic AT40 channel recently. I started writing down the Top 40 each week in August of 1974, so I (thankfully) missed that particular show the first time around! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 5:59am
Here's some more details on that situation: The AT40 show for 8/13/83 was guest-hosted by Keri Tombazian and instead of "It's Inevitable" by Charlie, they played "Pieces Of Ice" by Diana Ross. The interesting thing is that if you look at the actual Hot 100 that week, Charlie is #38 and Diana Ross is #45. However, at the bottom of the chart in the A-Z index, they show "It's Inevitable" at #45 and "Pieces Of Ice" at #38! So there really does appear to be some sort of mix-up from Billboard that week! |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 7:42am
I hope this was meant sarcastically. There is no way a CHR (or even an AC) station would have played Wayne Newton in 1992, and singles sales had already gone off the cliff by then so I doubt it was a sales success either. I've never even heard it. |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 10:26am
It ended up in the Dead Letter Office. Turns out the "33 1/3 Years Of Payola!" commemorative stamp on the envelope was bogus. ;) |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 12:28pm
The funniest/saddest part of the whole "The Letter" deal is that it actually knocked out one of the biggest singles of all-time (Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You") from the #1 spot (although Whitney would knock out Wayne the next week)! |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 6:34pm
Yes, my use of the word "smash" in the question was absolutely meant to be sarcastic. ;-) However, just to be clear, my point was, whether it was a "genuine" hit or not, IMO excluding "The Letter" from the db is essentially re-writing history - or at the very least, would be inconsistent w/ the methodology that is apparently used to qualify songs for inclusion in the db. Just how big of a "hit" the song was is certainly debatable, but the fact that practically everyone would say it wasn't a #1 doesn't mean it should simply be erased. Did Pat still list the song in his 1994 book, Cash Box Pop Singles Charts, 1950-1993??? Yes (pg. 247). Did Joel Whitburn still list the song in his new Cash Box Pop Hits, 1952-1996 book??? Yes (pg. 278, complete w/ a footnote). So whether you love/hate "The Letter", heard it/never heard it, think it was a #1 hit/only a #202 hit, it would certainly seem that it still ranked high enough in CB to qualify for the db - especially if you include such songs as "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong". (And I've always said, the more entries/info in the db, the better.) Whether or not you choose to take that info and invest in adding "The Letter" to your own personal music library is certainly your call, but I know that we do have quite a few "completists" around here... :-) On a side note - and using the same reasoning - I didn't agree w/ Paul Haney & RR's decision to exclude another 1992 "hit", "Mother Tone" by Truce, from the new Cash Box Pop Hits, 1952-1996 book, as was ultimately done. (Pat DID include it in his, BTW.) As Paul inquired here on Pat's board a little over a year ago back when the book was still in production (see his http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7813&KW=mystery+song - "Mystery song" thread), the single charted for two weeks in August of '92, peaking at #90. Paul said that RR suspected the song was a "plant", as they could find no proof if its existence. Fair enough, and I certainly have no evidence myself that that conclusion is wrong - but since it WAS actually listed in the magazine, include the song in the book, too! And if you need to add a footnote w/ it - as was done w/ "The Letter" - so be it. (Although you never got a response from Paul, I see that even you asked about it over in that thread, Hykker.) Who knows, maybe the additional exposure in Whitburn's new CB chart book - w/ a footnote included - could've led to a more concrete answer had they listed it??? That was how RR handled the similar situation w/ D.A.'s "Ready 'n' Steady" in their Bubbling Under the Billboard Hot 100, 1959-2004 book, anyway (pg. 71)...
