Top Pop Singles Vol.1 (1955-89)
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=9647
Printed Date: 01 June 2025 at 5:38am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Top Pop Singles Vol.1 (1955-89)
Posted By: Paul Haney
Subject: Top Pop Singles Vol.1 (1955-89)
Date Posted: 07 August 2021 at 5:10am
|
Now taking orders. Printing in late September.
http://recordresearch.com - Top Pop Singles |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul C
Date Posted: 07 August 2021 at 10:37am
|
Is Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen still immediately
followed by Disco Tex & The Sex-O-Lettes? |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 07 August 2021 at 11:13am
Yes. |
Paul C wrote:Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 07 August 2021 at 3:14pm
| Paul, I know "Top Pop Singles" is being broken into 2 volumes, by date. But is there anything in the new '55-'89 book that we don't already have in previous Top Pop Singles book? Obviously, the '90-'21 book will be of interest to many because it has so many new years since the last one. Also, when is that 2nd volume coming out? |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 07 August 2021 at 4:57pm
|
You can lock me in as getting both volumes. Will they be available as E-Books too Paul?
If an Artist that appears in the 1955-1989 overlaps and is in the 1990-2021 will there be a reference in that artist pointing back to the first book for the 1973-1989 charters? (Think Aerosmith for example). Any chance you are getting the 1955-2021 annual out next year too? Usually I notice you update about once every 6 years! Just a suggestion for the next Pop Annual book...it would be cool to have a listing under each year from 1955-2021 of all the hits that didn't chart on the Hot 100 or bubbling that come from the yearbooks Whitburn did from 1983-2006. That way it gives a great picture of hits that didnt get on either chart but were clearly hits of that year on others (rap, country, R & B etc)..... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: eric_a
Date Posted: 07 August 2021 at 6:26pm
|
Paul, I’ve never noticed the 24-hit club before. Any significance to that
number? Was an important artist on the edge? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 07 August 2021 at 8:23pm
> All Top 10 Albums, plus other key LPs = 1000s of albums listed with full chart data > 16 pages, artist-by-artist, devoted to early, key R&B/Rock ‘n’ Roll songs and artists > Return of prices for any records valued at $25 or more ------------- 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: 08 August 2021 at 1:39am
|
I see that Aaron beat me to the new features (thanks, Aaron!).
I'm thinking that the Pop Annual may come next year (2022), but don't quote me on that. The 24 Hit Club has been around for a few editions now. No huge significance to that number, just one that Joel thought sounded good. Please keep in mind that it's basically just me and Joel working on these books nowadays. I wish we could pump out more product, but there's only so many hours in the day. This one alone took me a month just to edit the artist section! |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 08 August 2021 at 5:36am
|
I just bought the 1955-2018 book a year or so ago, so
I'll probably pass on this but curiously how will songs that spanned 1989-90 be handled? Both books or just the one that saw the majority of chart action? |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 08 August 2021 at 6:17am
I was wondering about that as well. I imagine it would be easier to just go by whichever year the song reached its peak position? For instance, Michael Bolton's "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You" went to #1 in January 1990, but had already been on the chart for several weeks at the end of 1989. So maybe it would be easier to just put it in the 1990-2021 book with its debut date in 1989 listed with a "+" sign to show that it peaked in 1990? ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 08 August 2021 at 6:50am
| This book (1955-1989) contains every song that charted in 1989 (even if it peaked in 1990). |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 08 August 2021 at 7:17am
|
So then it's going by Debut date, which makes perfect sense and something I should have thought about before. =-) ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 08 August 2021 at 8:46am
|
Yeah, I wish nothing but success & longevity to Joel & Paul, but for the first
time in 35 years, I'll have to pass. Casey K taught me the fun of the Rock Era being one continuum and while I ABSOLUTELY understand the logistics of now 2 volumes, the division fractures too many artist / record histories. There are simply too many big artists who are cleaved in two, with their chart accomplishments incomplete. For Rock icons - particularly in this day of veteran artists charting every Christmas - it's been rewarding to see where they wind up on an all-time list, not relegated to a 'vinyl era'. But I hope it hits its target audiences and sells well - great luck! |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 08 August 2021 at 1:14pm
|
I agree with all of jebsib's sentiments.
