| Author | Message | ||
  dvdmike (dvdmike) 4-Laureate Username: dvdmike Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.253.189.110 |
Billboard's R&B chart has had numerous name changes since it was originally established in 1942. Here they are: HARLEM HIT PARADE 10/24/42 to 2/1/45 - 10 positions MOST-PLAYED JUKE BOX RACE RECORDS 2/8/45 - 2-15 positions MOST-PLAYED JUKE BOX RHYTHM & BLUES RECORDS 6/25/49 - 5-15 positions MOST-PLAYED IN JUKE BOXES 11/15/52 - 8 to 10 positions MOST PLAYED R&B IN JUKE BOXES 6/30/56 to 6/17/57 (final chart) - 9-10 positions BEST SELLING RETAIL RACE RECORDS 5/22/48 - 10-15 positions BEST SELLING RETAIL RHYTHM & BLUES RECORDS 6/25/49 - 5-15 positions NATIONAL BEST SELLERS 11/15/52 - 9-10 positions BEST SELLERS IN STORES 2/20/54 - 9-15 positions R&B BEST SELLERS IN STORES 6/30/56 - 14-15 positions R&B BEST SELLERS IN STORES 2/3/58 - 10/13/58 (final chart) - 20 positions MOST PLAYED BY JOCKEYS 1/22/55 - 14-15 positions MOST PLAYED R&B BY JOCKEYS 6/30/56 to 10/13/58 (final chart) - 13-15 positions HOT R&B SIDES 10/20/58 - 30 positions HOT R&B SINGLES 11/3/62 - 30 positions NO R&B CHART PUBLISHED BETWEEN 11/30/63 & 1/23/65 HOT RHYTHM & BLUES SINGLES 1/30/65 - 40 positions TOP SELLING RHYTHM & BLUES SINGLES 6/5/65 - 40 positions TOP SELLING R&B SINGLES 4/9/66 - 40 positions TOP SELLING R&B SINGLES 8/6/66 - 50 positions BEST SELLING R&B SINGLES 1/13/68 - 50 positions BEST SELLING RHYTHM & BLUES SINGLES 4/6/68 - 50 positions BEST SELLING SOUL SINGLES 8/23/69 - 50 positions BEST SELLING SOUL SINGLES 6/30/73 - 60 positions HOT SOUL SINGLES 7/14/73 - 100 positions BLACK SINGLES 6/26/82 - 100 positions HOT BLACK SINGLES 10/20/84 - 100 positions HOT R&B SINGLES 10/27/90 - 100 positions HOT R&B SINGLES & TRACKS 1/2/99 - 100 positions HOT R&B/HIP-HOP SINGLES & TRACKS 12/11/99 - 100 positions | ||
Cool Ju (cool_ju) 2-Debutant Username: cool_ju Post Number: 25 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.138 |
Interesting. Thanks, Mike. | ||
dvdmike (dvdmike) 4-Laureate Username: dvdmike Post Number: 91 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.253.189.110 |
I should have explained that between 1948 and 1958 that Billboard published multiple R&B singles charts. | ||
Soul Sister (soul_sister) 6-Zenith Username: soul_sister Post Number: 448 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.43.156.232 |
Before Felix Hernandez had his "Rhythm Revue" Show, he had the "Harlem Hit Parade" years before. ( No connection to Billboard but maybe where he got the name from for his program.) dvdmike, thanks for the posting. S.S. | ||
Cool Ju (cool_ju) 2-Debutant Username: cool_ju Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 152.163.252.200 |
"I should have explained that between 1948 and 1958 that Billboard published multiple R&B singles charts." - Mike Why did they do that? | ||
dvdmike (dvdmike) 4-Laureate Username: dvdmike Post Number: 93 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.253.192.82 |
All of these charts focused on specific areas of the music trade. Records played on the air, records sold in stores and records played in juke boxes. Beginning on October 20, 1958, Billboard decided to replace the multiple charts with one all-encompassing singles chart. | ||
motownboy (motownboy) 2-Debutant Username: motownboy Post Number: 20 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 67.125.57.135 |
Too many names!! It is a shame that there was a separate chart to begin with - to make that distinction. Today, the "pop" charts seem to have quite a lot of diversity. It's too bad that the state of popular music today is in such poor condition. It is also a shame that the only non-African Americans on the "R&B" chart are the likes of Eminem and Justin Timberlake. | ||
Ron Murphy (ron_murphy) 3-Pundit Username: ron_murphy Post Number: 43 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.42.90.140 |
don't Billboard have a "chart" on almost every page now, it should be called "chart magazine" it's really got to the point of being silly. I really like the way they do it in the UK I believe they have a top 100 which just lists anything that's selling no matter what it is. over here you give anyone in the music business a new record/CD they go crazy trying to figure out what chart it may go on..we are so segagated in everything including our music, poor kids today hear no variety at all. | ||
Charise (mistrivia1) 3-Pundit Username: mistrivia1 Post Number: 66 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 198.81.26.46 |
What was up with no R&B charts between 11/30/63 & 1/23/65. Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMM! Motown was really busting out at that time.. Looks suspect to me!!!!!! It is really a shame how people like to try to act like things don't exist or try to hide things. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 866 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hey Ri Ri!! How ya been? The excuse given at the time was that there was hardly any difference between the Pop/R&B music. The idea was that there were almost equal in popularity, or some such nonsense.......SURRRE!! Ironically, that specific period just happened to be when the British Invasion & the Girl Group Sounds were exploding. I guess that all of those Beatles, Elvis & other Pop/Rock groups, in no way affected R&B songs from charting, did they???? SURRRE they didn't! Basic BS!!! | ||
