A question about "It Takes Two."

[mowest]

When you compare how high a record went on the Billboard and Cashbox pop charts, they're usually somewhat close together. Not in the case of Marvin & Kim's "It Takes Two." Billboard: #14 [[12 weeks), Cashbox #43 [[11 weeks). I know that each magazine had its own criteria for charting but this is crazy. Can anyone explain this huge difference? Thanks.

[daviddesper]

I don't know but I am sure that would be an interesting study for a lot of songs.

[carole cucumber]

i don't know either, but it is interesting to note that it was the top debut on January 21, 1967 at #52. That was also the only week that it was given a red square [[strong upward movement)
The following week's top debut was "Love Is Here And Now You're Gone at #38.

[motony]

I didn't know that. Usually Cash Box was pretty close to Billboard. I only got Billboard.

[reese]

I thought Cashbox was sales only while Billboard was sales and airplay. Even so, that is a wide-gap.

[marybrewster]

For fun:

[mowest]

For fun:

Cute promo!

[westgrandboulevard]

Yes, it certainly is....and they sound much better here than on the re-recording which was actually released.

Didn't Frankie look so like Marvin......

[luke]

That is a big descrpancy and unusual for a hit record. Billboard and cash box were typically not that far apart with a top 15 record for one magazine

[westgrandboulevard]

What would have most authoritatively defined a record as being a national No. 1 hit in the US?

A No. 1 place on Billboard, the same on Cashbox, or both?

Over here in the UK, I always assumed Billboard......

[reese]

What would have most authoritatively defined a record as being a national No. 1 hit in the US?

A No. 1 place on Billboard, the same on Cashbox, or both?

Over here in the UK, I always assumed Billboard......

I think most consider the Billboard charts to be definitive. Quite often, when writers quote chart positions, they use those from Billboard.

[westgrandboulevard]

I believe that's one reason why I've always thought of Billboard as being the premier American chart.

Over here in the UK, I have a somewhat blurred memory of there being at least two national charts at one time...and then, at some point, the system was changed for reporting sales, from obtaining sales from just a selection of record shops, to all record shops submitting their sales, which then gave [[so it was said) a far more accurate result.

I have it in my mind that there was, for a week or two, quite a discrepancy between The Marvelettes' "When You're Young And In Love' when it hit the top 20 here.

[theboyfromxtown]

I remember in Disc & Music Echo when Stevie's Yester me - got to number one but it didn't hit number one in the BBC chart.

There were also the NME and Melody Maker charts which many respected

[westgrandboulevard]

Ah, yes....I remember now, I used to get both the Record Mirror and Disc & Music Echo every week [[occasionally NME, but more so in the earlier days. Melody Maker was more formal).

The American Top 50 [[or, 100? - and now I'm unsure if it was Cashbox, or Billboard) was in Record Mirror, as well as the UK Top 50, with the 'bubbling under' singles....and had, I thought, the best articles about what was happening in the US, especially with Tamla Motown artists.

D&ME had good reviews of TM records released in UK, and good articles about TM artists visiting UK, or were in the charts.

"When You're Young And In Love" went higher in either RM or D&ME - can't remember which!

[keith_hughes]

Record Mirror was owned by the Billboard Group, so doubtless its US charts would have been Billboard's.

This seems a good opportunity to mention the recent passing of Peter Jones, editor of RM during the mid 1960s. Here's a quote from his Billboard obituary:

"Jones was also an early champion of the Tamla Motown sound long before it took off in the U.K. John Schroeder, who secured the British rights to early Motown releases before the label launched in its own right, later remembered: “I had one ally, Peter Jones at Record Mirror. [He was] the only one who supported the Motown material.”"

The full obit is at http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...-billboard-and . Jones is also noteworthy for having written [[under different pen names) the first biographies of both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

[luke]

And don't forget Recird World in the States. I always sensed that Billboard was the "safe" publication. ..like WABC. Chart positions much more predictable.

[soulwally]

Record Mirror was owned by the Billboard Group, so doubtless its US charts would have been Billboard's.

This seems a good opportunity to mention the recent passing of Peter Jones, editor of RM during the mid 1960s. Here's a quote from his Billboard obituary:

"Jones was also an early champion of the Tamla Motown sound long before it took off in the U.K. John Schroeder, who secured the British rights to early Motown releases before the label launched in its own right, later remembered: “I had one ally, Peter Jones at Record Mirror. [He was] the only one who supported the Motown material.”"

The full obit is at http://www.billboard.com/articles/bu...-billboard-and . Jones is also noteworthy for having written [[under different pen names) the first biographies of both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

I saw Jones had died. I used to get Record Mirror back in the 60s when Norman Jopling was a staffer and a big champion of soul music.

[roger]

I remember in Disc & Music Echo when Stevie's Yester me - got to number one but it didn't hit number one in the BBC chart.

There were also the NME and Melody Maker charts which many respected

I'm pretty certain that "I Want You Back" by The J5 made #1 on The NME Chart, though it only got to #2 on the "official" chart that is always quoted by music historians.

If I recall correctly the BBC produced their "official" chart at that time by averaging out the positions in the top music publications, such as The NME, Record Mirror, Disc & ME, Melody Maker and Sounds.

Roger