Discussion:
THE SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES
(too old to reply)
Roger Ford
2011-01-21 12:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Coming February 1 2011.................

THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!

That will pit the top 40 top ranked singles from each year covered by
the Singles Battles series 1948 thru 1963 inclusive against each other


http://MarcDashevsky.com/battle

We've discussed the set up before (check Google archives for the
thread from last year "Tournament Of Champions") but before the Battle
begins I want to set out in full exactly how it will operate. Anyone
with any questions, problems or suggestions on any of this please post
your comments to this thread,thanks.

1. To be included in the Battle Of Battles each record MUST appear in
the Top 40 of its relevant year as tabulated in the rankings compiled
and published by Rick Schubert on the Singles Battle website

http://MarcDashevsky.com/battle

Go to the HISTORY section to see full listings

2. The top 24 singles of each year will all get a shoo in to ROUND ONE
of the Battle which will contain 512 entries (the round will be split
into 2 parts as in previous contests)

3. The remaining 16 titles from each year will ALL be required to
fight a Preliminary Round (16 years X 16 titles = 256 entries). All
winners in this round progress to ROUND ONE

4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes impossible
to maintain

5. From the Preliminary Round onwards NO artist or act will be pitted
against themselves. This process will stay in force until and unless
it becomes impossible to maintain

6. From the Preliminary Round onwards NO song or number will be
pitted against another version of the SAME song or number (e.g Wynonie
Harris' "Good Rockin' Tonight" won't meet Elvis' version of the same
song UNLESS the next sentence applies) ,This process will stay in
force until and unless it becomes impossible to maintain

7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles

8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th

9. Voting will be limited to those voters ALREADY holding valid
contest ID.

10. All matchups in all rounds will be done randomly (by random number
generator)

Now,perhaps the most important point.....obviously because of the
overall HUGELY HIGH standard of material contained it will be
appreciated that from the word go---even in the Preliminary Round---
there will almost certainly be MULTIPLE cases where two VERY
significant,VERY important---and most tellingly,VERY FAVORITE singles
find themselves matched against each other.

PLEASE accept that this is the way these things happen in random
matches.

I think that covers about everything but all questions,comments and
suggestions etc are welcomed.

Don't forget THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES will start
Tuesday February 1 2011

Don't be late :)

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
DianeE
2011-01-21 13:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information: is there a difference between a
"draw" and a "tie?" Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a day?
I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have the time
or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather and job
demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't, but I wish
you could.

DianeE
Roger Ford
2011-01-21 13:33:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:09:05 -0500, "DianeE"
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information: is there a difference between a
"draw" and a "tie?" Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
No they mean the same it's just that in this country people commonly
use both words. Sorry I forgot for a moment I was dealing here with
Americans..............:-)
Post by Roger Ford
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a day?
I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have the time
or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather and job
demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't, but I wish
you could.
The only reason in previous contests that some early rounds went OVER
four days was because of the huge amount of "snippets" that were
posted. But surely in this contest these are not neccessary?

But let's see what others make of your comments here

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Rick Schubert
2011-01-21 20:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:09:05 -0500, "DianeE"
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a day?
I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have the time
or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather and job
demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't, but I wish
you could.
The only reason in previous contests that some early rounds went OVER
four days was because of the huge amount of "snippets" that were
posted. But surely in this contest these are not neccessary?
But let's see what others make of your comments here
I agree with Diane. There always seems to be a lot of pressure to complete the
early rounds. Since the Battle Of Battles is an especially meaningful one, it
would be nice to get as much participation as possible from our entrants.
Also, since you won't be posting snippets, it may take people extra time to
locate old snippets or other sources to listen to some of the songs. Even
though these songs are the top 40 of each year, it still is helpful (and also,
enjoyable) at times to listen to the 2 songs in a battle to decide which one to
vote for (particularly for the older songs). I don't see any downside in
giving extra time other than delaying the final results a few days.