So I assume that the 1990-2021 book will not include songs that debuted in 1989 and peaked in 1990 (even if a 1990 peaker spent one week on the charts in 1989). Is that right, Paul? It makes sense that an overlapping song would only be in one book, not both, though your answer didn't specifically state that. 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. |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 08 August 2021 at 4:08pm
|
What are the criteria for the albums included/excluded
in this book? At first, I thought it was just Top 10 albums based on the sample page for the Beatles. But, then the samples provided for David Bowie, the Hollies and Buddy Holly include lower charting albums. Is the All-Time ranking just for this volume's time period or for the entire Pop era? If the latter, which book(s) will contain the full ranking? I suppose updating the All-Time ranking for each entry in this volume will require someone to repurchase this book each time the second volume is updated. I agree this should have been an alphabetical split (A-M, N-Z) than by year. An artist's entire chart history would not be broken up between volumes and it would better justify repurchasing both volumes when updated in the future. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 1:00am
|
Gordon, the Hot 100 was never "replaced" by the Pop 100. They were always separate charts. We've never done any
research on the Pop 100. Also, the 1990-2021 book will include everything that debuted from 1990-on. These books will be treated as separate volumes. There will be no combined, overall rankings between the books. Also, it's not just Top 10 albums, but any album that Joel felt should be included (especially if it was a big seller or won industry awards). I get where you guys are coming from. Personally, I would've loved to see it kept to one volume, regardless of size. But at the end of the day, Joel's name is on the cover, so the final decisions of what to include and not include rests with him. My job is to get the book ready so it fits his vision. The decision to buy or not to buy is yours. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 1:49am
| Paul, I remember the "Pop 100" was the big page for 2 or 3 issues. (Does anyone else remember this?) During those weeks, was the Hot 100 printed in a smaller font on another page? I didn't mean so much that it replaced the Hot 100. I meant that Billboard chose to make the dominant chart the "Pop 100" in a couple/few issues. I was able speaking to Billboard editor Geoff Mayfield at the time. (I was the one who gave him the idea to compile and print a "Pop 100" and luckily, he liked the idea.) But when he started its inclusion by alternating which chart seemed to be the most "present" chart in the magazine, I had commented that I felt this would seem confusing to readers. It wasn't much longer that they dropped printing the Pop 100 altogether. |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 5:45am
|
I DO recall the Pop 100 being printed full page and the Hot 100 relegated to a
smaller chart format - it happened 4 times between May and June 2005. It WAS a confusing move and I think was dumped as it have the Hot 100 less prominence. The Pop 100 sounded great on paper and would have worked incredibly well if it had launched in 2001 (at the beginning of the "airplay-only, R&B / Hip-Hop tsunami, no-pop prominence" era). Unfortunately by the time the Pop 100 started, digital sales had suddenly infused the Hot 100, restoring genre balance and basically rendering the Pop 100 D.O.A.. Sad, I liked it as an alternative. One thing I learned for the very first time last week was that back in 1961 - the week the Adult Contemporary chart launched - Billboard started something called "The Teen Beat Chart" (A sort of antithesis to the new AC list). Not sure when it ended, but intriguing chart idea! |
Posted By: RoknRobnLoxley
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 7:09am
|
I wish Joel & Paul would do a Pop Chart book based on the 'pop only charts', starting in the early 90s.
