HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,873
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jul 13, 2019 7:32:02 GMT -5
^OK- good to know. Thanks.
rockg- not dissing "Jingle Bells"- I just like BC more. :) (even given its somber quality; I don't listen to it much for that reason).
|
|
paulhaney
New Member
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 145
|
Post by paulhaney on Jul 13, 2019 7:32:42 GMT -5
One holiday song I noticed has two listings is "Run Rudolph Run"- but, the first listing had a B-side that has its own peak listed, thus that explains the multiple listings. There may be a few others where it was just one or two re-entries. We were mainly concerned with those that had multiple entries. We decided to leave "White Christmas" by The Drifters separate, since it had a territorial entry thrown in there too. BTW, I just noticed that territorial entry has an entry date of 1/1/55, which goes against what I just stated in the previous post, LOL! It's not easy keeping all this stuff straight!
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,873
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jul 13, 2019 7:50:03 GMT -5
^Indeed- information overload. But chart fans appreciate all of the efforts.
If you have any thoughts on "featuring" credits for 2019 entries, that you'd consider more of a duet for Record Research purposes, feel free to post them in this thread. :) I mentioned earlier that I planned on visiting that later on, but any assistance is welcome. Aside from producer/DJ tracks on which the featured act is a primary performer, of course. Thanks.
|
|
paulhaney
New Member
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 145
|
Post by paulhaney on Jul 14, 2019 6:08:36 GMT -5
Hi paulhaney - Great job on the book. I'm hoping Record Research will publishing a 2010s Hot 100 Chart book like the previous decades. If there are plans, I'm curious how you'll handle it, given there are so many segmented, multi-page and/or unpublished charts for years now. Any insight you can share on this at all? Thank you! We are currently mulling that over. The multiple pages will be an issue. Another issue is sales. We won't spend the time and money on a project that doesn't at least cover our costs. The most popular chart book is the 1960s, then the 1970s, 1980s, 1950s, 1990s and 2000s. The 2000s only sold a fraction of what the 1990s sold, so we're not sure the 2010s would do any better. I'm thinking that we probably will end up doing it, but it's far from a sure thing at this time.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,873
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Apr 9, 2020 10:46:54 GMT -5
I have picked up where this book left off, keeping track of entries, peaks, weeks and such. Also, keeping with the book's format, along with methodologies/lower points for streaming-era hits, etc., including not counting "featuring" credits among a featured act's hits/totals. This doesn't take into account RR possibly counting a featuring credit as a "With," as it has done in select cases- think "Me Against the Music," "4 Minutes," the "Glee" version of "Physical," etc. For instance, I'd think "Life is Good" probably wouldn't be counted among Drake's hits, along with his other recent featuring credits.
Of note: Drake will knock the Stones out of the top 10 when "Tootsie Slide" (his 169th hit as a lead act) enters the Hot 100. Also, Taylor Swift has jumped to the top 20. The debut of "BELIEVEIT" doesn't impact Rihanna's ranking thus far.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,642
|
Post by Gary on Aug 12, 2021 14:12:13 GMT -5
|
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,624
|
Post by renfield75 on Aug 12, 2021 15:00:53 GMT -5
I appreciate that it was becoming too unwieldy to put all the info in one massive book, but I don't like that all-time stats seem to be split between the eras now. Several acts are much higher on the all-time list (according to the sample pages) than they would be if you look beyond 1989. And artists who straddle the 80s and 90s seem like they're being punished. It feels like Joel is slowly making a distinction between the "Rock era" and the "Modern era", but not dividing it at a more sensible place (like the dawn of iTunes or the streaming era).
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 863
|
Post by WolfSpear on Aug 12, 2021 16:32:44 GMT -5
Here’s my take on it… and I own quite a few of the older editions, myself: The split here occurs when Billboard designated cassette tapes as the primary format in 1990, so this a reasonable cutoff. It most certainly creates two books with a solid amount of pages. I don’t think a 2005-present book would garner as much attention, but I agree that Digital/Streaming Era begins here, rightfully. There’s so much data that could make the new volumes more complete. Digital Songs and Streaming Songs positions would be nice, but I know Singles Sales and Airplay numbers have been missing for a good while now (2002 Pepto edition). My other concern is that there won’t be a complete 1955-2021 rundown of the records, and does that mean the 2nd volume only covers 1990-2021 too? [Personally, I would include the complete stats as a bonus section if we’re getting split ones.] Hopefully paulhaney can chime in on the stats for the new books.
|
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,624
|
Post by renfield75 on Aug 12, 2021 17:10:55 GMT -5
Honestly, at this point, they could almost do the stats as a separate smaller book. Do an expanded top 1000 artists, songs, year and decade breakdowns, gold and platinum, "most featured credits", all that good stuff. That would free up a lot of space in the main volumes.