If you mean on vinyl, absolutely. But as I've mentioned on this board before, singles sales here in the U.S. in 1992 were still very healthy, and had rebounded nicely since the full-blown rollout of the cassette single in early '87. The problem was, by '92, the labels had developed a misguided fear that these healthy new singles sales were somehow "cannibalizing" album sales. So beginning in the Summer of '89, labels actually started deleting cassette singles at the height of many songs' popularity on the charts, or not releasing huge video/airplay hits as commercial singles at all. That clearly stunted the singles market, and was the beginning of the downward spiral for physical singles sales... As for "The Letter", there was no commercial single (on cassette or CD, anyway). Whitburn's new CB chart book lists the song as a "Curb album cut", and while Pat's old CB chart book shows it as being on "Curb 1008", that matches the label & no. of the promo CD single, which cmmmbase said he owns in a post he made on 21 April 2014 over in the http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8068&KW=chart+question - "Cash Box chart question" thread:
For those who didn't/don't follow the CB charts, you have to understand that they started allowing airplay-only hits onto their pop chart by early 1990, nearly nine years before BB did (late '98)! "The Letter" was just such an example - so it's safe to say that CB considered it a huge "airplay" hit, whether there was any evidence to support that or not... |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 6:36pm
lol! Always enjoy your humor around here, Yah Shure! :-) |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 6:45pm
Very interesting, indeed! I don't recall noticing that in the magazine at the time, but I guess that means Casey was telling us the truth when he made the correction on-air the following week. Still have my copy of that issue, but it's currently packed away in storage, and needless to say, it's been YEARS since I last flipped through it. Thanks for the additional info... |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 February 2015 at 10:23pm
|
I'm not so sure that you could say Pat is "re-writing history" by
excluding "The Letter" from the database. If the song only appeared in one of the major trade magazines, I suppose a case could be made that the song was not a "consensus top 40 hit" as Pat is quoted saying earlier in the thread.
I would agree if "The Letter" had been an actual hit; however, we all know that's not the case. As far as the Spin Doctors song goes, it does raise an interesting question as to why that song never made Cash Box. ------------- 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: Brian W.
Date Posted: 20 February 2015 at 1:57am
Like Aaron said, because that one is very obviously a fake "planted" chart position that was bought and paid for. Besides, "The Letter" wasn't eligible to chart in "Billboard" at the time because it wasn't a single; according to the "Cash Box" chart achive it was a "Curb album cut." So if it charted on airplay only, rather odd that it didn't show up at all on either Billboard's Hot 100 Airplay chart or on Radio & Records airplay chart. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 23 February 2015 at 8:17pm
|
Speaking of weird chart phenomena, I saw in this week's "Entertainment Weekly" Magazine, that at #8 on the album list is Shawn Mendes' "Handwritten". I checked their source, and the top 10 is based on iTunes - "for the week ending Feb 2". So I went to amazon and saw that both the CD and digital download album will become available for sale on April 28!
How can this be? At first, I thought maybe they include "pre-order" sales when iTunes tabulates their biggest selling albums of the week. But even that doesn't make sense. First, Shawn Mendes isn't THAT well known as an artist, and his single "Life of the Party" got little airplay, so it seems like the pre-sales of this album on that particular week would be minimal. Secondly, if iTunes really does include pre-order sales as sales and reports their top 10 to Entertainment Weekly in this manner every week - then (as a couple examples) the #1 album of the week would be, say, Taylor Swift or Katy Perry, WEEKS before the album was available for sale! And we've never seen iTunes or Entertainment Weekly list an album at #1 weeks or months before it was released. So can anyone explain to me why this Shawn Mendes album would be the #8 album of the week (in EW & iTunes) 11 weeks before it was released?? I almost wonder if this was some kind of technical error, and iTunes really meant something else was the #8 album of the week. |
Posted By: Glenpwood
Date Posted: 01 March 2015 at 11:04am
|
To clear up the Shawn Mendes situation, despite him not having an
actual hit yet on the radio he is a huge social media star with the tweens thanks to his Vine videos. He is also touring with Taylor Swift this year so between those two fan bases and the download of a new song with presale purchase surged him into the Top 10 on Itunes quickly the week in question. It crashed back down just as quickly but I'm willing to bet whoever puts that chart in EW just copied the current Top 10 albums off Itunes since its a rolling chart, hence its appearance weeks before its release. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 01 March 2015 at 7:18pm
|
Glen, I'm not sure I completely understand. Are you saying it was sales of the single plus pre-sales of the album during that week that brought the album up to #8 on the iTunes chart that week? Is the iTunes albums chart now always based on pre-sales of the album and actual sales of the single (along with actual sales of the album)?