-- Rick Schubert <***@san.rr.com>
Steve Mc
2011-01-22 01:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by Roger Ford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:09:05 -0500, "DianeE"
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a day?
I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have the time
or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather and job
demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't, but I wish
you could.
The only reason in previous contests that some early rounds went OVER
four days was because of the huge amount of "snippets" that were
posted. But surely in this contest these are not neccessary?
But let's see what others make of your comments here
I agree with Diane. There always seems to be a lot of pressure to complete the
early rounds. Since the Battle Of Battles is an especially meaningful one, it
would be nice to get as much participation as possible from our entrants.
Also, since you won't be posting snippets, it may take people extra time to
locate old snippets or other sources to listen to some of the songs. Even
though these songs are the top 40 of each year, it still is helpful (and also,
enjoyable) at times to listen to the 2 songs in a battle to decide which one to
vote for (particularly for the older songs). I don't see any downside in
giving extra time other than delaying the final results a few days.
Mee too.
--
Steve Mc

DNA to SBC to respond
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 13:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by Roger Ford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:09:05 -0500, "DianeE"
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a day?
I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have the time
or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather and job
demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't, but I wish
you could.
The only reason in previous contests that some early rounds went OVER
four days was because of the huge amount of "snippets" that were
posted. But surely in this contest these are not neccessary?
But let's see what others make of your comments here
I agree with Diane. There always seems to be a lot of pressure to complete the
early rounds. Since the Battle Of Battles is an especially meaningful one, it
would be nice to get as much participation as possible from our entrants.
Also, since you won't be posting snippets, it may take people extra time to
locate old snippets or other sources to listen to some of the songs.
I hadn't thought it neccessary to post snippets in this contest but I
still have most of the ones used in the previous Battles on my PC so
if people think otherwise I'm open to being persuaded to post at least
the rarer and lesser known titles in the opening rounds

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Mark Dintenfass
2011-01-22 14:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by Roger Ford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:09:05 -0500, "DianeE"
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a day?
I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have the time
or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather and job
demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't, but I wish
you could.
The only reason in previous contests that some early rounds went OVER
four days was because of the huge amount of "snippets" that were
posted. But surely in this contest these are not neccessary?
But let's see what others make of your comments here
I agree with Diane. There always seems to be a lot of pressure to complete the
early rounds. Since the Battle Of Battles is an especially meaningful one, it
would be nice to get as much participation as possible from our entrants.
Also, since you won't be posting snippets, it may take people extra time to
locate old snippets or other sources to listen to some of the songs.
I hadn't thought it neccessary to post snippets in this contest but I
still have most of the ones used in the previous Battles on my PC so
if people think otherwise I'm open to being persuaded to post at least
the rarer and lesser known titles in the opening rounds
I doubt there'll be many I would need, but your snippets are a handy
memory-jogging aid and I'd be glad to have them for the lesser known
titles.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Roger Ford
2011-01-29 12:53:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:00:48 -0600, Mark Dintenfass
Post by Mark Dintenfass
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by Roger Ford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:09:05 -0500, "DianeE"
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a day?
I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have the time
or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather and job
demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't, but I wish
you could.
The only reason in previous contests that some early rounds went OVER
four days was because of the huge amount of "snippets" that were
posted. But surely in this contest these are not neccessary?
But let's see what others make of your comments here
I agree with Diane. There always seems to be a lot of pressure to complete the
early rounds. Since the Battle Of Battles is an especially meaningful one, it
would be nice to get as much participation as possible from our entrants.
Also, since you won't be posting snippets, it may take people extra time to
locate old snippets or other sources to listen to some of the songs.
I hadn't thought it neccessary to post snippets in this contest but I
still have most of the ones used in the previous Battles on my PC so
if people think otherwise I'm open to being persuaded to post at least
the rarer and lesser known titles in the opening rounds
I doubt there'll be many I would need, but your snippets are a handy
memory-jogging aid and I'd be glad to have them for the lesser known
titles.
I thought I still had most of the snippets from the contests but I
find this is not the case. Full versions of practically everything in
the contest are available on YouTube and other sources so it will may
be easier and less time consuming to just post pointers to them (tho
all anyone has to do is go to Google and type the artist and title in
and the relevant audio segment usually comes up)


