|
Post by jedijake on Jan 7, 2009 21:47:18 GMT -5
In 1994, when R&R went to BDS, the newspaper had one particular top 94 of 94 while Casey counted down another list.
Casey's list was based on his weekly countdown while the actual R&R's year-end seemed to be based on a more "rhythmic" chart that was used in the second half of the year.
I never saw any of the R&R weekly charts in the later part of the year but I do have copies of all CT40's for that entire year.
What was up with the differences between CT40 and R&R's year-end charts?
|
|
|
Post by freakyflybry on Jan 7, 2009 23:42:03 GMT -5
R&R split the CHR chart into pop and rhythmic charts. The R&R year-end list was combined, while CT40's was just based on the pop charts.
|
|
corey
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by corey on Jan 8, 2009 8:29:43 GMT -5
R&R split the CHR chart into pop and rhythmic charts. The R&R year-end list was combined, while CT40's was just based on the pop charts. Although Radio & Records split the CHR chart on April 22, they also published combined CHR chart along with the indivisual pop and rhythmic charts throughout 1994. From 1995, they stopped publishing the combined chart. R&R's 1994 year-end ranking was a combined one. Casey's Top 40 exclusively used the pop chart after R&R split the CHR chart. And CT40's year-end ranking based only on the pop chart.
|
|
|
Post by jedijake on Jan 8, 2009 8:53:55 GMT -5
Thank you both for the information. That explains it. I remember hearing Rick Dees counting down his year-end and it was based on the combined chart (that I discovered a few years later when I ordered the R&R year-end set of charts).
|
|
|
Post by mstgator on Jan 10, 2009 11:05:20 GMT -5
In 1994, when R&R went to BDS, For clarification's sake, R&R didn't begin using BDS until just a few years ago (when R&R was bought by the owners of Billboard). They did begin using plays (or points) per week from station reports in April 1994, and started using actual monitored airplay in June 1999 (with data from Mediabase). I think I have that right; if not, someone please correct me.
|
|