As you'll recall, at that point in time, many records began charting on the Hot 100 that had high sales but low airplay. Those being mostly rap and heavy metal, that Top 40/pop stations would not play. Stations that carried American Top 40 complained, so AT40 switched charts, from the Hot 100 to the Hot 100 Airplay chart (aka Top 40 Radio Monitor chart), then to the Top 40 Mainstream pop chart, and eventually to the Radio & Records CHR/Pop Top 50 chart. Then on 12-5-98, Billboard changed the Hot 100 formula from a combo of singles sales + pop radio station airplay to an 'everything plus the kitchen sink' chart = singles sales + airplay from pop + R&B + rock + country. Thus 'pop' music on the Hot 100 became devalued. In my opinion, Billboard should have kept the pop Hot 100, and created a new separate 'everything' chart. So I'm thinking it would be super kool if Joel/Paul would create a true pop chart book for 1990 and beyond, using the various Billboard pop airplay charts. It would especially fit in nicely now that they're splitting the Top Pop Singles book into 2 volumes, the 2nd covering 1990 and beyond. Or they could produce volume 2 to include both the Hot 100 and the pop radio airplay charts. 2 sets of chart numbers per record. Now that would be sweet, and would be an extra incentive for more sales. Who's with me? |
Posted By: torcan
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 7:49am
I agree with you to a degree. The Hot 100 didn't seem to be working properly anymore by the end of 1998. There were so many "promo only" single releases that were ineligible to chart because they weren't commercially available, but they were extremely popular. When looking at charts from the mid-90s, the average person might think "where's this song, it was huge?" It wasn't realistic anymore. I agree with letting popular airplay-only hits on the chart, but I think they went overboard with what they allowed on. Look at charts today (and for the last decade or so), where artists like Taylor Swift, Drake or Ed Sheeran are charting "12 singles" from one album - all the album tracks appear for a week or two then disappear. This I don't like. I think they should have allowed these tracks on the chart only if they were being promoted as a single to radio, or were so popular they had staying power. These one- and two-week entries for album tracks which aren't being promoted throw everything out of whack. To me, this isn't realistic. You really have to separate charts from 12-5-98 before and after - you can't compare the Beatles to Taylor Swift (for example) because they were working under two different sets of rules. Make sense? |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 9:09am
|
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'. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 9:20am
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. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 10:46am
It had to change. When you had massive airplay hits like Don't Speak, Iris which never charted you basically are not properly representing what was on radio and massive at the time. While I don't like today's album bombs the practice really did not start until Taylor Swift's Fearless. If there is one thing I would fix, it would be making sure entire albums cant chart at once, only the songs meant to be the promoted singles at the time they are promoted by the label. For me a better division of the books that reflects the Hot 100 change would be 1955-1998 and 1999-2021, but oh well I don't make the decisions! ------------- 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: 09 August 2021 at 11:43am
|
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. |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 12:08pm
|
Current situation reminds me of two other instances
with RR books. The initial "Pop Memories 1890-1954" contained the following combined sections: 1890-1940 - manufactured chart data from a variety of sources 1940-1954 - manufactured data plus actual data from Billboard's Pop charts (Sales, Airplay, and Juke Boxes). This book always bothered me because the 1940-1954 data was a mix of facts and opinion. Joel's vision wasn't correct then and later RR updated the book as "Pop Memories 1900-1940". Now it makes perfect sense as none of the book's data was derived from an official Billboard Singles chart. The book "Hot Country Songs 1944-2012" incorporated data from the new and improved (many say f*cked up) Hot Country Songs chart Billboard revealed on 10/20/12. That was another RR mistake but fortunately corrected in "Hot Country Songs 1944-2017" book as the Country Airplay chart from 10/20/12 onwards was used as the "official book" chart. The same philosophy applies to the R&B charts but wasn't incorporated in the "Top R&B Singles 1942-2016" book. Maybe future editions will use the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay as the official book chart. While I appreciate the added features found in the new Top Pop Singles, they do not provide much more than what is contained in the 2018 edition. The charts the past 3 year have really been "interesting" but not in a good way. Suspect Billboard will be changing their formulas and rules again. I wish Joel and Paul all the best, but with this latest Pop Singles Volume 1 choice and my disappointment with the "Rock Tracks 1981-2020" (mentioned awhile ago), I'm afraid this loyal customer is no more. |
Posted By: Paul C
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 4:51pm
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. |
Posted By: Paul C
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 5:06pm
RPM was published from 1964 until 2000. The Record published charts from 1983 until 2001. 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. (In both 1966 and 1967, a song reached #1 on the CHUM chart without even making the Top 40 nationally.) |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 5:55pm
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.