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Mark Dintenfass
2011-01-29 13:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:00:48 -0600, Mark Dintenfass
Post by Mark Dintenfass
Post by Roger Ford
I hadn't thought it neccessary to post snippets in this contest but I
still have most of the ones used in the previous Battles on my PC so
if people think otherwise I'm open to being persuaded to post at least
the rarer and lesser known titles in the opening rounds
I doubt there'll be many I would need, but your snippets are a handy
memory-jogging aid and I'd be glad to have them for the lesser known
titles.
I thought I still had most of the snippets from the contests but I
find this is not the case. Full versions of practically everything in
the contest are available on YouTube and other sources so it will may
be easier and less time consuming to just post pointers to them (tho
all anyone has to do is go to Google and type the artist and title in
and the relevant audio segment usually comes up)
Not a problem, and you don't have to bother with pointers, either,
AKAIC.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
F R
2011-01-23 03:16:05 UTC
Permalink
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".

Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.

In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".

Enjoy!!!

Frank
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-23 03:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat  kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
F R
2011-01-23 03:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Bruce>
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
-------------------------
I agree about 70% with you, Bruce. The so called plots were too full of
chance meetings, coincidences and unlikely scenarios, but I did enjoy
the imaginative circumstances they based it on, although many were
highly unrealistic.
Mark Dintenfass
2011-01-23 04:06:50 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat  kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
A minority opinion, certainly.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-23 04:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat  kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
A minority opinion, certainly.
Yes, sorta like the one that says that Elvis Costello is better than
Elvis Presley.

Every regular character on "Seinfeld" is a crazy selfish neurotic
asshole. That doesn't work for me. You need one character like that
(Larry David on Curb, Louie on Taxi,) surrounded by other normal
people for it to work IMO. The characters and the situations on
"Seinfeld" are not at all believable.....as opposed to the
Honeymooners and other shows where everyday situations that occurred
in 1955 still relate today.
Roger Ford
2011-01-23 06:06:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:42:31 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat =A0kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
A minority opinion, certainly.
Yes, sorta like the one that says that Elvis Costello is better than
Elvis Presley.
Every regular character on "Seinfeld" is a crazy selfish neurotic
asshole. That doesn't work for me. You need one character like that
(Larry David on Curb, Louie on Taxi,) surrounded by other normal
people for it to work IMO. The characters and the situations on
"Seinfeld" are not at all believable.....as opposed to the
Honeymooners and other shows where everyday situations that occurred
in 1955 still relate today.
Amazingly for such a popular US TV show "The Honeymooners" never
screened here at the time but I've since seen episodes on satellite
channels and I never understood what all the fuss was about :-(

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-23 06:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:42:31 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat =A0kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
A minority opinion, certainly.
Yes, sorta like the one that says that Elvis Costello is better than
Elvis Presley.
Every regular character on "Seinfeld" is a crazy selfish neurotic
asshole. That doesn't work for me. You need one character like that
(Larry David on Curb, Louie on Taxi,) surrounded by other normal
people for it to work IMO. The characters and the situations on
"Seinfeld" are not at all believable.....as opposed to the
Honeymooners and other shows where everyday situations that occurred
in 1955 still relate today.
Amazingly for such a popular US TV show "The Honeymooners" never
screened here at the time but I've since seen episodes on satellite
channels and I never understood what all the fuss was about :-(
Don't know which ones you've seen, but the early ones that were
occasional segments on the Gleason Show are nowhere near as good as
the 39 episodes from the 1955-56 season when it was a half hour
regular show in its own right.