Charise (mistrivia1) 3-Pundit Username: mistrivia1 Post Number: 67 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 198.81.26.46 |
Hi Juice, like I said, trying to cover up stuff like people are not educated enough to know the difference! I remember reading about there not being charts around this time somewhere, but I can't remember where. As I was posting, I was thinking just what you stated, around that time, the British were coming!! LOL. Foolish people trying to stop progress! Where is Homey the clown when we need him!!!!  Hey, what was that Phyllis Hyman album that you didn't have? I am loving the new Teena Marie cd, wrote a short review on Amazon, along with the other Amazites, that was kinda fun! Some people on that site were complaining that it is too long!!! Can you believe that? Never satisfied!!! Now,if she had came back with a 6 song cd, they would be cursing her under the sun! 17 songs is fine with me, especially in times when cds cost an arm and a leg. I usually get mine at Bestbuy, because they are on sale 9.99. If not, the most I will pay is about 14.00. I guess you can't please everybody. As far as I'm concerned, it's like she never left, still as soulful if not more, than she ever was. Post your thoughts on it, when you get a chance. Gotta go, should have myself in the bed anyway(acting like I don't have to go to work) I have to remind members of my family that Motown 45 will be on tonight!! | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 867 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hey Ri Ri. I'll check my Phyllis & find out. It's most likely Prime Of My Life. Anyone complaining about length is nuts. As long as there aren't 20 skits on it. I haven't picked up Teena yet. I'll get around to that soon. As for me, I'm off today (Aw, you ain't got no, etc etc I doubt I'll be watching Motown 45. I have to tape it for someone. I need that time to research a post for that thread. Take care, check you later! Have a good one! | ||
dvdmike (dvdmike) 4-Laureate Username: dvdmike Post Number: 94 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.208.234.61 |
Charise, you said the same thing that some insiders said back in the day that Motown came into it's own in terms of the charts in that particular era. Billboard did not publish a separate R&B chart, but Cash Box did. | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 3-Pundit Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 43 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 212.219.250.5 |
Juice, you wrote "The excuse given at the time was that there was hardly any difference between the Pop/R&B music. The idea was that there were almost equal in popularity, or some such nonsense.......SURRRE!! Ironically, that specific period just happened to be when the British Invasion & the Girl Group Sounds were exploding. I guess that all of those Beatles, Elvis & other Pop/Rock groups, in no way affected R&B songs from charting, did they???? SURRRE they didn't! Basic BS!!!" Your post gives me the impression that Billboard's temporarily dropping their R&B chart was some sort of conspiracy to prevent R&B/soul acts from getting proper recognition. If you'd seen the Billboard HOT 100 charts and the Billboard R&B charts in '63 you'd probably understand the decision better. There may have been a handful of R&B chart entries that didn't make the HOT 100 but you've also got to take into account that people like Rolf Harris, Peter Paul and Mary, Jan and Dean and more like them were being listed on the R&B chart. The reason the chart was dropped was too many white records were charting R&B (based on sales in black areas). There's very little sign that I can see that black records were not being recognised in the Hot 100. It would take a book to go into this fully but as far as I can see there was no "anti-black" agenda on Billboard's part. The only Motown records that didn't chart on the HOT 100 in '64 wouldn't have charted R&B either - everything that deserved to be a hit did chart. If the chart had continued the way it was you'd have been seeing the Beatles, the Stones and the Dave Clark Five on both the pop and R&B charts - what would've been the point of the separate charts ? Davie | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 872 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hi Davie! I appreciate your point of view. However, considering the sheer number of songs that folks such as The Beatles, Elvis & other Pop groups didn't skew the charts at all? You mention Motowns' songs that didn't chart because they wer underserving. That's probably true. But, what about all of the other small labels that didn't have Motowns' reach or clout. How much of a chance did they have to compete with folks like The Beatles, The Four