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 863
|
Post by WolfSpear on Aug 12, 2021 17:42:42 GMT -5
I like the idea on a general stats book…
Especially useful since the R&B and Country Album books are out of date. But also would like to see more on Rap Songs, MT40, Rhythmic and some of the younger charts. Billboard doesn’t always reference those achievements, but they give a thorough view of what’s going on.
Convenient for the casual music reader but adds new spice for the music lover at heart.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Aug 12, 2021 18:00:21 GMT -5
I'll be skipping this one for all the reasons mentioned... 1940 - 1955 makes cultural sense at least, while this 'feels' random (I know it's not).
So I guess Elvis is the #1 artist of the pre 1990 Era and Mariah will be the #1 artist of the post 80s era.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,642
|
Post by Gary on Aug 12, 2021 18:57:40 GMT -5
Well....like the 1940-1955 book - this one would have a fixed end date and you would not have to rebuy it every two years(like I have done) because that would be difficult to update again
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 863
|
Post by WolfSpear on Aug 12, 2021 19:47:34 GMT -5
I'll be skipping this one for all the reasons mentioned... 1940 - 1955 makes cultural sense at least, while this 'feels' random (I know it's not). So I guess Elvis is the #1 artist of the pre 1990 Era and Mariah will be the #1 artist of the post 80s era. Wouldn’t Drake be post 80’s?
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Aug 12, 2021 20:22:15 GMT -5
Might be by now … 2 years ago Mariah was #5 overall and Drake was #13…
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,873
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Aug 12, 2021 20:57:12 GMT -5
Focusing on the vinyl era almost splits the "rock era" in half (34 years, and then 31 for Vol. 2), though maybe it should have gone through 1991, as that's when BDS and SoundScan started being used for the Hot 100.
I often note that the digital/streaming era should be its own thing, though the points adjustments and "featuring" hits not being listed under the featured act's hits (unless more than a featuring role, despite the billing) addressed the apples-to-oranges comparison to what came before it. Also, that would be just 15-16 years, compared to 1955-2004.
|
|
paulhaney
New Member
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 145
|
Post by paulhaney on Sept 10, 2021 12:48:56 GMT -5
I'm actually kinda sad to see this book split into 2 separate volumes. But in the end, it's Joel's decision and he made it.
Sales so far have been decent, so it's something that a lot of people apparently wanted to see.
I don't see us doing a separate stats book. Also, there's no way we'll ever research all those other component charts again. Just too small of a staff these days.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,873
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Sept 10, 2021 16:00:02 GMT -5
Hey Paul- as far as you know, in addition to top acts from 1990-present, will Vol. 2 include an updated all-time list of top acts and feats? And, I gather that even though Vol. 2 will be smaller than the 1955-2018 edition, featuring credits, with some exceptions, will continue to not be listed/included in the featured act's hits? Thanks. :)
|
|
paulhaney
New Member
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 145
|
Post by paulhaney on Sept 11, 2021 3:40:40 GMT -5
We haven't even started working on Volume 2, so I'm still not sure what it will/will not consist of yet.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,642
|
Post by Gary on Nov 10, 2021 14:22:11 GMT -5
The book has arrived
It cuts off at 1989
The addition of top 10 albums embedded with the artists singles listings is cool There is also about 12 pages devoted to "influential" pre-rock era songs More pictures too
Aside from that if you have the 2018 edition of this book - basically no differences
Top artists through 1989 1. Elvis Presley 2. Beatles 3. Stevie Wonder 4. James Brown 5. Pat Boone 6. Elton John 7. Rolling Stones 8. Aretha Franklin 9. Marvin Gaye 10. Beach Boys
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 863
|
Post by WolfSpear on Nov 10, 2021 17:51:56 GMT -5
For anyone that has the 1990 Pop Singles, are there any differences in the rankings/points? I mean, there shouldn't be unless there's been adjustments...
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Nov 11, 2021 12:50:42 GMT -5
There may be some small changes as that book includes all point totals from 1990 (it was published in spring 1991) - whereas this book cuts off one year earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Private Dancer on Nov 11, 2021 14:08:27 GMT -5
Marvin Gaye higher than Dionne Warwick??? Why inst she in the top ten?
|
|