Here's the best episode:


Mark Dintenfass
2011-01-23 14:46:59 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat  kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
A minority opinion, certainly.
Yes, sorta like the one that says that Elvis Costello is better than
Elvis Presley.
Every regular character on "Seinfeld" is a crazy selfish neurotic
asshole. That doesn't work for me. You need one character like that
(Larry David on Curb, Louie on Taxi,) surrounded by other normal
people for it to work IMO. The characters and the situations on
"Seinfeld" are not at all believable.....as opposed to the
Honeymooners and other shows where everyday situations that occurred
in 1955 still relate today.
I see your point, but it's only in the last years of "Seinfeld" that
things went over the top. And the sensibility of both shows is,
obviously, pretty much the same.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Scarlotti
2011-01-24 18:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat  kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
A minority opinion, certainly.
Yes, sorta like the one that says that Elvis Costello is better than
Elvis Presley.
Every regular character on "Seinfeld" is a crazy selfish neurotic
asshole. That doesn't work for me. You need one character like that
(Larry David on Curb, Louie on Taxi,) surrounded by other normal
people for it to work IMO. The characters and the situations on
"Seinfeld" are not at all believable.....as opposed to the
Honeymooners and other shows where everyday situations that occurred
in 1955 still relate today.- Hide quoted text -
The early Seinfelds started out with more human/humane characters.
They grew progressively more cynical, and self-involved, over the
years. I love the levels of craziness that the later shows developed,
while my wife prefers the earlier ones. The early shows also featured
more realistic plots (or non-plots -- they lived up to its concept of
"a show about nothing): searching the parking garage at the Newport
mall for their car (gotta say, I've been-there-done-that myself),
waiting forever to be seated in a Chinese restaurant, etc. In fact,
they were pretty much along the same lines as the classic Honeymooners
episodes.

The Honeymooners, otoh, could get pretty unrealistic as well: Gleason
having a dual role as Ralph and a mafia kingpin... Sheesh!

I'm a longtime fan of The Honeymooners as well, but when it comes to
the laugh meter, Seinfeld is just plain funnier.
Roger Ford
2011-01-23 06:03:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:38:27 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by F R
I'll "fourth" what Dennis, Bruce, and Mark said about "Curb".
Roger, if you like cynical humor with imaginative plot lines, you'll
love this. Off the wall humor from the get go....places where other
sit-coms haven't thought of going.
In case you are not familiar with the lead character, Larry David, he
plays "himself" and does so hilariously. He was the genius behind
"Seinfeld" and the George Costanza character is a somewhat =A0kinder,
gentler interpretation of Larry's devious doings on "Curb".
I love "Curb" but I can't stand "Seinfeld." It's just the dumbest show
with the most preposterously contrived characters that I've ever seen.
I'm with Bruce on "Seinfeld". I watched it a few times but remained
unmoved.

Maybe it helps to be American? :)
ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Sharx35
2011-01-21 13:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information: is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?" Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt. Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control. In the contest is important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT. You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-21 15:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information:  is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?"   Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late.  Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some.  If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt.   Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control.  In the contest is important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT.  You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
And now you can't vote in the "Dogshit" contests either, cock lips.
You've just been permanently expelled for this uncalled for outburst.
DianeE
2011-01-21 21:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information: is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?" Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt. Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control. In the contest is
important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT. You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
And now you can't vote in the "Dogshit" contests either, cock lips.
You've just been permanently expelled for this uncalled for outburst.
---------------
Which I wouldn't have seen if you hadn't reposted it....but it's quite a
work o fart.