Seasons, Elvis, Bobby Rydell, Chubby Checker, The Shangri-Las, Hermans Hermits, The Rolling Stones, etc? You mention The Dave Clark Five. However, they didn't have their first Pop chart placement until 2/15/64. As we know, the R&B chart was discontinued on 11/30/63. In addition to this, they never had one R&B chart placement at all. You mentioned Peter, Paul & Mary, who had all of one R&B chart entry (in April 1963), as opposed to 20 Pop chart entries. That lone entry was the novelty song, Puff The Magic Dragon, which probably had massive appeal with children. As for The Rolling Stones, their first Pop entry occured on 5/2/64, again, this was after the discontuation of the R&B chart. Their two R&B chart placements of that period were Satisfaction (entered chart 7/24/65) & 19th Nervous Breakdown (entered chart 4/2/66). I don't see their dominance of the R&B chart there. Further consider that the Hot 100 (from 8/4/58 to 12/25/99)was just that, the top 100 songs, mainly with a Pop bent, wouldn't you agree? The R&B charts from 1/30/65 - 7/30/66 contained only 40 positions. From 8/6/66 - 8/23/69 it contained 50 positions. From 6/30/73 - 7/7/73 it contained 60 positions. The R&B Top Soul (R&B) Singles didn't come into play until 7/14/73. It would appear from these facts, that R&B & Soul music was given short shrift from the very beginning. Considering the fact that many songs had to chart high on the R&B charts before they crossed over to the Pop charts, would lead me to believe that there were simply less R&B/Soul songs that would have had a chance to Chart on the Hot 100. Being realistic, many of the hits that placed high on the R&B charts, came nowhere close to the same performance on the Hot 100 charts. Of course Motown, Jackie Wilson, Sam Cooke, The Coasters or The Drifters charted high. How many of the lesser lights can say that that was a reality for them??? Whether Billboard made the alteration for racial reasons, I can't say. However, there's no doubt in my mind that this didn't affect OVERALL R&B/Soul music in a negative fashion. Pick up Billboards Top 100 Pop Singles & compare the entries to the R&B one. Trust me, there's quite a difference! | ||
Bless You (bless_you) 2-Debutant Username: bless_you Post Number: 30 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 192.28.2.17 |
Juice, What a NON-issue to get your feathers ruffled over, darlin'! Billboard corrected this oversight barely a year later. And during that time, CashBox still ran an R&B chart. Look on this week's Billboard Hot 100 and try to find one act that is not Hip Slop. Good luck, it's like looking for a speck of salt in some pepper! It must be rough going through life looking at everything through such suspicious lenses. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 876 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Bless you! Thank you for expressing concern about my suspicious nature. I appreciate your solemn concern & such responses make me feel loved. Your concern for my mental & emotional health is touching. Thank you for caring, later, I will thank you properly. Those good thoughts of yours are certainly worth my consideration. And as I feel that no good deed should go unpunished, I leave you with some words that the glamorous Tammi told Marvin: "I wanna show you my appreciation." Rest assured, in due time, I will. Thanks again for your concern! Humbly! Juice (Message edited by Juicefree20 on May 17, 2004) (Message edited by Juicefree20 on May 17, 2004) | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 3-Pundit Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 45 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 212.219.250.3 |
Hi Juice, I'm not sure you understand what I meant when I mentioned the Dave Clark Five etc. I know there was no Billboard R&B chart in 1964 - I also have the book. What I'm saying is that if the BB R&B chart had continued through '64 the same way that it did in '63 it's damn near certain they'd have been listed. I've done some reseatch on the Billboard R&B charts for 1963 - here's a brief summary of the facts From Jan 5th 1963 to Oct. 26 1963 173 titles entered the chart. Of those 173 no less than 51 were by white acts including The Beach Boys, the Rooftop Singers, Little Peggy March, Ray Stevens, the Village Stompers, Jimmy Gilmer and the Fireballs, the Surfaris, Elvis Presley and so on. The R&B chart was designed to recognize the sales of black rercords that were not making the national Hot 100 (or its predecessors) - now of those 173 titles which charted R&B the grand total of those titles that didn't make the Hot 100 is six (two of which made the Billboard bubbling under chart) Ben E King - Tell Daddy Googie Rene - Flapjacks James Brown - Like A Baby Little Johnny Taylor - You'll Need Another Favor Otis Redding - That's What My Heart Needs Mitty Collier - I'm Your Part Time Love That makes 167 titles out of 173 R&B chart entries which did make the Hot 100. If you ignore the white R&B chart entries that leaves 122 of which 116 were listed on the Hot 100. Is that really non-recognition by the Hot 