Top Pop Singles Vol.1 (1955-89)

jebsib wrote: Paul, what source did you use for Canadian #1's? Wikipedia almost exclusively cites "RPM", whereas Billboard printed "The Record" in their magazine. Never certain what is 'official'.

I'll have to double-check with Joel (he compiled the list). But I believe he used the CHUM charts from 1957-64 and the
RPM charts from 1965-89.

Back in 1973 I bought my first RR publication "1955-
1972 Top Pop Singles". It was a paperback book, yellow
cover, and cost a whopping $30 ($184 in today's
dollars)! Had to save all my allowance and paper route
money. I have bought every Top Pop Singles since, but
that will stop with this new edition. I understand the
need to break the book up into volumes, but Joel's
vision of using 1989 as the break point is silliness.
I view this book as a final edition for these years so
it will never be updated - only Volume 2 will be
updated going forward.

I would have chosen a break date where the Hot 100
significantly changed. There could be debate over
which date, but some have suggested 12/5/98. This was
the beginning of the all-genre chart (in comparison to
a Pop chart) and the demise of the availability of a
single to purchase requirement. I have no qualms with
Billboard's decision, but the composition of the Hot
100 significantly changed that date and it's a natural
cut-off date for a book that is based on the Hot 100.
The 1990 Hot 100 was exactly like the the 1989 Hot
100. If you compare today's Hot 100 with those from
the 60s-80s the only characteristic they have in
common is 100 positions. During the past three months
the twitter feed @Army_Connect has single handily made
"Butter" by BTS the #1 song on the Hot 100. WTF.

So now we have the following situation for music
charts:

7/27/40-7/28/58 - combination of Pop charts (Sales,
Airplay, Juke Box)
8/4/58-8/29/98 - Hot 100 Pop charts
9/5/98-current date - Hot 100 all-genre charts

Maybe Volume 1 could be called "Top Pop Singles 1940-
1998" and Volume 2 titled "Hot 100 Singles 1998-2021".
While I still have tremendous respect for Joel (and
have donated mucho dinero to RR coffers), he is wrong
here.

On a side note, I really hate when Billboard compares
modern chart achievements with those from pre-1998.
Definitely apples to oranges.

Edited by Chartman

EdisonLite wrote: And Paul - this reminds me - a question about the Billboard 2000's Hot 100 chart book. I have the book but at the moment don't have time to go through every page to answer this :) I remember there were about 2 or 3 weeks where Billboard published its Pop 100 and not the Hot 100. It was dedicated to mainstream airplay (and I believe sales) - and not the multi- genre chart that the Hot 100 combined. Each week was alternating: hot 100, pop 100, hot 100, pop 100, and then always hot 100 again (or something like that). In your decades book for the '00s, did it just include the Pop 100 for the few weeks in question? Or did it determine the Hot 100 (from the "Last week column" of the next chart, to keep a consistent Hot 100 for every week? I'm guessing it's the first scenario; also, with the 2nd option, there'd be a few gaps for songs that fell off the Hot 100 and weren't on the next chart.

What alternated for two months (May and June of 2005)
was that one week the Hot 100 would encompass a full
page and the Pop 100 half a page, and the next week
the Pop 100 would be a full page and the Hot 100 half
a page. This proved to be extremely unpopular, and
after only two months, Billboard went back to
giving the Hot 100 a full page every week. The four
weeks that the Hot 100 was only a half page were May
7, May 21, June 4, and June 18, 2005. In these four
issues, the Hot 100 contained no writer or producer
credits.

The Pop 100 existed from 2005 until 2010 (in its last
year it was available only online). Its methodology
was essentially the same as the Hot 100, except that
the airplay component was based solely on Top 40
airplay. Its methodology was actually very similar to
that of the Hot 100 from November 1991 until November
1998.

Chartman wrote: I would have chosen a break date where the Hot 100 significantly changed. There could be debate over which date, but some have suggested 12/5/98. This was the beginning of the all-genre chart (in comparison to a Pop chart) and the demise of the availability of a single to purchase requirement. I have no qualms with Billboard's decision, but the composition of the Hot 100 significantly changed that date and it's a natural cut-off date for a book that is based on the Hot 100.

I agree with you to a point, but I'd imagine the
decision to use 1989 as the cutoff was chosen as a
mid-point in the rock era.

Since when was the Hot 100 ever a pop-only chart?
I think you're blaming the messenger here...it's not
RR's fault that BB took so long to acknowledge that a
song could be a hit without being released as a
single. Yeah, the current charts are a mess,
personally IMHO the concept of a "Hot 100" is an
anachronism. There really are no across-the-board
hits anymore.

Paul C wrote: There was no national Canadian chart prior to 1964. Unfortunately, some people treat the CHUM chart from 1957-64 as the Canadian chart, but this is like treating the chart of a New York station as the American chart.

So what would you do instead? Even if it was possible
to collate charts from every key Canadian station pre-
1964 to create a pseudo-national chart, radio charts
are subjective by definition.
Maybe a better option is to ignore Canadian hits older
than '64?

Hykker wrote: Since when was the Hot 100 ever a pop-only chart? I think you're blaming the messenger here...it's not RR's fault that BB took so long to acknowledge that a song could be a hit without being released as a single...

Obviously C&W and R&B songs made the Hot 100 since
it's inception, but as crossover hits, i.e. C&W and
R&B songs that were played on Pop Stations. Starting
with the 12/5/98 chart Billboard not only increased
the percentage of charts points from radio play, but
they also increased the number and TYPE of radio
stations surveyed. Consequently many songs that
received airplay on C&W and R&B stations only (and not
pop) made the chart (unlike before) and would not be
considered as crossover hits. That's a significant
change.

Per Joel Whitburn Top Pop Singles 1955-2002 page xi
"December 5, 1998, the date that Billboard introduced
its MOST REVISED revised Hot 100 EVER" and Top Pop
Singles 1955-2018 page 5 "On December 5, 1998,
Billboard debuted a completely revised Hot 100, which
included, for the first time, songs that were not
commercially available as singles. The revised chart
now included ALL FORMATS of music, so Country, Latin
and Christian music were well represented on the Hot
100 and Bubbling Under charts". This marked the end of
the old 1958-1998 Hot 100.

A quick look at the 12/5/98 chart shows that "I'm Your
Angel" by R. Kelly & Celine Dion had been on the new
Hot 100 (test charts) for 6 weeks and jumped from 46
to 1. This was the first appearance on the Hot 100 so
what kind of chart run would this song have had under
the old format? "From This Moment On" by Shania Twain
had been on the new Hot 100 for 27 weeks and jumped
from 34 to 5. This was its first appearance (although
the song had been on the Airplay chart for quite some
time) on the Hot 100. Whitburn notes in his "Billboard
Hot 100 Charts, The Nineties "On this date, Billboard
DRAMATICALLY revised their Hot 100-compilation
methodology".

Edited by Chartman