I know iTunes has a singles chart, too, so this is still a bit confusing to me. Also, I believe I read recently about the Billboard charts that for every 10 purchases of a single, it counts as a sale of one album + 10 singles. Kinda odd that buying one single would count as sales for a single AND an album. I know many people in the business that think the Billboard charts are pretty useless now and became that way since they started including YouTube views as part of the Hot 100. And now don't Twitter mentions also count towards the Hot 100 and other charts? |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 02 March 2015 at 6:30am
I'm not sure it's even possible to create a meaningful chart today (and this includes much of this century). With tight, highly focused radio playlists on one hand and the ability to download songs that aren't even designated singles muddies the waters to the point where you can't tell what the hits are (all the 1 or 2-week "chart runs" of songs by the cast of Glee is a perfect example). It sure ain't like the old days! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 02 March 2015 at 8:54am
|
Yes, it ain't like the old days. But you could also argue the flip side that
the charts are even more meaningful and accurate than they have ever been. They reflect what people are actually buying right now, even if that means a song can come and go on the chart in a matter of a couple weeks. Why would you say that you can't tell what the hits are? ------------- 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: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 02 March 2015 at 12:35pm
|
You could take it one or two steps further. There are so many ways to make determinations of popularity.
And btw, in the past: didn't the spins on MTV count toward the Hot 100 at one point, and then later, not? Also in the past I believe, in the '70s and '80s, when there was a #1 country hit that was not on the Hot 100 - it must have had quite a bit of sales - and Billboard had a way of determining which singles sales applied to which chart/genre. Otherwise, how could there be so many #1 country hits in those 2 decades that didn't even peak at, say, #82, on the pop chart - with all those sales around the country? But I digress ... now a computer could determine the total # of times a song (or an artist) is mentioned on twitter and facebook every week. You could take it even one step further - if there are ways to determine how often we mention a song title or artist on the phone (and don't some people think organizations like the NSA can do that anyway? :), these mentions could be added in, too. As well as people's personal top 40 charts (there are quite a few people that make their own charts.) And there are so many ways to take all possible info to determine a Hot 100. And as Hykker said, there are so many narrow playlists - because of narrow radio stations - which ones contribute to the Hot 100 - and couldn't we argue that classical stations be included, too - if some song gets played enough to make the Hot 100, why not? - and how much weight should each genre's radio stations count toward the Hot 100 - a country station vs. R&B station, etc. (Would it be based solely on the size of its audience?) Obviously, YouTube views and Spotify and Pandora plays count now. But how much do you weigh one person listening to a song on Spotify once vs. a NYC radio station spinning a song once? I think the point is this could go on endlessly. I feel the chart tabulations are getting too chaotic. You can go overboard - and there was something very nice about tabulating singles sales and radio station spins for each genre, e.g. like "the good old days". And P.S. If buying 10 singles equates to buying one album now (in Billboard), then a song like Meghan Trainor's "All About That Bass" (or any song near or at the top of the chart) will be skewing an album to look more successful than it is. That's why Billboard had separate singles & albums charts. If they really want to combine sales this way, then they ought to call the chart "the top singles & albums chart". |
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 02 March 2015 at 1:54pm
|
I recently watched an interesting show "Hitmakers" with lots of interviews with artists and record co. execs.