100 compilers that black records were selling ? And as for that old saw about most R&B records having to have a high R&B chart placing before they crossed over it's one of those things that's been sid so many times it's treated as gospel - I see very little evidence that it was true in the period we're talking about. The Hot 100 was meant to cover ALL records - in '63, 64, 65 the number of black records that charted in the Hot 100 was proportionally far higher than the ratio of R&B releases to all releases would indicate. R&B acts were NOT given short shrift by Billboard's chart compilers - country singers would have far more to complain about. If the black population of the US in '63 was say 20 million as against a total US population of say 200 million - you'd think that proportionately 10% of the Hot 100 would be by black acts ( that's of course assuming that black people only bought records by black acts which is nonsense as is its converse). I might be wrong but I get the impression that you're a bit too young to realise just how special those years were - the charts then were more integrated then than any any other time. Which is exactly as it should be. This is a very involved topic that needs more space than a forum thread. At some time I'll type up all the info. I have and let the forum make up its own mind about whether or not R&B acts were treated fairly or not. A final point - you quite rightly mentioned that smaller labels that didn't have Motown's clout may be underrepresented - that may be but you could say the same thing about hundreds of white labels. Were those labels' records to be excluded from the Hot 100 out of some sort of early "positive discrimination" ? Isn't it interesting that the last R&B chart in Billboard before its suspension was on Nov 23,1963 - the day after an extremely important date in US history ? I wonder if the dropping of the R&B chart was symbolically shutting down the ghetto of the R&B chart and incorporating it into the mainstream. Just a thought. davie | ||
Soul Sister (soul_sister) 6-Zenith Username: soul_sister Post Number: 548 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.43.156.232 |
Bless You; Many artists and industry insiders have plenty of reason to go thru life suspect of others motives. Unless you lived it please don't judge it! Hey Juice; Sup? I haven't been on much just busy taking care of business. I recieved a poinant letter from our friend Moanman which I may post in part but right now I have things I need to attend to first. Take Care, S.S. | ||
roger (roger) 3-Pundit Username: roger Post Number: 65 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 217.35.87.17 |
Hello Everyone. I just thought that I'd point out that the next edition of JOEL WHITBURN's Record Research "Billboard R&B Chart" book is going to "fill in" the missing year by including the CashBox placings for November 1963 to January 1965. Heres a link to their site so you can see for yourselves. http://www.recordresearch.com/ I personally will find it very interesting to see what effect this will have on the book's listings for that period. Roger | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 913 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Davie!! Thanks for your response! That was a most excellent & informative response & I appreciate you taking the time to respond as you did. As I was born in 1960, my knowledge of the early 60s is based on my memories (which are quite vivid) of those days. Naturally, I didn't get into things such as charts until 1988 or so, when I bought my first Billboard R&B book. I do realise that the 60s was far more open minded chartwise. I feel that the charts were definitely more far diverse than say the 70s & 80s. In short, Davie, you've given me food for thought & I appreciate your words. Trust me, I don't think that I know everything & your words have given me cause to pause. Thanks for your point of view. Juice | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 948 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hey there Soul Sister!!! Listen, don't worry about what that person had to say. I believe that everyone has a right to an opinion, even them. Even if all that they try to do is incite trouble, I feel that they have the perfect right to do so. I find that unless they're talking girl groups, they usually have nothing of any consequence to add to any intelligent discussion anyway. I also find that they have the right to show everyone here what their true agenda is. Honestly, we would be best served by ignoring any of their posts. Their whole thing is about making snide remarks, then leaving the scene of the crime. They just want to spread their Gospel & God forbid if you don't share their rather myopic & slanted view of the world. When we respond to their rubbish, it only adds to their self-importance, which should be nil. We all see through folks like them & that's what's important. I saw a post that they made to Sudi, calling him all kinds of names & he said nothing derogatory or insulting. We have to realize that sometimes we're dealing