DianeE
Dean F.
2011-01-21 21:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
And now you can't vote in the "Dogshit" contests either, cock lips.
You've just been permanently expelled for this uncalled for outburst.
I have an idea: let's all stand on Sharx's lawn!
Len Blanks
2011-01-21 22:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean F.
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
And now you can't vote in the "Dogshit" contests either, cock lips.
You've just been permanently expelled for this uncalled for outburst.
I have an idea: let's all stand on Sharx's lawn!
You would be shot. If Dave doesn't have a firearm, he could call the
police to do it for him. Alberta is the Alabama of Canada.
--
Len

Q: What's an albelian group under addition, is closed, associative,
distributive, and bears a curse?
A: The ring of the Nibelung.
Dean F.
2011-01-22 03:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean F.
I have an idea: let's all stand on Sharx's lawn!
You would be shot.  If Dave doesn't have a firearm, he could call the
police to do it for him.  Alberta is the Alabama of Canada.
A friend in Montreal who's originally from Alberta told me it's like
the Texas of Canada: lots of oil and right-wing assholes.

Suffice it to say, I'll never go there!
Len Blanks
2011-01-22 04:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean F.
Post by Dean F.
I have an idea: let's all stand on Sharx's lawn!
You would be shot.  If Dave doesn't have a firearm, he could call the
police to do it for him.  Alberta is the Alabama of Canada.
A friend in Montreal who's originally from Alberta told me it's like
the Texas of Canada: lots of oil and right-wing assholes.
... and the Calgary Stampede, so your friend is right.
Post by Dean F.
Suffice it to say, I'll never go there!
--
Len

And when the lamb had opened the seventh seal there was silence in
heaven which lasted the space of about half an hour. And I saw the seven
angels who were standing before the throne of God, and to them were
given seven trumpets which they played like Miles in the Blue Note years
Sharx35
2011-01-22 07:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean F.
Post by Len Blanks
Post by Dean F.
I have an idea: let's all stand on Sharx's lawn!
You would be shot. If Dave doesn't have a firearm, he could call the
police to do it for him. Alberta is the Alabama of Canada.
A friend in Montreal who's originally from Alberta told me it's like
the Texas of Canada: lots of oil and right-wing assholes.
Suffice it to say, I'll never go there!
Thank the Deity for small mercies!
Sharx35
2011-01-22 02:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean F.
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
And now you can't vote in the "Dogshit" contests either, cock lips.
You've just been permanently expelled for this uncalled for outburst.
I have an idea: let's all stand on Sharx's lawn!
That would take SOME doing as there's at least FOUR feet of snow on it.
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 06:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information: is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?" Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt. Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control. In the contest is important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT. You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run



ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Sharx35
2011-01-22 07:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Sharx35
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information: is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?" Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt. Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control. In the contest is important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT. You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run
Still giving rim jobs, fuck face?
Dean F.
2011-01-22 08:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run
My atheism notwithstanding, I'm compelled to say: god bless you,
Roger!!!
D***@AOL.com
2011-01-22 13:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Sharx35
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information:  is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?"   Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late.  Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some.  If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt.   Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control.  In the contest is important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT.  You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this
oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to
do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run


Yeah,

Davy seemed to Bullish on channeling Fred Wilhems here.

Not his finest hour.

Dennis C from Tennessee
Sharx35
2011-01-22 22:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Sharx35
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information: is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?" Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late. Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some. If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt. Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control. In the contest is important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT. You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run
Yeah,
Davy seemed to Bullish on channeling Fred Wilhems here.
Not his finest hour.
Oh, the humanity! the humanity! I write in a style appropriate to the
target. AND WILL SO CONTINUE.


























