Posted September 5, 200816 yr would the top 500 of all-time they used to publish based on chart weeks, be irrelevant these days due to the slown-down nature of the chart due to downloads, meaning tons of songs spending ages on the chart?. I think they would probably move away from using a top 75, and only count weeks on the top 40 or top 20 for ranking purposes from 2007's charts onwards, or maybe move away from using the ranking altogether.
September 5, 200816 yr The Top 500 of All Time, IIRC, was for the acts, not the songs. It also used albums from 2004's edition onwards.
September 5, 200816 yr would the top 500 of all-time they used to publish based on chart weeks, be irrelevant these days due to the slown-down nature of the chart due to downloads, meaning tons of songs spending ages on the chart?. I think they would probably move away from using a top 75, and only count weeks on the top 40 or top 20 for ranking purposes from 2007's charts onwards, or maybe move away from using the ranking altogether. If they were do do that, then *I* would move away from buying it! Just look how slow the charts were in the mid 50's, after all.
September 6, 200816 yr Author The Top 500 of All Time, IIRC, was for the acts, not the songs. It also used albums from 2004's edition onwards. Yeah it was :), I made a top 500 of all time myself for 1952-2006, as there was no book in 2007 either. It's in the chart reference library somewhere :).
September 6, 200816 yr Author If they were do do that, then *I* would move away from buying it! Just look how slow the charts were in the mid 50's, after all. I think the size of the chart did kinda make up for it tho, therefore not having tons of 25 weekers.
Create an account or sign in to comment