HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 3, 2009 19:34:12 GMT -5
The new one is scheduled to be released this summer: www.recordresearch.com/pop/top_pop_singles_1955_2008.phpBubblung Under hits now are part of the book, which is a great addition. Still kinda miss the airplay and sales peaks that once were listed to the right of the entries, but ah well. I didn't get the last edition (Pop Singles or Bubbling Under), so I'll most likely be getting this.
|
|
cartman2002
5x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by cartman2002 on May 3, 2009 21:51:42 GMT -5
I have the last version of the book maybe I can trade it in for the upcoming one since it is in good condition.
|
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on May 3, 2009 22:06:06 GMT -5
I have the edition through 2002. I like that one, but I, too, dislike some of the restructuring and deletions that were made in the subsequent edition, so I'll likely stick with this one. Most 2000s chart data is less interesting to me anyway. The only thing I miss is having updates to the features, like top artist achievements and single achievements.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2009 23:38:23 GMT -5
I'll save my money for now
The site says on sale thru July 31
So I may buy it on July 30
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,626
|
Post by Tea-why on May 4, 2009 7:23:08 GMT -5
I have the edition through 2002. I like that one, but I, too, dislike some of the restructuring and deletions that were made in the subsequent edition, so I'll likely stick with this one. Most 2000s chart data is less interesting to me anyway. The only thing I miss is having updates to the features, like top artist achievements and single achievements. I don't like how (and I don't understand why) they took out the Hot 100 Airplay and Sales positions. That's what made me buy the 2002 edition.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 4, 2009 8:12:47 GMT -5
Same here, 2m. :) What do we think about airplay-chart-only hits being listed as if they were Hot 100 hits? Granted, there is an (Air) to the right of the title to signify that it was such a hit, but should they be counted among the totals for achievements? i.e. most top 40 hits, most top 10 hits, etc.? I agree with the decision to take out sales-chart-only hits- because if such tracks didn't sell enough to feature on the Hot 100 or Bubbling Under, then they clearly weren't hits of any kind (even if they peaked in the top five of the sales chart). And, supposedly, Record Research went ahead and revised the "Classics" edition- some of the songs listed made no sense in the last edition (from what I saw). Also- if a hit was re-released, or re-charted, it's listed right under the original- i.e. U2's "One." The 2006 duet with Mary J. Blige comes right after the 1992 original- do we like that or no? Nice for reference, I suppose, but it breaks the chronology. And, all regular duets- i.e. Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell, are grouped together below the solo titles at the end of the artist listing- that one makes sense, since they had a number of duets. I like the cover- I had two of my siblings going through and seeing who they could identify. A few even got me stumped.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on May 4, 2009 8:38:04 GMT -5
I have the edition through 2002. I like that one, but I, too, dislike some of the restructuring and deletions that were made in the subsequent edition, so I'll likely stick with this one. Most 2000s chart data is less interesting to me anyway. The only thing I miss is having updates to the features, like top artist achievements and single achievements. I don't like how (and I don't understand why) they took out the Hot 100 Airplay and Sales positions. That's what made me buy the 2002 edition. Agreed.
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,626
|
Post by Tea-why on May 4, 2009 10:26:02 GMT -5
Same here, 2m. :) What do we think about airplay-chart-only hits being listed as if they were Hot 100 hits? Granted, there is an (Air) to the right of the title to signify that it was such a hit, but should they be counted among the totals for achievements? i.e. most top 40 hits, most top 10 hits, etc.? I don't mind airplay-only songs being listed it being listed in with the artist's history, but I don't like how they are listed with the chart achievements. I find it awkward. Example: "Iris" is listed as the song with the most weeks @ #1 because it was #1 for 18 weeks on Hot 100 Airplay and didn't chart on the Hot 100 until December of that year, 'entering the chart' at #9 when they included Airplay only titles. This is weird because what about songs like "The Sign and "Because You Loved Me" that also were #1 on Airplay chart for 13-14 weeks but actually made it on the Hot 100 (during their peak) because they were commercially released (both hitting #1 for 6 weeks). If you look at these lists, "Iris" looks like it was head-over-heals a bigger hit because it's weeks @ #1 on Airplay are mixed with other titles peaks on the Hot 100, but if songs like "Sign" and "Loved" were counted by their Airplay peaks, it would not look that way. It's misleading. I just don't think the two charts should be mixed because they are different charts.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on May 4, 2009 11:03:09 GMT -5
I HATE that re-releases / remixes are now breaking chronology and are being listed right under the originals. I even e-mailed Joel and said it was a big mistake (Chart geeks like chronology)
I also miss airplay / sales positions.