end of bloviation
D***@AOL.com
2011-01-23 00:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Sharx35
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
----------------
Okay, this is just a point of information:  is there a difference between
a "draw" and a "tie?"   Or are you just trying to appeal to both the chess
players and the soccer fans?
----------------
Post by Roger Ford
8. ALL rounds to last 4 days (so if a new round started today--Friday
21 Jan---the closing date would be midnight EST Monday 24th
------------------
Could you please consider extending at least the first few rounds by a
day? I think I missed 2 rounds in the last contest because I didn't have
the time or energy to vote until it was too late.  Between winter weather
and job demands I guess I'm slowing down some.  If you can't you can't,
but I wish you could.
DianeE
What FUCKING, self-centred hubris? What fucking arrogance. YOU think that no
one else in the fucking newsgroup has a JOB as demanding as yours? Fucking
cunt.   Fucking cunts who are fucking Entitlement Queens. EVERYONE in this
world AND FUCKING NEWSGROUP has the same FUCKING 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. If you are fucking procrastinator cunt bitch, deal with it and MOVE
The fuck on to some world that you CAN control.  In the contest is important
to anyone, guaranteed THEY WILL FIND THE FUCKING TIME TO DO IT.  You just
want fucking time to manipulate the results, ensuring that your fucking
ghetto dreck does better. FOAD, bitch and your bitch fucker BRUTHIE. Rest
assured, if I COULD vote, I'd find the time IF it was at all important to
me.
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This charming response---to a woman!----amply illustrates why this oaf
is barred (and will continue so to be as long as I have anything to do
with it) from the Singles Contests and any other similar tournaments
that may be run
Yeah,
Davy seemed to Bullish on channeling Fred Wilhems here.
 Not his finest hour.
Oh, the humanity! the humanity!  I write in a style appropriate to the
target. AND WILL SO CONTINUE.
end of bloviation- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh, the humanity! the humanity! I write in a style appropriate to
the
target. AND WILL SO CONTINUE.


Your style is cliche'd and one dimensional.

Your verbal assault on Diane Muller was NOT appropriate in any way
but I have no doubt that YOU WILL
CONTINUE................................................................fucker!!!




Dennis C from Tennessee
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-22 02:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
I think that covers about everything but all questions,comments and
suggestions etc are welcomed.
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...

A - The won/loss record and vote totals for each year's records in
each round, and for the cumulative contest to date?

B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?

C - How about, if possible, listing the year of each record alongside
the title, artist and label?
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 06:20:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:09:27 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
I think that covers about everything but all questions,comments and
suggestions etc are welcomed.
C - How about, if possible, listing the year of each record alongside
the title, artist and label?
This has already been done for every record in the contest--just as
much for my benefit as for anyone else's. Otherwise I could make a
boob and pit two records from the same year against each other
accidentally

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Rick Schubert
2011-01-22 06:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
I think that covers about everything but all questions,comments and
suggestions etc are welcomed.
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
A - The won/loss record and vote totals for each year's records in
each round, and for the cumulative contest to date?
Yes. I had planned to do this.
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Most likely yes. I haven't checked to see if there are a lot of instances where an artist is
listed multiple ways on different records. Most likely this wouldn't add a lot of work or
complication, but I haven't checked yet.
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
C - How about, if possible, listing the year of each record alongside
the title, artist and label?
It looks like Roger just said he'd do this.

Of course, I'll be more likely to have time to do all this if Roger exends the first several rounds
by a day or so.
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 13:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
I think that covers about everything but all questions,comments and
suggestions etc are welcomed.
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
A - The won/loss record and vote totals for each year's records in
each round, and for the cumulative contest to date?
Yes. I had planned to do this.
Looking forward to this
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Most likely yes. I haven't checked to see if there are a lot of instances where an artist is
listed multiple ways on different records. Most likely this wouldn't add a lot of work or
complication, but I haven't checked yet.
Looking forward to this one too

But I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the artist listed "multiple
ways" on different records?? Do you mean like Buddy Holly with records
as "Buddy Holly" and also as "The Crickets"??

Or is it like when Bill Haley has credited accompaniment by "The
Saddlemen" on one record,"Haley's Comets" on another and simply "His
Comets" on the rest?

Or do you mean something else?
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
C - How about, if possible, listing the year of each record alongside
the title, artist and label?
It looks like Roger just said he'd do this.
Yes I already have. The contestants for the Preliminary Round all now
have the relevant year attached like this -

Peggy Lee - Why Don't You Do Right - Capitol 15118 - 1948

and are ready to be matched.