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? |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 6:15pm
If you want to argue in favor for 1989 as a cut off, you can look at it like Whitburn does as the end of the vinyl 45 age and the dawn of the Cassette/CD Promo/CD/Digital download era which is from 1990 on. Today's Hot 100 is a hot mess of songs from all backgrounds, pop, country, r & b, hip hop etc. Not for the better. Plus the crazy album drops and of course whether something gets streamed on Tik Tok or Youtube factors in. I miss the days when a hit was a hit. Now whole albums are a hit and the latest youtube sensation is a hit too... ------------- 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: 10 August 2021 at 11:18am
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". |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 11:29am
The official date when Billboard switched over from the 45 to cassette single was the 7/28/90 chart. The only change to the chart was the catalog number listed. The charts noted that the "Catalog no. is for 7-inch vinyl single" prior to this date to "Catalog number is for cassette single". The chart compilation methodology wasn't changed at all. Does this change really merit that much significance. You can decide. |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 13 August 2021 at 10:15am
|
After the publication of the Record World 101-150
book, I feel that Record Research began to lose sight of its purpose – to provide an authoritative and accurate picture of the charts without judgment, embellishment and editorializing. Like others, I purchased the 101-150 book assuming it would list every song that ever peaked on Record World’s 101-150 chart. Every other Record Research book I purchased to that point was that comprehensive. Instead, I ultimately discarded an incomplete reference that only included songs that never charted in Billboard. Artist credits became judgmental instead of accurate. Most people think “Whenever I Call You ‘Friend’” is a duet. But, Stevie Nicks was never credited on the 45. At some point, Record Research began crediting Nicks for the song. Solo efforts by group members were sometimes being attributed to the group instead of the artist. Barry Gibb may have still been a Bee Gee when he charted with his Streisand duets and his own “Shine Shine.” But, Record Research has flipped between crediting these to Gibb or to the Bee Gees. With this new edition, we will be getting a Pop Singles book that includes an arbitrary listing of “important” albums released by the artist. If I want to reference album data, I will purchase an albums book! Now, we are dealing with another RR judgment in how Pop Singles should be published. If date needs to be the criterion, dividing the volumes between the record (1955-98) and song (1998 – present) eras would have been far more logical and consistent with the source of the data, Billboard. The 1990s will always be a flawed era for the Hot 100 as it did not reflect all songs that were truly hits then. But, it was still a record chart regardless of the physical format (vinyl, cassette, CD) that dominated the marketplace. That all changed on 12/5/98 when airplay only tracks could chart and all music formats, not just pop, were eligible. In the 1990’s, country songs like “Achy Breaky Heart” and “It’s Your Love” reached the Top 10 mostly due to sales. If these songs were released after 12/5/98, they could have possibly charted even higher with their Country airplay also factored in. Later, album tracks charted more frequently when streaming exploded. As we have often discussed on this board, this is when analyzing the Hot 100 became an apples to oranges comparison. Nicki Minaj may have charted more times than Aretha Franklin. But, how many of Minaj’s songs were actually hits or even intended to be singles as was required prior to 1999? Billboard insists that the definition of “Pop” has changed through the years and the Hot 100 has reflected that. If one believes that, then this reference should be split alphabetically to capture an artist’s entire Hot 100 history. Some artists like Cher and Santana achieved their greatest success in the second volume, but most of their success in the first. Other artists like Madonna and Whitney Houston were equally successful in both volumes. I should not need to reference two volumes to get the entire chart histories of each artist based on such a subjective criterion as when 45s ceased to be the primary physical medium by which singles were sold. This does make me wonder what will happen when the Pop Albums book must be divided because it will be too cumbersome to publish 60 years of data in just one volume. If a date is chosen as the criterion for publishing two volumes, what will it be? The start of the Soundscan era? The Billboard 200 was tracking sales before this date. Soundscan was just a different means to do so. What about the introduction of streaming and track equivalents to the album charts? Back to apples and oranges again. How many albums are charting high now because of the success of just one or two of its tracks instead of the entire album? The song “Fancy Like” by country artist Walker Hayes is currently charting high on the Hot 100 and Country Songs charts helping his “Country Stuff” EP to climb the Billboard 200 and Country Albums charts. One could easily assume the sales and streaming of the other tracks on that EP are negligible and hardly contributing to the chart placement of the EP as much as “Fancy Like” is. Billboard would again state the Billboard 200 reflects how albums are being consumed today. If this was used by Record Research as the cutoff, an artist like Taylor Swift would have her chart history divided in two. Should Swift’s success be looked at as when she sold albums versus streamed them or as one cohesive whole? From a sheer business standpoint, an alphabetical split would require someone to purchase both volumes each time the book is updated. You may need to spend more money and resources to manufacture more books, but you can also profit more by selling more books as well! If this split sticks, future purchases will only be for Volume 2. This will also create a “volume” inconsistency. The new 1955-1989 book (Volume 1) is the 17th Edition. Future 1990-20?? (Volume 2) will be 18th and higher editions. |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 13 August 2021 at 12:33pm