They had several artists from the "old days" (70's thru 90's) and a few recent ones that have to make their living in the modern world of streaming and downloading. One of the record execs pointed out how much simpler it was in the pre-computer era. The main goal then was radio play,and as a result of that air-play get unit sales and then onto the Billboard charts. Sales and airplay would determine a "hit". But he said in this modern world of streaming and smartphones, there are so many more avenues people are discovering and sharing music. You can have a song that isn't even on any chart yet, but might have 26 million youtube plays and millions of Spotify plays just from word / links spread thru social media. He said the whole definition of what makes a "hit" has now changed and there is no longer one all-encompassing place to go to know what is popular. That is the challenge modern record companies and artists face. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years. MM |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 02 March 2015 at 11:42pm
No - MTV videoplay was NEVER factored into the "Hot 100" rankings by Billboard at any time. However, starting in the January 29, 1983, issue, the magazine DID publish a weekly list of the channel's most-played videos, which was compiled & submitted by MTV itself. That very first list consisted of 63 then-current videos, broken down into three weighted categories: "Heavy Rotation" (defined by MTV as 3-4 plays a day), "Medium Rotation" (2-3 plays a day), and "Light Rotation" (1-2 plays per day). Another 6 videos were in the special "New Videos Added" category that week, making a total of 69. Over the next 10 years, the length of the list varied slightly from week to week, and additional categories were eventually added. I've often wondered just how much it would've changed things had Billboard found a way to accurately factor MTV videoplay into their chart mix, though - especially during the '80s...
Yeah, and don't forget that starting in May, any current song charting on the "Hot 100" that samples an older hit will have half of its point total awarded to the original song as well, thus allowing many of those old classics to scrape back into the bottom of the chart... ;-) |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 03 March 2015 at 2:06am
| Are you joking? If that's the case, does that mean that a sampled hit would not do as well on the Hot 100 chart because half its points are being taken away from it? You're probably kidding ... right? |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 03 March 2015 at 7:38am
I wonder how MTV play would have been weighted, given the fact that MTV was not on all cable systems in the 80s, and there were some major cities (Boston was one) where cable did not exist. Those reasons could have been a factor in BB not including MTV play in the Hot 100. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 03 March 2015 at 3:55pm
Gordon, I read that as in addition--not that any points would be taken away from the current hit. I wonder, though, why they would do that? ------------- 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: Glenpwood
Date Posted: 03 March 2015 at 9:23pm
Yes, presales do factor into Itunes album chart rankings weekly overall and hourly. However they do not factor into the Billboard 200 until the fan physically redeems the presale from the albums actual release date. They are also now counting individual album cut downloads and album track streams towards the chart as noted above. I believe they are doing this to stem the blood loss from album sales flatlining thanks to streaming. Hence why albums like the new Nick Jonas are still in the Top 40 when the physical sales are much much lower.I don't believe they are allowing Twitter mentions to count though... |
Posted By: 80smusicfreak
Date Posted: 04 March 2015 at 12:28am
Yes, as aaronk said, I meant "in addition" - not "taken away" - so the current hits would still retain their full (normal) point totals. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the same will also be true when cover versions chart - so the next time the "Glee" Cast extends its record-setting number of chart hits as the most successful group/artist in rock history, the originals will get half the number of points, too. No, wait - yeah, you got me (j/k all along)... :-P Seriously, though, while I do believe that Billboard is doing its best to try and accurately measure the popularity of songs here in 2015, let's face it, the music biz itself is such a mess right now, that it's headed for a complete collapse, IMO. Like you said, the way it "functions" now, there are so many ways to make determinations of popularity that w/ the exception of the top 10 hits, it's hard to tell which songs are really "popular" anymore! (I pretty much agree w/ Hykker's assessment.) I was just attempting to throw out a couple other possible measures you may not have considered, lol. ;-) (Um, Twitter mentions in compiling the "Hot 100"??? REALLY?!? Now THAT'S a new one on me!) |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 04 March 2015 at 10:49am
|