Same thing will happen to all records in succeeding rounds too
Post by Rick Schubert
Of course, I'll be more likely to have time to do all this if Roger exends the first several rounds
by a day or so.
Over here they put you in jail for blackmail---I bet US law does the
same :)

Seriously,I'm easy on this. Providing nobody raises a serious
objection as to how this might upset the contest in some way I don't
see any problem in extending the voting time on the opening rounds a
little


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Rick Schubert
2011-01-26 01:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Most likely yes. I haven't checked to see if there are a lot of instances where an artist is
listed multiple ways on different records. Most likely this wouldn't add a lot of work or
complication, but I haven't checked yet.
Looking forward to this one too
But I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the artist listed "multiple
ways" on different records?? Do you mean like Buddy Holly with records
as "Buddy Holly" and also as "The Crickets"??
Or is it like when Bill Haley has credited accompaniment by "The
Saddlemen" on one record,"Haley's Comets" on another and simply "His
Comets" on the rest?
Or do you mean something else?
All that and more.

It's fairly easy in Excel (or with other tools) to calculate the won/loss
records when the artist is listed identically on all records. But extra work
is needed to account for even simple differences, such as:

Clyde Mc Phatter
Clyde McPhatter

Dion
Dion & The Belmonts
Dion Di Muci

Elmo James
Elmore James

Etta James
Etta James & The Peaches

Once I set up a general mechanism to group these together, I can use it for
more complicated situations, but I need to know how you want certain situations
handled. I assume you agree with these groupings:

Bill Haley & His Comets
Bill Haley & The Saddlemen
Bill Haley with Haley's Comets

Frankie Lymon & Teenagers
The Teenagers featuring Frankie Lymon

King Cole Trio
Nat "King" Cole

Hank Ballard & The Midnighters
The Midnighters
The Royals

Buddy Holly
The Crickets

Professor Longhair
Roy Byrd

What about this?

Johnny Otis
Johnny Otis Show
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis

Should these be grouped together?

Jesse & Marvin
Jesse Belvin

Johnny Burnette
Johnny Burnette Trio

And how should these be handled?

Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
The Ravens

Jerry Butler
Jerry Butler & The Impressions
The Impressions

Joe Turner
Joe Turner & The Flennoy Trio
Joe Turner & Wynonie Harris
Wynonie Harris

Little Esther
Little Esther & The Robins
The Robins

I'm assuming that The Coasters would be on their own, right?

And all the records by The Drifters grouped together, right?

But Ben E. King by himself, right?

Did I miss any?



-- Rick Schubert <***@san.rr.com>
Roger Ford
2011-01-26 06:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Most likely yes. I haven't checked to see if there are a lot of instances where an artist is
listed multiple ways on different records. Most likely this wouldn't add a lot of work or
complication, but I haven't checked yet.
Looking forward to this one too
But I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the artist listed "multiple
ways" on different records?? Do you mean like Buddy Holly with records
as "Buddy Holly" and also as "The Crickets"??
Or is it like when Bill Haley has credited accompaniment by "The
Saddlemen" on one record,"Haley's Comets" on another and simply "His
Comets" on the rest?
Or do you mean something else?
All that and more.
It's fairly easy in Excel (or with other tools) to calculate the won/loss
records when the artist is listed identically on all records. But extra work
Clyde Mc Phatter
Clyde McPhatter
This was a simple typo that has now been corrected in the list.
Post by Rick Schubert
Dion
Dion & The Belmonts
Dion Di Muci
Elmo James
Elmore James
Etta James
Etta James & The Peaches
Once I set up a general mechanism to group these together, I can use it for
more complicated situations, but I need to know how you want certain situations
Bill Haley & His Comets
Bill Haley & The Saddlemen
Bill Haley with Haley's Comets
Frankie Lymon & Teenagers
The Teenagers featuring Frankie Lymon
King Cole Trio
Nat "King" Cole
Hank Ballard & The Midnighters
The Midnighters
The Royals
Buddy Holly
The Crickets
Professor Longhair
Roy Byrd
Yes I go along with all these
Post by Rick Schubert
What about this?
Johnny Otis
Johnny Otis Show
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
Should these be grouped together?
Can these not be grouped as individual artists? This would mean
duplicating some entries tho of course. Does this skew the other
results?

