|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Jan 7, 2012 13:34:33 GMT -5
I don't have all information needed to compile annual charts on various AT40 years, but I have noticed a few constitent flaws with almost all that do. I do agree that a record's entire chart run should be included EXCEPT FOR ONE THING.
Truth is most of the surveys are compiled before the year is actually over. So I do not understand why people include records that peaked after Black Friday (a reasonable cut-off date) on the surveys they create. This is why I felt the AT40's year-end surveys for 1980, 1981, 1982, & 1983 were the most fairly done.
As far as the exception on the entire chart run, the weeks a record spents lingering on the Hot 100 after leaving the Top 40 for good SHOULD NOT COUNT towards its overall points. Records charting in the 1960s & early 1970s would generally fall completely off the chart from the Top 50. The Hot 100 currently has a rule in place doing the same (sort of). Such as a rule sounds rather fair to me.
One common mistake I see many chart historians make is the chart date they consider a record's "peak week." Other than #1, this chart date should really the record's final week in its peak position, not its first. Therefore as a example, Foreigner's "Waiting For a Girl Like You" peaked at #2 on 1/30/82 and considered for the 1982 year-end list.
Feel free to state your case on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by dukelightning on Jan 7, 2012 13:44:14 GMT -5
The end of November seems like a compromise between those that want the entire year in the survey period and those that want to give peaking records a chance to fall off the chart so they won't be cutoff. And I agree with your feeling that the peak is its last week at its position. "You Light Up My Life" reached it peak before the survey period ended..not sure if it was the end of Oct or Nov but in this case, it's a moot point. But it's final week at its peak position was definitely in the 1978 survey period so that's the only year it should have been listed in the year end survey. Full credit should be given in that situation. "PYT" is an example of record that has no chance because it peaked in the final week of the survey period if it was the end of Nov and would need to be given a prorated point total for subsequent weeks on the chart. And that's an unwieldy situation there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Jan 8, 2012 14:47:38 GMT -5
And Who Loves You peaking at #3 on the charts but missing a year end for 75 or 76. I say for these days, you should take the calendar year of the one you're doing instead of using a "cutoff" week. They could have moved closer to the end of the years by tabulating everything and adding points on a weekly basis. Say to December 10-15. That would have pushed AT40 to do year ends on their own or wait til mid January, but it'd have been more accurate!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 8, 2012 15:08:38 GMT -5
And Who Loves You peaking at #3 on the charts but missing a year end for 75 or 76. There's two records like this from the '83 year-end countdown: "King of Pain" (also #3) and "One Thing Leads to Another" (#4). Both are in AT40's countdown, but neither made any Billboard year-end chart. |
|
|
|
Post by shadster on Jan 10, 2012 1:01:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by torcan on Jan 10, 2012 12:43:17 GMT -5
I always have an issue with bonus points. 100 bonus points for a No. 1 song is way too many. I think something like 10 might be more reasonable. Maybe give something like 10 bonus points for a No. 1 record, and 5 for No. 2. All other songs get no bonus points.
I also thought that maybe a No. 1 song shouldn't get any bonus points in its first week at the top - only in the second and beyond. However, if you're giving bonus points to a No. 2 song, and the No. 1 record jumps over a "holding" No. 2 song, I guess you have to give them both bonus points.
I'd also add another point for the total weeks the song spent on the chart.
What gets dicey is songs like "1999" by Prince. Do you count both runs, or treat the 1983 run where it peaked at No. 12 separately?
In hindsight, if you really wanted to know the year's biggest hits, you could add all the songs points even after the cutoff. In other words, someone mentioned "Gloria" in another thread having 36 weeks on the Hot 100. Since it peaked at No. 2 in Dec '82 but was counted in the 1983 chart, I'm thinking all of its weeks were accounted for.
I'd probably figure the charts like this: if a song was climbing or holding in its peak postion the last chart in December, it was deferred to the following year. If a song had dropped from its peak by the last week of December, it goes in that year. We could include all of the points from the following year until it fell off the chart to get a more accurate ranking of the song's popularity.
Although I like Fred Bronson's work, I hate the way he compiled the lists for his most recent Hottest Hot 100 hits book. He included songs in the year they reached their peak. There are quite a number of examples where a song hit No. 1 the last week in December, and held their several weeks in January of the next year. To me, the hit belongs in the following year because most of its No. 1 weeks (and popularity) occurred in that year. It doesn't make sense to put them in with the previous year. Songs shouldn't be included in any year if they haven't fallen from their peak yet.
|
|