<Twitter mentions in compiling the "Hot 100"??? REALLY?!? Now THAT'S a new one on me!) >
Well, I'm pretty sure they count towards Billboard's "Social Top 50" weekly chart. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually get extended to counting toward the Hot 100, too. |
Posted By: mstgator
Date Posted: 22 March 2015 at 8:13am
I'm fairly certain that a song needed to be on a minimum number of Top 40 stations before being allowed to debut on the Hot 100 (at least that's what I read in the mid '80s). So a #1 country hit could conceivably not chart on the Hot 100 no matter how much it sold. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 22 March 2015 at 10:13am
| That makes sense. Now I wonder ... once a country song reached that pop radio station threshhold, how did Billboard decide which SALES they'd count toward the pop chart and which ones counted toward the country chart. Maybe they went by town/state? It doesn't seem to me that they counted ALL the country song's sales toward the pop chart because ... every time a country song reached the pop stations threshhold and debuted on the pop chart, all country songs would debut rather high because there'd be a lot of sales contributing that week (assuming the pop crossover occured while the song was still in the country top 10 and not already way down on that chart). |
Posted By: JMD1961
Date Posted: 22 March 2015 at 2:19pm
Maybe they figured it on a percentage basis. If a song's pop radio points was ... say ... 20% of it's country radio points, then it would be assumed that 20% of its sales points were from pop exposure. Not very scientific, I know. Besides, I'm just speculating anyway. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 11 September 2015 at 8:16pm
| I was speaking with a friend about the wildly different chart peaks between BB, CB & RW, as revealed in the Comparison book, which I just got this week. But that made us wonder ... in the '70s/'80s, was there ever a time when CB or RW based their charts solely on sales OR airplay, and not both? If so, that could explain such differences in chart peaks. I looked in the intro paragraphs of the RR Cashbox & Record World books and did not find anything that said whether only sales or only airplay were considered. |
Posted By: musicmanatl
Date Posted: 11 September 2015 at 8:57pm
| I'm getting ready to read in bed as I do each night, and the only book I've read at night this year has been the comparison book. I've read it cover to cover twice and I'm working on a third time through. Paul, thanks so much for this! I find interesting new facts each time I read it. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 12 September 2015 at 2:20pm
Thanks for the kind words, Frank! I think that's also my favorite RR book. Everybody should own at least one copy! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 12 September 2015 at 2:26pm
Gordon, I'm pretty sure that by the '70s/'80s all three trades were some combination of sales and airplay. We were never able to really nail down the exact methodology used by CB and RW over the years. There's a lot of differences between the three, but there's also a lot that are the same or at least fairly close. |
Posted By: AndrewChouffi
Date Posted: 13 September 2015 at 8:13am
|
To EdisonLite, et al:
Sometimes people forget how chart methodology can work. Even if the trades had the same method of compiling the chart (they didn't), the three trades never even had the exact same reporters at the same time! I seem to recall times where a few radio stations were dropped from reporting status from a couple of trades, but kept on as a reporter at one of the trades. The promotion department (or indies) would hard sell their record to these stations to attempt to goose up the chart position in that particular trade. This was done because the dropped stations would feel vulnerable & afraid of losing their industry relevance. I also remember Radio & Records Magazine becoming the premier trade mag because of their 3-Parallel tier system and the fact that they would drop or add stations to reporting status based on their Arbitron ratings more swiftly than the other three trades. This would (in theory) result in a more meaningful chart to programmers (fewer lame stations clouding the chart positions). Can anyone out there add to this? Andy |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 13 September 2015 at 12:42pm
| Andy, what is a 3-parallel tier system? (I'm guessing 2 of the 3 are radio & records (?) - are you talking about earlier days when jukeboxes might have made up the 3rd tier?) |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 13 September 2015 at 3:31pm
I'm not Andy, but the "parallels" refer to 3 tiers of reporting radio stations. Obviously, a station in Minot, N. Dak. isn't going to have the influence of one in L.A. or Chicago. Stations were ranked by market size (and maybe other factors too), so that spins on major market stations were weighted more heavily than medium or smaller ones. |
Posted By: AndrewChouffi
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 7:38am
|
Thank you Hykker for accurately answering EdisonLite's question for me while I was off-duty!!