However, "Iris" and all airplay #1s are no longer listed as contenders for the songs with the most weeks at # 1 (as of the last 2007 edition) : Too many people (like TYLER) complained. Thus "One sweet Day" remains the #1 song of the rock era per Whitburn...
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,626
|
Post by Tea-why on May 4, 2009 11:18:37 GMT -5
However, "Iris" and all airplay #1s are no longer listed as contenders for the songs with the most weeks at # 1 (as of the last 2007 edition) : Too many people (like TYLER) complained. Thus "One sweet Day" remains the #1 song of the rock era per Whitburn... Good :) I'm not the only one that felt that way.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on May 4, 2009 12:13:02 GMT -5
No, I completely agree. They are like apples & oranges.
However, because the 90s were so mixed up, and frankly - Billboard took far too long incorporating airplay-only songs into the Hot 100 - I think Whitburn has done the only logical thing by including airplay-only songs in artists' tallies...Just not when it comes to comparing acheivements
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2009 12:20:50 GMT -5
Same here, 2m. :) What do we think about airplay-chart-only hits being listed as if they were Hot 100 hits? Granted, there is an (Air) to the right of the title to signify that it was such a hit, but should they be counted among the totals for achievements? i.e. most top 40 hits, most top 10 hits, etc.? I don't mind airplay-only songs being listed it being listed in with the artist's history, but I don't like how they are listed with the chart achievements. I find it awkward. Example: "Iris" is listed as the song with the most weeks @ #1 because it was #1 for 18 weeks on Hot 100 Airplay and didn't chart on the Hot 100 until December of that year, 'entering the chart' at #9 when they included Airplay only titles. This is weird because what about songs like "The Sign and "Because You Loved Me" that also were #1 on Airplay chart for 13-14 weeks but actually made it on the Hot 100 (during their peak) because they were commercially released (both hitting #1 for 6 weeks). If you look at these lists, "Iris" looks like it was head-over-heals a bigger hit because it's weeks @ #1 on Airplay are mixed with other titles peaks on the Hot 100, but if songs like "Sign" and "Loved" were counted by their Airplay peaks, it would not look that way. It's misleading. I just don't think the two charts should be mixed because they are different charts. How do you know Iris wasn't the "head over heels" biggest hit. 18 weeks at #1 on airplay is a better representation of the songs popularity, than peaking at #9
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,626
|
Post by Tea-why on May 4, 2009 14:12:56 GMT -5
I don't mind airplay-only songs being listed it being listed in with the artist's history, but I don't like how they are listed with the chart achievements. I find it awkward. Example: "Iris" is listed as the song with the most weeks @ #1 because it was #1 for 18 weeks on Hot 100 Airplay and didn't chart on the Hot 100 until December of that year, 'entering the chart' at #9 when they included Airplay only titles. This is weird because what about songs like "The Sign and "Because You Loved Me" that also were #1 on Airplay chart for 13-14 weeks but actually made it on the Hot 100 (during their peak) because they were commercially released (both hitting #1 for 6 weeks). If you look at these lists, "Iris" looks like it was head-over-heals a bigger hit because it's weeks @ #1 on Airplay are mixed with other titles peaks on the Hot 100, but if songs like "Sign" and "Loved" were counted by their Airplay peaks, it would not look that way. It's misleading. I just don't think the two charts should be mixed because they are different charts. How do you know Iris wasn't the "head over heels" biggest hit. 18 weeks at #1 on airplay is a better representation of the songs popularity, than peaking at #9 I'm not saying that it was or wasn't, but comparing 18 weeks @ #1 to 6 weeks @ #1 is making it look like it was far-and-away a bigger hit, which is weird since "The Sign" and "Because You Loved Me" (examples) both had 12+ weeks at #1 on Airplay as well. If you were to put all of the Airplay peaks of these other songs then "Iris" wouldn't look like it was towering over as much as it does. And I didn't say that 18 weeks @ #1 wasn't a better representation than it's #9 peak. I'm talking specifically when that Airplay peak is listed with the Hot 100 peaks for the "Most Weeks @ #1" etc. lists.
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,626
|
Post by Tea-why on May 4, 2009 14:15:16 GMT -5
No, I completely agree. They are like apples & oranges. However, because the 90s were so mixed up, and frankly - Billboard took far too long incorporating airplay-only songs into the Hot 100 - I think Whitburn has done the only logical thing by including airplay-only songs in artists' tallies...Just not when it comes to comparing acheivements Yeah, I understand why he did that and it does make sense within the artist histories.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on May 4, 2009 14:25:27 GMT -5
The last edition was through the end of 2006.