I don't understand this way of thinking about a "Pop Chart" versus an "All Genre" chart. Doesn't "Pop" mean "Popular", meaning any song of any genre could make the HOT 100 as long as it met the eligibility requirements? We're all familiar with the many Country, R&B, Rap, Metal, Easy Listening and such hits that have made the charts prior to 1998, so I really don't get where the Hot 10O was ever anything other than "All-Genre". ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 13 August 2021 at 1:04pm
|
...only if they crossed over. Take Rosanne Cash. She
scored 11 # 1 Country singles, but only one ("Seven Year Ache") reached the Hot 100. (Another, "Blue Moon With Heartache," bubbled under at #104.) Why? Pop (then considered Top 40) radio played that song as well. Today, it's a given that a # 1 Country Song will reach the Hot 100 since its airplay at Country (and all other formats) factors into its Hot 100 position unlike during Cash's commercial heyday in the 1980's. Without airplay at Top 40 then, Cash's songs could have only charted if they sold very, very well. Reba McEntire is another example. Prior to 12/5/98, she only reached the Hot 100 twice with "Till You Love Me" (# 78) and "What If" (# 50). Both songs were available as cassingles and charted only based on sales. After 12/5/98, Reba became a fixture on the Hot 100 because now her country airplay was being factored into the Hot 100 calculation. "Till" was a #2 Country hit which could have been a much bigger hit on the Hot 100 if its Country airplay was included. |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 13 August 2021 at 4:28pm
With all due respect, these examples still don't negate the chart being multi-genre prior to 1998. Comparing both eras is an apples to oranges kind of comparison - different rules, different requirements for being able to get on the chart. If the Hot 100 hadn't been a mixture of all genres prior to '98, I seriously doubt that the chart would be as revered as it is. It probably wouldn't be as quoted, collectors might not go to great lengths just to get that obscure song that charted at #100 for 1 week and then dropped off, and many of us here may not be frequenting forums like this. The mixture of different genres would appear to be a big reason why so many people have followed the chart for so long. When you have say, Johnny Cash replacing Merle Haggard at #1 on the Country Chart, that's great, but not unexpected because they're country artists. When you have someone like Louis Armstrong, Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra all replacing The Beatles at #1, that's saying something, considering that all 3 of them are about as opposite as you can possibly get from The Beatles. It seems more accurate to say that the chart as of 12/5/98 allowed more songs from different genres to chart, not that it just suddenly became all-genre on that particular date. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 13 August 2021 at 4:41pm
Interesting that you mentioned the "Hit Records 101- 150" book. Joel errored by not including all songs that peaked at positions 101-150 (wondered when most people found out), but I always wondered why didn't he just come out with one book for the Music Vendor / Record World charts that included all songs that made the primary Top 100 charts plus their "bubbling under" charts. On a side note here - Joel didn’t have a complete set of charts as there were a few not at his disposal., i.e. 2/1/64 and 4/11/64. There are 13 missing Looking Ahead songs plus “You Can’t Do That” by the Beatles was #51 on 4/11/64 (it’s only week in the Top 100) which is not reflected in any RR book. Worth a mention in his book. Also thought Joel should have an errors and omission page on his website for these inevitable occurrences, particularly for books that will not be updated. He also had separate versions for Cash Box Pop Charts and their Looking Ahead charts. A single volume would have been nicer and matched what he did with the Billboard charts. Joel finally put them all together when he came out with the Comparison Book so he kinda of caught on. I've said in the past, I just wish that Joel had asked for opinions PRIOR to beginning work on his projects. |
Posted By: Chartman
Date Posted: 13 August 2021 at 4:57pm
So Volume 1 will be 1955-1989 covering 35 years. Volume 2 will be 1990-2021 covering 32 years. Let's start planning for Volume 3. The current Pop Singles book is 1200 pages or so. Volume 1 looks like it will be 850 pages per the RR web site. I estimate that Volume 2 will be a bit thinner than Volume 1, but that might change when it gets the first update. Would it make more sense to have a larger Volume 1 now (and smaller Volume 2) so that the second could be update for a longer time period before Volume 3 becomes necessary? Joel had to provide something to encourage previous customers to buy Volume 1. Cut out half the pop singles, charge the same amount, but let's throw the kitchen sink at them! The "new" stuff just increased the size of the book, which was the primary purpose for the split. Is anyone really excited about the new format. The new stuff just made it less readable, in my humble opinion. We'll see how many customers who own 1955-2016 will be buying Volume 1. |