Andy |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 2:57pm
Cash Box was sales-only until at least early 1968... it said so in a notation on on each chart until that time. The year-end issues continued to call it "The Cash Box Top 100 Best Selling Singles" chart through the 1973 year end chart. But differences in chart peaks are also due to each week's chart simply being the result of a phone poll, a survey. Just like a survey of who is ahead in the presidential race, the results vary slightly from the different news organizations. And can be dead wrong... I'm sure we call all recall exit polls that were dead wrong. It's all rather imprecise, but it's the same methodology used to gather chart information prior to soundscan. Imagine how much those political polls would vary if there were 100 candidates instead of just a few. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 29 November 2020 at 3:09am
|
I finally had a chance to really go through this cool book tonight. A question about the 4 sources compared:
Billboard Cashbox Record World Radio & Records -Isn't Radio & Records the only one that's a radio-only chart, while the other 3 are a combo of sales & airplay? (If so, it's a bit like comparing 3 apples & 1 orange. But it's fun seeing those R&R peaks. Sometimes they're much higher than the other 3 charts, and I wonder if it's because it's airplay-only - or if it would have peaked a lot higher anyway.) |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 29 November 2020 at 5:02am
|
I think you're actually referring to The Whitburn Book of Top 10 hits (the Comparison Book had no R&R data).
Yes, the R&R charts were based strictly on airplay. Many songs (especially from the early 1980s) peaked much higher, in part due to Billboard's chart policies at the time (which I think have been covered elsewhere on this board). |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 29 November 2020 at 5:08am
I thought "Record World" was based entirely on Sales. I do remember reading somewhere several years ago that "Cashbox" was also all Sales until sometime in the late 70's when they began incorporating Airplay into their rankings, but I don't know if that's true or not. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 29 November 2020 at 10:07am
All 3 of the "major" trades (Billboard, Cash Box & Record World) were based on a combination of sales & airplay, at least by the 1970s. The formulas changed over the years, but they seemed to be pretty balanced. IIRC, Variety actually had a sales-only chart during that time period. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 29 November 2020 at 12:05pm
"Record World" always had an airplay component. "Cash Box" actually said on their charts that they were compiled from only retail sales until early 1968, but the year-end charts continued to call it the "Cash Box Top 100 Bestselling Singles Chart" up through the 1973 or 1974 year-end issue. Cash Box began notating which songs were the greatest airplay gainers sometime in the late '70s. So it's kind of a mystery as to exactly when they started incorporating airplay. For an unknown period of time starting with the May 5, 1968 issue, the top 50 of the Billboard Hot 100 was strictly sales-based, because Billboard felt radio stations were limiting their playlists. No one knows when that policy stopped, either, but it had definitely stopped by June 3, 1973. There's an old thread discussing that here: http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7105&KW=billboard+sales%2Dbased - http://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7105 &KW=billboard+sales%2Dbased |
Posted By: bitman
Date Posted: 25 December 2020 at 7:05pm
|
Any chance of releasing this book digitally?