with folks who appear to have no joy in their lives & no true love in their hearts. Their words & actions reveal their true selves. I'm all for allowing them to show us what type of people they are. Their own words reveal them for who & what they are. However, anyone can be brave or snide, hiding behind a monitor & a keyboard. This is the only place that they can get away with what they do. You know where I'm coming from??? What I find to be the most ironic is the moniker that they've chosen for themselves. It sounds like a contradiction in terms. However, I agree with their moniker 100% As they're so concerned with my well-being, I am concerned about theirs as well. With that in mind, I will say these last words regarding this for now: I truly pray that God, in his infinite wisdom, will bless them indeed! Though I truly dislike them, as in my opinion, they add nothing of value with their sniping. Which by the way, I'm sure they think is witty, profound & quite intelligent. Regardless, May God help them, may He bless them in abundance. May the love of God smile down upon them & help them to learn tolerance, rather than intolerance. Even though I dislike them, I still wish all of God's grace for them. Out of respect to the forum & our moderator, I pulled the "Love" note that I was originally going to post. Somehow, I believe that somewhere down the line, unfortunately, I'll be using it. However, as I can argue without becoming derogatory, it will be all good. Fortunately, Mother raised an intelligent & well spoken man. I have a wonderful vocabulary that I haven't even begun to use as of yet. I can verbally spar with the best of them & don't need four-letter words to accomplish my goal. I never believed for one moment that I would ever dislike anyone here. What's even worse is that I am in the position of disliking someone with a peaceful name such as that! Very strange feeling to say the least. C'est La Vie...... Be cool S.S. I sure will be Remember this S.S.............. Juice...Don't let the smooth taste fool you!!! (Message edited by Juicefree20 on May 19, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 953 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Roger!!! I just wanted to thank you for posting the link. As I was busy responding, I was remiss in not thanking you for posting the link. I appreciate it & I wonder just as you do, how this will affect the listings. It should be interesting!! | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 3-Pundit Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 46 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 212.219.250.1 |
Hi Juice, Thanks for your response - I'm glad you took my post in the spirit in which it was intended. When I've got a bit more time I'll try to post a comparison of R&B/Hot 100 entry dates which You'll find interesting. I used to think the same way as you did based on what I'd read in interviews - it's only when you examine the actual dates that you find that this "history" is little more than an urban myth. Well, at least as far as the sixties are concerned, for the fifties it's a different matter. Davie | ||
Soul Sister (soul_sister) 6-Zenith Username: soul_sister Post Number: 569 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.43.156.232 |
Hey Juiceman; LMAO!!!!!!! You got that right! I hear you brotherman! Well put, roll on. I feel the need to protect those who are being bashed undeservedly, just my nature Juice. Your advice is wise my friend, I'll follow your lead. AMEN, S.S. | ||
bigdaddyg2k4 (bigdaddyg2k4) 3-Pundit Username: bigdaddyg2k4 Post Number: 33 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 206.157.27.194 |
This is why I LOVE sdf so much! So many music experts and trivia buffs under one roof! Amazing! I am interested in reading Billboard chart positions from the 70s, and I need to get an updated version of Joel Whitburn's Billboard books, since I possess a 1996 edition of it; just to expand my collection and my knowledge of course. I have a question though: what is bubbling under? | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 958 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
What's up Big Daddy!! Off the top of my head, those are the songs that didn't quite make the Hot 100 chart. Many songs didn't make the Hot 100. They were always a few positions below. There have been situations where these songs charted eventually, but, usually not for very long. | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 3-Pundit Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 51 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 212.219.250.2 |
Hi Bigdaddy, "Bubbling under" charts were published in Billboard to draw attention to records that were picking up sales but hadn't yet made it to the Hot 100. It was probably intended as a hint to record stores that they should get in stocks of those singles as they were likely to hit the Hot 100 in the next few weeks. The number of entries in the charts varied over the years - in the early sixties it increased from 10 placings to 20 to, if I remember rightly a peak of 35 placings around 1966. Joel Whitburn did publish a book listing all the bubbling under chart entries but that was about fifteen years ago. I didn't notice it on his website (see the link posted by Roger) so it's probably out of print. I don't have the book with me at this moment but I could dig it out and give you some more details. davie | ||