Posted By: AutumnAarilyn
Date Posted: 13 August 2021 at 6:58pm
|
Billboard originally had a philosophy in the creation
of all of its charts. It would reflect sales and airplay at radio stations that programmed that format. If a song sold well, that didn't always mean it was huge on the pop chart. Billboard wanted to pinpoint just how popular a song was in a given format and amongst that group of listeners. There were actually songs that did better on the pop chart than on R&B which according to current methodology would be impossible today. Club playlists, radio playlists, and sales were factored in when creating the myriad of charts. Today's chart doesn't hone in the demographics like calling stores that sold mostly R&B because stores are less relevant today. Just because a song gets downloaded alot doesn't mean it belongs on a certain chart. There was never a style based criteria with Billboard but a dedication to what the buyers bought and what radio was playing in a given format. With downloading we lost some of the demographic detail. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 14 August 2021 at 2:41am
|
Interesting comments here...
First off, I'm in complete agreement on the #101-150 book. I pleaded with Joel to include all the data, but that would've delayed the book at a time when we needed to get it done. Thankfully, I was able to go back and research the rest of it in time for the Comparison Book (which is my all-time favorite RR book). I also made the argument about splitting the new Top Pop Singles book alphabetically, instead of chronologically, but Joel decided otherwise. Again, his name is on the cover, so he makes the final decisions. FWIW, the orders have been very good so far and the positive comments far outweigh the negative ones, at least from those who have called or e- mailed us. As for any future volumes, we just don't plan that far in advance. Who knows, maybe we'll find a way to get it back to one volume again. If it's one thing I've learned over the past 30 years, it's to "never say never". One last thought. As a former customer of RR, I think I'm able to share with Joel that perspective. I don't always agree with how he does things, but I'm grateful that he started the company 51 years ago and that he hired me to work on something that started as a hobby when I was just 8 years old. |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 14 August 2021 at 5:36am
|
Personally, I think that RR made the right move by
splitting the book chronologically. Some may quibble about where the dividing line should be, but it makes more sense to me than splitting it alphabetically. Yes, it pretty much makes the 1955-89 edition a one- and-done purchase, and may split some artists' listings but IMHO it would alienate a lot of customers to make them buy 2 rather pricey books every time there's an update. I can't comment on the 101-150 book since I don't have it, and have minimal interest in a relatively obscure publication's charts. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 28 October 2021 at 10:40am
|
Just a quick update...
The color version of the book will be arriving at our offices in the next few days. We will start shipping them next week (first week of November) - please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. The B&W version should be here in about 2 weeks. Both versions are doing great, sales-wise. We may run out of the limited color edition by the end of the year. |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date Posted: 29 October 2021 at 7:35am
|
Really pleased it's doing well. Have to admit I would not have thought adding
albums to a singles book would have been a big seller... so kind of shows what little I know! |
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 30 October 2021 at 9:00am
|
Paul,
I know this came up a couple of years ago - but with the size of your tomes and the marketplace advancing (acceptance, ubiquity, necessity of all things digital), have you given any recent thought to releasing books digitally? (The drawback is that collectors like me love a good bookshelf hardcover (Personally don't like digital books) but the world seems to be evolving / adapting to them quickly. I didn't like the Adobe Digital Editions version of the 15th edition (clunky, jerky scrolling) but surely the tech has improved in the last 6 years.) This way your info could be complete in one volume, in color, impervious to update size restrictions... |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 31 October 2021 at 3:27am
|
We've dabbled in e-Books, but our customers just seem to still want the print editions. A big problem is that
our books are reference books and not novels where you read one page at a time. They just don't translate well to the format. |
Posted By: davidclark
Date Posted: 31 October 2021 at 8:38pm
|
Interesting, I have the e-books for Pop Annual 1955-2011 and Top Pop Singles
1955-2010. Although I dislike the approach to placing later re-entry of singles under the first entry, I find I like the fact that I can search for things easily - like flipping pages in a traditional book. Plus, dual living (on hold for now...) means that I don't want to have to carry books with me when I fly across the world - having them "e" is truly a convenience I have come to like. That's just me, in a situation I know I don't share with (most) other board members. ------------- dc1 |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 31 October 2021 at 9:39pm
|
The cost of putting an E-Book out has many benefits Paul which Mr. Whitburn should consider. Not only that many books in the years have gone out of print.