Why is Joel doing another one so soon?
He should have waited until 2010 for a new edition.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 4, 2009 15:03:41 GMT -5
I do agree with Joel's listing the airplay-chart peaks, rather than the Hot 100 peaks, for those tracks that got caught in the middle, when Billboard started allowing airplay-only hits to chart, and adding the other formats. Because a No. 42 peak listed for "Torn," for instance, is just plain crazzzeee. The airplay peak takes precedence over the Hot 100 one.
RE "Iris" and other pre-December 1998 airplay hits- I agree that they shouldn't be listed in the section for most weeks at No. 1. But, as a side note, in the recurrent life, "Iris" sure gets played a heckuva lot more on a weekly basis than "One Sweet Day."
|
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on May 4, 2009 15:16:03 GMT -5
I think all of the information should be there - the Hot 100 peak and the component chart peaks. That's a lot of why I dislike the removal of the information; it feels like you're getting less of the story. For example, a lot of songs that missed the top forty on the Hot 100 still made it in either sales or airplay, and it's cool to see which was the main driver of a song's progress. It also gives an idea of how strong the sales vs. airplay ratio was at any given point in history.
I also enjoyed seeing the peaks of songs that made only the H100 Airplay or Singles Sales chart without actually making the H100, even when they were eligible to do so. I especially enjoy seeing the sales-only, because those singles tend to be fairly poorly documented. Alas, I guess now they will be even less documented.
(I suppose I could have started doing it myself at some point based on full charts posted here, but what can I say, I'm lazy.)
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on May 4, 2009 15:18:44 GMT -5
I agree, two years is too soon for an update.
I am presuming that Record Research is being clobbered by the recession and people looking up peak positions on Wikipedia, so they are trying to make as much $$$ as possible by releasing their biggest seller more frequently.
|
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on May 4, 2009 15:24:34 GMT -5
I am presuming that Record Research is being clobbered by the recession and people looking up peak positions on Wikipedia, so they are trying to make as much $$$ as possible by releasing their biggest seller more frequently. I think part of the problem is that their new ideas are just recombinations of old information. For example, that Across the Charts: The Sixties book is nice, but if you have the AC, Country, Pop, and R&B books, you've got all of the chart information, and it's just a matter if you're willing to pay for it to be organized as such. I would probably shell out cash for an updated Bubbling Under Singles and Albums book, since mine is the 1998 edition, if he gets around to doing one in the next few years. I also think he would do well to get the books that reprint the actual charts of any given decade back in print. Maybe at the end of this decade, he can do a new edition, and also get the sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties ones back in print. I bet people would still pay for those.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 4, 2009 15:48:30 GMT -5
Wot- RE sales-chart-only entries- likesaid, if those singles couldn't garner enough points either to appear on the Hot 100 or Bubbling Under charts, then it's no real loss, is it? :) I say that, as Madge herself has had four- "Hollywood," "Nothing Fails," "Love Profusion" and "Miles Away." Those releases, regardless of situation, were not hits of any kind, outside of the dance charts.
|
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on May 4, 2009 15:57:41 GMT -5
Wot- RE sales-chart-only entries- likesaid, if those singles couldn't garner enough points either to appear on the Hot 100 or Bubbling Under charts, then it's no real loss, is it? :) I say that, as Madge herself has had four- "Hollywood," "Nothing Fails," "Love Profusion" and "Miles Away." Those releases, regardless of situation, were not hits of any kind, outside of the dance charts. I just think it's interesting to see what radio was playing and what people were buying at any given time. Granted, the physical market has been rather low for a while now, but there's nothing to say it won't ever return; also, I think it would be cool to include songs that charted on Hot Digital Songs only, as that, too, is a component chart, and is currently the main driver of sales. I'm not saying anything is or isn't a hit; that's always going to be subjective. I'm just saying it's interesting chart data.
|
|
|
Post by Quixotic Music Lover on May 4, 2009 18:16:21 GMT -5
I ordered mine as soon as I got the e-mail from Record Research. I only buy "Pop Singles" every 10 or 15 years anyways. I wish the "Top 10" book for the Hot 100 would be updated. That is my favourite. The last edition was up to December 30, 2000.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 4, 2009 23:23:56 GMT -5
Wot- The physuical markt is unlikely to return- what configuration would usher in a return? Digital singles have replaced physical singles, and there's no indication of that changing, barring some new tangible configuration.
