Hi Kent,
Being a lifelong chart fanatic and devoting the past 31 years to working for Record Research, I read with great interest your thoughts on the various trade magazine charts.
It reminded me of a story Joel Whitburn told me many times about visiting both the Billboard and Cash Box offices in the mid-1970s.
He said that the Billboard chart department was a beehive of activity, with staffers busy on the phones and running paperwork back and forth ... while the Cash Box office had a couple of guys sitting around, not looking very busy at all. It really made an impression on him and made him glad that he decided to make the Billboard charts his main focus of research.
Over the years, I'd been mentioning to Joel that because we covered the Billboard charts so thoroughly, that maybe we should branch out to the other trades. I'll never forget the day when he called me up and said, "Let's do it!"
We started with Cash Box, then branched out to Music Vendor/Record World, then to my personal favorites of Radio & Records and The Gavin Report. This eventually led to my all-time favorite Record Research project (and I think yours, too!) The Comparison Book. As you have mentioned on several occasions, this is where the discrepancies in the charts really stand out.
A few thoughts come to my mind about this. One, the different trades had different sources. I don't know how much (if any) overlap there was between which record stores and which radio stations reported to which trade(s), but that certainly could make a difference in the final results each week. Also keep in mind that this was all before monitored sales and airplay, so reports were based strictly on the honor system. I believe most reporters were on the up-and-up, but who can say for sure.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a weekly chart is just a snapshot of that particular week. I highly doubt there was a concerted effort to keep certain artists out of the number one spot (yet this was the very claim that Richard Carpenter once made to Joel about Billboard). Yes, I've heard the Gerry Rafferty story (and that one just might be true), but I truly believe such stunts were very few and far between. Either way, I'm sure those that were actually compiling the charts at the time never dreamed that we'd be wondering about such things all these years later.
As I always say, the charts are more accurate now than they've ever been, yet record companies still look for ways to game the system. And that increased accuracy has given us charts that can vary widely from week to week, while also remaining incredibly stagnant at the same time.
While I take all of this as seriously as anyone (after all, it's my livelihood!), let's remember that music and chart watching are supposed to be FUN. At the end of the day, it's a nice distraction from our everyday cares.
(Now, about CCR never hitting #1 in Billboard ... )
Paul Haney
Record Research
It IS fun … and arguing about what should have been is always a big part of it. Let’s face it … us chart followers have been doing that for as long as the charts have existed!
One thing to keep in mind, too (and I will freely admit to being guilty of this fact) is that MOST of us growing up didn’t have access to the charts published by the three major trades … our whole world (and therefore chart perspective) was based on what OUR local radio stations were playing and reporting. That’s all we knew … and is the reason why a record like “It Could Be We’re In Love” by The Cryan’ Shames could be #1 in Chicago for four consecutive weeks yet only muster a #85 showing in Billboard.
Talk about your chart discrepancies … this same record peaked at #70 in Cash Box and #52 in Record World! That’s a spread of over thirty places! (Tells me the Record World rated the opinion of WLS, one of the biggest Top 40 outlets in the nation, at a much higher level than Billboard did. Or, they factored in the fact that as The Cryan’ Shames toured behind that record, it became more popular in every city they visited.) The fact of the matter is on a clear night you could hear WLS all over the country (if you didn’t mind listening between the static!) And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard from readers who fell in love with “It Could Be We’re In Love” but then weren’t able to buy it in their local record stores because they only displayed The Top 30 Records in THEIR town! (Here’s where some real chart fans might have gotten the chance to see a Billboard Chart up on display … but how big of a record store did you have to be in order to stock all Top 100 Records??? Certainly not a “Mom and Pop” shop, which was much more the norm back in the day!
Since you mentioned it, I did a quick glance at the Gavin book charts to see if The Cryan’ Shames even made a blip … and “It Could Be We’re In Love” showed at #32 for exactly one week and then disappeared forever. Still, that now creates a FIFTY point spread between the Gavin Chart and The Billboard Hot 100! THOSE are the ones that I refer to as the “head scratchers!!!” (Although I personally always regarded the Gavin list as more of a “forecast” chart, predicting which records were going to be the hits and thus attaining more “adds” at radio stations across the country. The Gavin Charts were usually a good four weeks (minimum) ahead of the curve. And technically a record didn’t make a good showing in Billboard until it had already been a huge hit everywhere else … so they were often reporting their findings “after the fact.” I can’t tell you how many times we found a record that had been #1 in any variety of cities four or five weeks before it hit #1 in Billboard … so you’re right, each chart has to be judged on its own merits. (Now if I could only get Record Research to publish our Super Charts!!! Then you’d have the best possible accumulation of this chart information from week to week!) kk
Kent,
A few times over the years, Billboard had a few articles that supplied information about how they came up with the charts. Early on, it seems that sales were more important than radio airplay when tabulating the Hot 100; however, as sales started to drop off, I suppose airplay points became more significant.
By the way, Record World had weekly articles during their last five years of publishing that were very informative about how songs were doing on their two main pop charts (singles and albums.)
It seems Cash Box provided the least information about how they arrived at their charts (at least in the pages of their magazine.)
Here is a website you can go to look through old issues of Billboard, Cash Box, Record World and Radio & Records.
https://worldradiohistory.com/
Sincerely,
Joe Cantello
Marietta, Ga
Yes, this is a great site that allows you to look thru all the pages of these magazines.
Cash Box became a bit suspect (and lost a WHOLE lot of credibility) when it charted the Wayne Newton record “The Letter” at #1 in 1992 … a record you couldn’t even buy … a record that never even made Billboard’s Hot 100 (or Bubbling Under chart) … yet was awarded the top spot in Cash Box Magazine (reportedly a favor to somebody.)
Between all of the Mob horror stories we’ve heard over the years related to record companies and artists … and the fact that payola was NOT confined just to disc jockeys … ALL of the charts may not hold us as well under scrutiny … which is why we just have to accept them as they were at that moment in time. (There’s really no way to go back and evaluate the research after all this time. I thought about doing it by running comparison charts for twelve major cities spread out across the USA to see what the REAL general consensus was … but good luck finding a radio station in those twelve cities that remained on the air playing Top 40 music for forty years!!!
Again, this is why I always come back to the accuracy of The Super Charts … a week by week analysis of the chart data used in all three major trades which “smooths out” some of those thirty point chart discrepancies! (kk)