Heikki (heikki) 3-Pundit Username: heikki Post Number: 61 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.17.193.223 |
Hi! I have a bubbling under 1959-1985. Is there one after that? Best regards Heikki | ||
Rodmann (rodmann) 4-Laureate Username: rodmann Post Number: 157 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 12.223.169.197 |
I'm very thankful for Billboard's R&B chart! As a Soul fan I've always paid a lot more attention to the R&B/Soul charts then I have the Top 100. Until the very recent popularity of "Hip-Slop" the TRUE popular Black Music wasn't always represented on the Hot 100 charts. The so-called R&B that made the Pop charts prior to the new millennium wasn't necessarily the music that the predominately Black R&B fans were listening to here in the states. The "crossover" hits were those select few songs that happened to appeal to the Pop crowd. THANK GOD FOR THE R&B CHART! If it wasn't for the R&B/Soul charts artists like Howard Tate, Linda Jones, Mtume, The Gap Band and countless others would have almost no chart recognition. | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 3-Pundit Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 68 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 212.219.250.4 |
Heikki, the copy I have says it's the second edition - I've yet to see a copy of the first edition. The cover of mine has a light blue background to a lot of label scans and repros. of picture sleeves for singles by Elvis Presley and Frankie Avalon - is that the same as yours ? Davie | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 3-Pundit Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 69 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 212.219.250.4 |
I've just been analyzing the Billboard R&B charts for 1965. I checked for records that entered the chart between Feb 6th 1965 and Dec 1965 inclusive. Number of chart entries - 211 Number of chart entries by white artists - 10 Number of R&B chart entries that didn't hit the Hot 100 - 41 (27 of those did appear on the Bubbling Under lists) Total number of R&B chart entries that also made the Hot 100 = 170 You've also got to bear in mind that for the 41 R&B chart entries that didn't make the Hot 100 there are many records which made the Hot 100 but didn't manage to make the R&B top 40. It'll take a good bit more research to find out exactly how many but I'd guess it's at least 40 - I've identified 10 already and that's only covering (alphabetically) artists up to "D" who had records which went on to the Hot 100 after first appearing on the Bubbling under chart. There were on average, 12 new entries on the Hot 100 each week - I think we have enough information to conclude that black artists were averaging 4 out of those 12 entries. Now we all we have favourite records that we feel should have charted higher than they did - and records that charted that make you despair. Bear in mind that for every record that you think should have been on the chart you'd have to remove somebody else's favourite. We can only go by the data that exists and put to one side personal tastes - as I concluded in my summary of the 1963 charts black acts were not under-represented in the Hot 100 and the same applies to 1965 when even more black records made the pop charts. Davie | ||
Heikki (heikki) 3-Pundit Username: heikki Post Number: 63 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.17.193.223 |
Hi Davie! The very same one, Heikki | ||
Heikki (heikki) 3-Pundit Username: heikki Post Number: 64 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.17.193.223 |
Hi Davie, still, that's a very good analysis. It's been almost like a "gospel truth" that Billboard chose the policy to discontinue publishing r&b charts, because in '63 r&b and pop became almost identical in their weekly follow-up. Best regards Heikki | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 999 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 56.0.96.18 |
Heikki, I hqave the same "Bubbling" book as you. If I'm correct, Joel updated it. If you go to Record Research, you'll be able to get more info about an update. They used to send me their brochures. If I remember correctly, they expanded it & gave more artist info. | ||
Heikki (heikki) 3-Pundit Username: heikki Post Number: 65 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.17.193.223 |
Thank you, Juicefree20, I'll do that research. You know, they are expensive ones (smile). Heikki | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 1008 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Heikki, My wallet has felt the pain of loss after buying those books. However, I love them. I think that their latest is a Disco/Dance chart book. I must get that as well! |