|
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 26 December 2020 at 4:39am
There's ALWAYS a chance. However, not a very big one at the moment. The digital versions just don't sell like the print books do. |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date Posted: 26 December 2020 at 8:17am
I understand why. I love the feel of a book in my hands. However, with the sheer size of some of the more larger books (Top Pop Albums 1955-2016 for example) I can imagine having a digital version makes it easier to find things and read through. However, the Comparison one is not that large in terms of page count so doesn't fall into that category. |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 26 December 2020 at 4:43pm
|
I agree about the larger books - they are becoming too
awkward to handle. Has Record Research considered dividing the larger books like Top Pop Albums and Singles into two volumes each to make them easier to read and reference? I appreciate there would be a cost increase publishing two books instead of one, but the size of the Pop books have clearly maxed out. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 27 December 2020 at 5:31am
| As far as 2 volumes of Top Pop Singles goes, all I can say is...STAY TUNED! |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 27 December 2020 at 4:32pm
|
That's great news, Paul...I hope! I have actually been
hesitant to update either book because they have become so cumbersome! |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 28 December 2020 at 10:50am
|
Here's another great eye deer for a different type of comparison book, a Billboard singles comparison book featuring:
--best sellers --DJ airplay --juke boxes --honor roll of hits --Top 100 --Hot 100 --bubbling under --Christmas charts --anything else I've forgotten --having an appropriate cut off point, say from 1-1-1940 (or even late 30s if including the Record Buying Guide) to perhaps when the Honor Roll of Hits chart ended in 1963 So for each record that appeared on any of these Billboard charts, we'd get to see the peak and # of weeks they appeared on all of these charts. Once and for, the whole story of each record across all the charts. Hooze wit me ?? |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 28 December 2020 at 8:18pm
Why not give us an idea of what Joel is thinking about - with his blessing of course - so forum members can offer their input. Maybe a brilliant idea will surface or one of Joel’s idea may not be received favorably. Seeking input from your loyal customers is a sound practice - give them what they want. You’ll really never be 100% sure unless you ask them! |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 28 December 2020 at 8:45pm
The 2 volumes would be great. I just don't know what else can be done to to add any more information to the artists track listings. You already include the bubbling under and the non-chart hits. I know I look forward to it being in 2 volumes. ------------- 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 December 2020 at 7:23am
|
Question to ponder: if the Top Pop Singles were to be split into 2 volumes, how best to split them?
--By time period, say 1955-1989 and 1990-2020? --Or alphabetical by artist, A-K and L-Z? |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 29 December 2020 at 10:34am
Answer: By time period. |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date Posted: 29 December 2020 at 12:17pm
I like that. Makes it similar to the Pop Hits 1940-1955 book from about 2002 in that you have a book for a period and those interested buy that period. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 29 December 2020 at 12:46pm
|
The plan right now is to split Top Pop Singles into 2 volumes (1955-1989 & 1990-2020). We're still working out some of
the details. Look for some kind of official announcement in the first quarter of 2021. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 29 December 2020 at 2:18pm
I'm confused, if Top Pop Singles goes alphabetically from A to Z, wouldn't it be better to go by letter (A to M and then N to Z) then by creating an artificial year divide? That way if I want Paula Abdul's complete chart history ohn the Hot 100, its not broken up, I can just look under A in the first volume..... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 29 December 2020 at 7:57pm
Why choose 1990 as the cut-off date? I don’t know how many listings would occupy each volume but I’m guessing it may be equal or possibly even more after 1990. So customers would buy the 1955-89 book once but then buy the second volume every 3-4 years when updated. That second volume will get pretty big quickly. Probably should start off smaller. Always thought the break point should be when a significant chart change occurred. Always thought you should have done a 1940-1958 book because that was the Pre Hot 100 period. Then pick it up based solely on the Hot 100. Maybe when the Hot 100 included airplay only songs would be a good breaking point? |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 29 December 2020 at 8:45pm
I agree. It is more logical it should be 1955-1991 because that was the era before soundscan. The charts after the changeover in late 1991 make a bit more sense as 1992-2020 has been a totally different era of tabulation starting with soundscan and ending with streaming numbers and digital downloads... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 30 December 2020 at 8:34pm
|
If the volumes will be by date, then the cutoff should
be 12/5/98 when the Hot 100 transitioned from a record chart to a song chart. I always cringe when Billboard's writers compare the chart stats compiled by today's artists to those achieved in the past. Drake has charted the most songs ever since his album tracks can chart - something that could not be done by, say, the Beatles in the '60's or Elton in the '70's. How many more Hot 100 or even Top 10 hits would artists like them have amassed if their album tracks had been able to chart? All the tracks from albums like "Rumours" or "Thriller" would have probably charted...disregarding that Jackson ultimately mined "Thriller" for seven singles anyway! Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift may have charted more times than Aretha Franklin. But, how many of their charted songs only lasted a week like Swift's or charted as by a featured artist like Minaj's when compared to Franklin? I must admit I would prefer by artist. I would rather see an artist's entire chart history together than in two volumes. What would be done for songs that re- chart? Brenda Lee's "Rockin..." first charted and peaked in the '60's, but reached a new peak in 2019. Should the song be included in the book when it was first released or when it peaked? Reference would be needed in one that it is in the other as the song was a success in both book eras. From a financial standpoint, it would also require readers to purchase both volumes every time the books are updated. Undoubtedly, publishing two volumes will be more expensive which will be reflected in the price. |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 30 December 2020 at 11:13pm
|
Now the Hot 100 is definitely NOT a Pop Singles chart anymore. It’s an
all-genre chart that bears NO resemblance to the Hot 100 of past years. Maybe call the first volume Top Pop Singles and the second volume Hot 100 Singles. 1998 could be a good cut off date. Not a big fan of dividing the book by artists. Every 3-4 years you would need to buy two books. You know the price of two books would be more than the current price of just one book. |
Posted By: Underground Dub
Date Posted: 31 December 2020 at 3:54am
|
There's really no perfect way to divide these though, is there?
