|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Jul 29, 2011 12:09:01 GMT -5
OK, they recently aired this and I wondered how they ranked them...
Was it weeks on the charts that was most important or number of hits?
For example, did an artist with 3 hits for a total of 21 weeks rank above an artist with 7 hits for a total of 21 hits or the other way around.
What about an artist with 21 weeks on the charts and 6 hits VS an artist with 19 weeks on the charts but 8 hits?
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Jul 29, 2011 14:29:45 GMT -5
Too much of a loaded question. You need to get more specific as far as the type of hits. i.e A #5 hit is not the same as a #35 hit
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Jul 29, 2011 15:36:57 GMT -5
Thats true, but I'm dealing with multiple hits. Obviously though an artist who was regularily in the top 10 would rank higher than someone who had most of their hits between #30 and #40.
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Jul 29, 2011 15:59:48 GMT -5
Ok, let's go at it this way. If you are thinking of doing a top acts of the 60s special, take each artists hits and give them the inverse 100 number of their peak position, i.e. 1 = 100, 2=99, etc. and then add in weeks at #1 and weeks on the chart. That would be the simple way to do it. Doing an inverse point total for each and every week that a song is on the chart would take way too long. I might do that for the top acts of the 70s through June 78 and compare to AT40's rankings to see if they did that way or came close.
|
|