Most tracks (new, not older ones debuting on the chart for the first time) that chart in the top 75 on Digital Songs either chart on the Hot 100 or on Bubbling Under. There prbably have been some that didn't, but those are few and far between, I think.
|
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on May 4, 2009 23:30:36 GMT -5
Wot- The physuical markt is unlikely to return- what configuration would usher in a return? Digital singles have replaced physical singles, and there's no indication of that changing, barring some new tangible configuration. Exactly. I have no idea what would do it, but technology changes rapidly, and the market is ripe for an overhaul. The labels that survive are ultimately going to be the ones that subvert traditional models and find innovative ways to connect. Whether that involves a new physical single medium or not, I cannot predict, but the possibility is always there.
|
|
cking33
Gold Member
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 958
|
Post by cking33 on May 5, 2009 0:37:50 GMT -5
That stinks that they removed airplay and sales peaks. It's always interesting to read those and see how well certain songs did there.
|
|
|
Post by Quixotic Music Lover on May 5, 2009 5:23:44 GMT -5
I HATE that re-releases / remixes are now breaking chronology and are being listed right under the originals. I even e-mailed Joel and said it was a big mistake (Chart geeks like chronology) I also miss airplay / sales positions. However, "Iris" and all airplay #1s are no longer listed as contenders for the songs with the most weeks at # 1 (as of the last 2007 edition) : Too many people (like TYLER) complained. Thus "One sweet Day" remains the #1 song of the rock era per Whitburn... I must admit I will miss the peak positions on the Airplay and Sales sub-charts, but after a certain point in time the Sales chart became meaningless. Going through past editions of Billboard on Google books has reminded me of how often the record labels tinkered with singles from 1991 onwards. For example, I had forgotten that "I'll Be There" by Mariah Carey had been deleted as a single after only a few hundred thousand had been sold, same with "Missing" by Everything But The Girl.
|
|
|
Post by Quixotic Music Lover on May 5, 2009 5:26:51 GMT -5
No, I completely agree. They are like apples & oranges. However, because the 90s were so mixed up, and frankly - Billboard took far too long incorporating airplay-only songs into the Hot 100 - I think Whitburn has done the only logical thing by including airplay-only songs in artists' tallies...Just not when it comes to comparing acheivements Going through past editions of Billboard on Google books, I always make sure I read the column on the Hot100. In one of the 1996 Billboard's they discuss changing the methodology for the Hot100 in order to cope with changes such as airplay-only hits. They said they would have the changes in place in December 1996. It took them two years to implement due to so much disagreement in the industry on what changes should be made.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on May 5, 2009 7:56:10 GMT -5
You're right, I remember that. Most of us are far too prone to blame Billboard for the delays, but in fact it was the labels that took forever to reach concensus. ANd the losers were us, the chart historians who always have to declare an asterisk or caveat when thinking about certain huge songs' chart peaks.
I have always wondered if the new rules HAD been in place by Dec 1996, would "Don't Speak", "Iris", "Men in Black", "Fly" or "Torn" had enough chart points to top the Hot 100 WITHOUT a commercial single?!? There were some MASSIVE sellers out at that time, remember - I'm just not sure ...
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on May 5, 2009 9:10:15 GMT -5
Wot- The physuical markt is unlikely to return- what configuration would usher in a return? Digital singles have replaced physical singles, and there's no indication of that changing, barring some new tangible configuration. Exactly. I have no idea what would do it, but technology changes rapidly, and the market is ripe for an overhaul. The labels that survive are ultimately going to be the ones that subvert traditional models and find innovative ways to connect. Whether that involves a new physical single medium or not, I cannot predict, but the possibility is always there. The ringle FTW!
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 5, 2009 10:21:03 GMT -5
jebsib- those tracks definitely would have had enough points to chart on the Hot 100. I mean, we saw "Iris" and "Torn" actually did once the revamped chart took effect (not at where their peak would have been, though). What else we have to consider regarding a track like "Don't Speak"- had airplay-only tracks been allowed to chart on the Hot 100 at that time, remember that other formats probably would have been in the mix as well- DS would not have benefited from that. But it undoubtedly would have placed inside the top 20 on the Hot 100 with its amount of airplay.
Remember that in the early 90s, the number of airplay-chart-only hits was a handful. It kept increasing, until reaching its peak in 1997-1998. Thoe songs that got caught after their peak, and showed up on the new Hot 100, definitely need to have the emphasis placed on the airplay peak, rather than Hot 100 (i.e. "Torn"- No. 42 peak- while "Torn" is a track that wouldn't have benefited from an expanded airplay panel, emphasizing No. 42 would be a joke).
|
|