Making e-books 1) Ensures that after the print editions have had their time the book is still accessible 2) Are far cheaper than keeping books in stock 3) Do not cost anything more to offer to people on the website for sale I honestly get why physical books for the first year or two should not be E-Books Paul so that the books can turn a profit. To however sit here and say that it doesn't translate well ignores a market that maybe Mr. Whitburn just simply doesn't understand. As David Clark said, reference books in the e-format are just as useful in an IPAD-IPHONE world for reference. If it doesn't sell well it takes a lot more to turn a profit for a physical book than an E-Book. That E-Book requires a lot less time to break even because every purchase does not require the effort, printing and shipping a physical book demands. It doesn't require anything but money being sent to Mr. Whitburn and that's that since you have the E-store set up. Just my two cents. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: kingofskiffle
Date Posted: 01 November 2021 at 1:24am
|
I would dispute the idea that having E-Books does not cost (Your final
paragraph). I believe a hosting fee is required if I am able to download the books at any point again, which is how the Record Research books are set up. I agree completely that it is 'free' if you go down the route of 'one download and then you have the file'. but I believe that there is a fee to allow the user to keep re-downloading. I would like E-Books as well, as I'm running out of space to store, but it could be the way that the current E-Books are done is an issue. It's a little different now to 10 years ago when E-Books first came out on the site, so might be worth looking at different options than that which is currently on offer form Record Research. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 01 November 2021 at 2:58am
|
Yes, there are storage fees involved with the e-Books. Also, the books must still be put
together, and that takes time and resources as well. Another issue is that our customer base is older. At age 55, I'm on the younger end of the scale. The proof is in the numbers. Right now, the print books outsell the e-books by a huge margin, it's not even in the same ballpark. |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 01 November 2021 at 1:02pm
|
The full-color version arrived today!
First orders going out this afternoon! 
|
Posted By: jebsib
Date Posted: 11 November 2021 at 11:46am
|
Any updates on the 2010s chart book?
THAT would need two volumes! |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 12 November 2021 at 2:51am
We are slowly but surely scanning the charts. Yes, it will most likely be 2 volumes (due to Billboard expanding the Hot 100 to 2-3 pages). |
Posted By: ptgraphics
Date Posted: 12 November 2021 at 9:24am
|
You could sell a PDF of the book.
An ebook or epub could be made in 2 ways. Fixed and reflowable. Fixed would be like a pdf where the text is the same and photos stay put. Reflowable is the end user can adjust size of text but the photos move more in response to text and page size. I used to make epubs for my employer and they were given away on that part of the iTunes Store. They were fixed epubs so it was just like a book. You can sell them on the Apple and Amazon stores. The formats are different though. |
Posted By: ptgraphics
Date Posted: 12 November 2021 at 9:32am
|
I want to add also that an online store also has the ability to update the
epub. So if you find mistakes or just want to add something the epub can be re-downloaded. For Apple store they notify you that a new version is available or at least they did when you open the epub. It’s been a few years since I submitted epubs so stuff might have changed. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 12 November 2021 at 8:13pm
Will you put up a PDF DVD-R disc similar to what you did the last volumes for the 60's through 00's? ------------- 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: 13 November 2021 at 3:48am
Not sure. We haven't discussed that yet. |