A few years ago I found a copy of a book that rectifies errant procedural details in the year-end top 100 lists published by Billboard. The book is called Rock 100 and was written by Jim Quirin and Barry Cohen. The authors provide a sound explanation of their purpose and methodology over several pages in the introduction. My copy is from 1992. I'm not sure if subsequent editions were produced.
In essence, the songs (beginning with 1954) are ranked to reflect period of impact rather than according to date of release. Specifically, this allows songs that are released late in a year to be ranked in year when the impact is greater. Most importantly, it overcomes a Billboard error that is repeated regularly, the underanking of songs released in late November and December. In Rock 100, it's common to see such songs ranked very high in the lists for the following year. Though not as common, there are also cases of such songs reaching a peak in the release year that are missing completely from the Billboard lists.
Okay, so what? I know AM focuses on release year, and I agree with that. But for me, I want my playlists to reflect accurate chronology, or at least accurate yearly orientation. I've used Rock 100 as a definitive statement for the proper yearly orientation, both for 'period sense' and also 'ranking'. For absolute chronology, I use the book series Joel Whitburn Presents The Billboard Hot 100 Charts. Whitburn's books have allowed me to create playlists that resemble an AM Top 40 retrospective. I'm able to pick a month and a year and begin playing the dominant airplay songs chronologically based on the earliest occurrence of their peak positions.
On average, mostly based on my own library, I'm able to roll out 200 +/- songs from any given year in my interest period. This approaches 10 hours of listening (range 8-12 hours), with each month in a year being about equal. In addition to the ranked artist singles, I incorporate many non-singles from a given year that have proven more durable in radio formats that focus on album cuts. Creating a theoretical peak date for those songs is challenging. As often as possible, I try to customize those according to the chart performance of an artist's singles and albums. I was surprised to find wide variations even among the most acclaimed artists.
Thanks for indulging me.
Books that may interest some of you
-
audioclectic
- Are You Experienced?
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 3:26 pm
Re: Books that may interest some of you
Thank you for sharing audioclectic, this sounds like a rather intriguing solution to a problem that hadn't crossed my mind recently. If I can get my hands on a copy of that book, I look forward to learning more about his (and to a certain extant your) methodologyaudioclectic wrote:A few years ago I found a copy of a book that rectifies errant procedural details in the year-end top 100 lists published by Billboard. The book is called Rock 100 and was written by Jim Quirin and Barry Cohen. The authors provide a sound explanation of their purpose and methodology over several pages in the introduction. My copy is from 1992. I'm not sure if subsequent editions were produced.
In essence, the songs (beginning with 1954) are ranked to reflect period of impact rather than according to date of release. Specifically, this allows songs that are released late in a year to be ranked in year when the impact is greater. Most importantly, it overcomes a Billboard error that is repeated regularly, the underanking of songs released in late November and December. In Rock 100, it's common to see such songs ranked very high in the lists for the following year. Though not as common, there are also cases of such songs reaching a peak in the release year that are missing completely from the Billboard lists.
Okay, so what? I know AM focuses on release year, and I agree with that. But for me, I want my playlists to reflect accurate chronology, or at least accurate yearly orientation. I've used Rock 100 as a definitive statement for the proper yearly orientation, both for 'period sense' and also 'ranking'. For absolute chronology, I use the book series Joel Whitburn Presents The Billboard Hot 100 Charts. Whitburn's books have allowed me to create playlists that resemble an AM Top 40 retrospective. I'm able to pick a month and a year and begin playing the dominant airplay songs chronologically based on the earliest occurrence of their peak positions.
On average, mostly based on my own library, I'm able to roll out 200 +/- songs from any given year in my interest period. This approaches 10 hours of listening (range 8-12 hours), with each month in a year being about equal. In addition to the ranked artist singles, I incorporate many non-singles from a given year that have proven more durable in radio formats that focus on album cuts. Creating a theoretical peak date for those songs is challenging. As often as possible, I try to customize those according to the chart performance of an artist's singles and albums. I was surprised to find wide variations even among the most acclaimed artists.
Thanks for indulging me.
