<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books - Idolator Comments]]></title>
		
	    	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:48:55 EST</lastBuildDate>
	    	<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:48:55 EST</pubDate>
		<link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books</link>
		<description></description>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3990456</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#c3978941">natepatrin</a>: btw, the '97 <i>Raw Power</i> isn't a remaster. it's a complete remix. (and I prefer it to the '73 mix.)</p> <p><a href="http://m-matos.blogspot.com">Michaelangelo Matos</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michaelangelo Matos]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3990456</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:48:55 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3989690</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>hee hee LET'S DO IT</p> <p><a href="http://m-matos.blogspot.com">Michaelangelo Matos</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michaelangelo Matos]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3989690</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:04:48 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3989572</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#c3989252">Matos</a>: Clearly what we need right now are pop chart Sabermetrics. For instance, each single could have a VORS rating (Value Over Replacement Song) that could determine, through careful analysis and comparison to the mean of record sales, what being #1 means in 2008 compared to 1991 or 1966 or 1958.</p>
<p>And then older rock critics can call us nerds who spend too much time playing with calculators.</p> <p>natepatrin</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[natepatrin]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3989572</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:58:08 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3989381</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>In fact, what you're suggesting is something like a Total Average for pop-chart gathering. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_average">[en.wikipedia.org]</a></p> <p><a href="http://m-matos.blogspot.com">Michaelangelo Matos</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michaelangelo Matos]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3989381</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:50:08 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3989252</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#c3988522">dennisobell</a>: that's why I thought you'd appreciate my suggestion that pop chart histories contain Maris-esque asterisks. I wonder how exactly they could work, though.</p> <p><a href="http://m-matos.blogspot.com">Michaelangelo Matos</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michaelangelo Matos]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3989252</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:43:12 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3988522</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>Nice column. And yes, I thought that before you namechecked me appreciatively.</p>
<p>I am a longtime Fred Bronson fan (like you, <i>Billboard Book of Number One Hits</i> changed my life), but I gotta say, I avoid his <i>Hottest</i>... books in general on principle. There's too much to nitpick: he's come up with his own points system, and that's totally fair and fine, but there's nothing official or <i>Billboard</i>-sanctioned or (this is the important part) data-driven about it. The problem with lists compiled by him or by Record Research founder Joel Whitburn is, they're based entirely on chart position. Which is fine as far as it goes, but as we're all learning in this era of, for example, No. 1 albums that sell 60,000 copies, chart position tells you little about the relative strength of a record.</p>
<p>I mean, put it this way: one time, <i>The Wall Street Journal</i> did an article revealing the formula behind the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It's <i>incredibly</i> complicated (way more involved than just taking 30 stock prices and totaling/averaging them), but it's an appropriate complexity, because it takes into account the myriad ways New York Stock Exchange rules have evolved since the 1920s and some of the wrinkles related to the particular stocks they've added and removed over the years.</p>
<p>A true version of what Fred's trying to do in <i>Hottest</i>... would be that complex: first, start with the actual point totals of sales and airplay that put a record on top in any given week; then incorporate various multipliers to give a fair shake to records that charted when rules were different (when B-sides were allowed/disallowed; when airplay-only songs were permitted); then throw in a formulation for how to weight pre-SoundScan/BDS records; etc., etc., etc. I know: impossible, right? Which is why I think it shouldn't be done.</p>
<p>I dunno, I don't mean to suck the fun out of such an enterprise, but when I see a list like the one Fred updates every five years that shows all these post-'92 records trumping the previous 40 years of hits, it just screams "bad methodology" to me.</p> <p><a href="http://chris.molanphy.com/pop">Chris Molanphy</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Molanphy]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3988522</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:14:31 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3981765</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, out at a movie last night I realized I really should have picked out his jab at "acoustic-guit-strumming shoegazer band[s]." Sort of like those xylophone-playing hip-hop DJs.</p> <p><a href="http://m-matos.blogspot.com">Michaelangelo Matos</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michaelangelo Matos]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3981765</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:38:25 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3978941</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>That's Bowie bit in Tim Warren's list is possibly one of the least insane things he says -- a lot of people think the original Bowie mix of <i>Raw Power</i> "neutered" the impact of the record, and I suppose the '97 remaster's preferable if you think "Gimme Danger" didn't work with a fadeout and wasn't noisy enough. (I don't.)</p>
<p>As for the rest of the stuff in his list, I thought people stopped being that rage-filled and petulant about music (and stopped using more than two exclamation points in a row) when they left high school.</p> <p>natepatrin</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[natepatrin]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3978941</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:59:12 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3978015</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<P>I totally need to buy the Billboard book before my next vacation.</P> <p>Al Shipley</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Al Shipley]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3978015</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:25:21 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3976692</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>That Patti Smith clip just realigned my universe a little bit.</p> <p>Chris N.</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris N.]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3976692</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:33:01 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Project X Takes Two For The Books]]></title>
		    <link>http://idolator.com/351020/project-x-takes-two-for-the-books#c3976427</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p><i>The Book of Lists</i>, such a treasure.  (The copy at my grandparents' place had one whole section scissored out, though -- and later I found out that was the sex section.)</p> <p><a href="http://www.myspace.com/nedraggett">Ned Raggett</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned Raggett]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false">33:351020:c3976427</guid>
		    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:20:42 EST</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>