On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:58:55 -0700 (PDT), "Dean F."
<
soulexpress@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:38:39?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
I thought Whitburn methodically analyzed Billboard charts to come
up with his ratings.
Hardly! He'd list every #1 hit, followed by every #2 hit, etc. Whitburn would rank a song that spent, say five weeks peaked at #2 lower than a song that spent only a single week at #1. He also did not take into consideration that a song might carry over
into the next year. As a result, Whitburn ranked "Physical" as the #1 song of 1981, even though it stayed at #1 through February 1982. He also put Foreigner's "Waiting For a Girl Like You" in 1981, even though it spent 10 weeks peaked at #2 and did not
drop from its peak until February 1982 (not unlike "Physical").
The chart I posted might actually be from the "Whitburn Project"
spreadsheet, with updated artist-song lists by year being posted to
Usenet binaries over the years. I'm led to believe that this
independent project did not necessarily repeat Whitburn's published
lists precisely.
On what basis is your RYM list a better guide to 1982 hits?
I came up with a point system based on a song's chart peak and longevity. A #1 hit got 100 points plus 10 additional points for each week it spent at #1 and one point for each week it spent on the charts. A #2 hit got 99 points, plus five points for
each week it spent at #2 and one point for each week it was on the charts. A #3 hit got 98 points, and so forth.
With my point system, three of the top ten hits of 1982 did not reach #1 on the weekly charts. Whitburn would never have done that. I believe that my system more accurately ranks these songs than his did.
I hope my explanation made sense to you.
#1 - 10 additional points for each week it spent at #1
#2 - 5 points for each week it spent at #2
I can't figure out "and so forth":
#3 - ? points for each week it spent at #3
#4 - ? points for each week it spent at #4
#5 - ? points for each week it spent at #5
...
To clarify, if a #1 hit dropped to, or had risen from, #2, would it
get 5 points for each week at #2?
As a matter of interest can you recall the *lowest highest* ranking
that any record in the top 200 for a year reached - for instance,
record ranked #198 for a year only reached *#6* before dropping, and
all other top 200 records reached between #6 and #1?
This is another top 100 for 1982 which the poster claims is the
Billboard year-end Top Singles chart ("Physical" is #1) which
is based on retail sales for the whole year. A problem is that
these lists never had more than 100 entries.
https://longboredsurfer.com/charts/1982
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)