A clean break at the turn of the century may work better than 1990. Something like "Vol. 1 - The 1900s" and "Vol. 2 - The 2000s". As mentioned, the chart did significantly change at the very end of 1998 which would add just one transitional year to the first book. However, Top Pop Singles likely does well because it promises a complete overview of the Hot 100 since its inception despite all of Billboard's criteria machinations over the past 30 years. Breaking it up by century could negatively affect the appeal of each, with the first volume feeling like an edited rehash of every edition released since 1999, and the second feeling lopsided without the bulk of more legitimate Hot 100 eras to anchor it. And I don't see dividing by artist as being beneficial to anyone other than possibly the publishers. My unsolicited "focus group" contribution: Having bought so many volumes over the years - and given the current state of the charts and world - I'm happy hitting pause with the latest edition that runs up to 2018 in a single book. I'm especially unlikely to buy an update if it's split into two expensive volumes regardless of how it's done. Maybe a decade from now when more time has passed, a new generation of acts have emerged and there's more data to document and contrast? (Assuming the Hot 100 is even still a thing.) Finally, I don't say this to be harsh as the work and love that goes into these books is obvious and very much appreciated, but... It would be nice if more effort went into discerning between authentic single sleeve art and the "fan-made" ones that pollute google's image results. We're all such sticklers for accuracy I think this is a fair concern to raise as several fakes have graced not only interior pages but in some cases the COVERS of these books in recent years. I really do appreciate all that has gone into keeping these books updated and in print for decades, and that an effort is made to speak directly with chart enthusiasts on these forums. Thanks! |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 31 December 2020 at 5:48am
I agree. While it might be good for RR's bottom line to force customers to buy 2 books in order to update, but it could backfire too. The primary reason I bought the most recent one was that the copy I had only went to 1996, and I wanted a reference on newer songs. The old one was perfectly adequate for the era it covered. We could debate forever where the Vol 1/vol 2 transition should be, but realistically it should probably be at a point where both volumes would be roughly the same size. How would the 2 volume system compare cost-wise to the single volume? Most of us don't have an unlimited budget. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 31 December 2020 at 8:18am
|
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. |
Posted By: KentT
Date Posted: 31 December 2020 at 9:56pm
|
Another thing to note about Cash Box in 1989, the Cash Box
murders related to chart rigging for bribes. A sad and sordid history Nashville really swept under the rug. Related to the Independent country charts, especially the lower positions. I suspect the after effects of this is what killed off Cash Box. ------------- I turn up the good and turn down the bad! |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date Posted: 01 January 2021 at 7:00am
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). |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 01 January 2021 at 9:12pm
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. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Scanner
Date 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? |
Posted By: Chartman
Date 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 |
Posted By: Chartman
Date 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. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date 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! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date 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). |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 12 January 2021 at 2:00pm
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? |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date 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. |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date 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) |