Like this I mean :-

As JOHNNY OTIS
Post by Rick Schubert
Johnny Otis
Johnny Otis Show
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As MARILYN SCOTT
Post by Rick Schubert
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As JESSE BELVIN
Post by Rick Schubert
Jesse & Marvin
Jesse Belvin
As JOHNNY BURNETTE
Post by Rick Schubert
Johnny Burnette
Johnny Burnette Trio
And how should these be handled?
As BROOK BENTON
Post by Rick Schubert
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
As DINAH WASHINGTON
Post by Rick Schubert
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
As THE RAVENS
Post by Rick Schubert
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
The Ravens
And so on and so on..............
Post by Rick Schubert
I'm assuming that The Coasters would be on their own, right?
I agree
Post by Rick Schubert
And all the records by The Drifters grouped together, right?
Yes both sets of Drifters.
Post by Rick Schubert
But Ben E. King by himself, right?
Yes



ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Rick Schubert
2011-01-26 21:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Can these not be grouped as individual artists? This would mean
duplicating some entries tho of course. Does this skew the other
results?
Like this I mean :-
As JOHNNY OTIS
Post by Roger Ford
Johnny Otis
Johnny Otis Show
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As MARILYN SCOTT
Post by Roger Ford
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As BROOK BENTON
Post by Roger Ford
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
As DINAH WASHINGTON
Post by Roger Ford
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
As THE RAVENS
Post by Roger Ford
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
The Ravens
And so on and so on..............
Sure, I can do that. Using that approach, I've computed how many songs each
artist has in the BATTLE OF BATTLES, and I've also attempted to compute a
"Power Score" for each. I did this by assigning a Power Score to each of the
640 songs and then adding up these scores for each artist. I briefly played
around with a few ways of assigning a Power Scores but settled on giving 1
point for each round that the song won in its Yearly Battle (I decided to give
half a point for winning the Consolation Finals so that first place got 9
points, second 8 points, third 7.5 points, fourth 7 points, fifth-eighth 6
points, etc.). I know that this is not close to ideal -- in particular, it
gives the same weight to each year, and I think most of us believe that, for
example, the #16 song from 1948 would be expected to do as well in this contest
as the #16 song from 1956.

Anyway, the following is a list of all the artists who have at least 2 songs in
the BATTLE OF BATTLES, sorted by their Power Score.

PScore #Songs Artist

130 23 Hank Williams
120 26 Fats Domino
95 18 The Drifters
94 17 Chuck Berry
72 15 Elvis Presley
63 13 Wynonie Harris
56 11 Ray Charles
54 11 Joe Turner
51 9 Little Richard
45 10 The Clovers
38 8 The Orioles
37 7 Dion
36 7 Buddy Holly
33 8 Muddy Waters
32 7 The Coasters
32 7 Bo Diddley
32 6 The Dominoes
29 6 Roy Orbison
29 6 Nat "King" Cole
29 6 Sam Cooke
28 6 The Midnighters
28 6 Amos Milburn
27 7 Smiley Lewis
25 6 The Everly Brothers
24 5 Bill Haley
23 7 The Robins
23 6 Dinah Washington
22 5 Roy Brown
22 5 The Crystals
22 5 The Beatles
22 5 Louis Jordan
20 5 Jackie Wilson
20 4 The Five Keys
19 4 Professor Longhair
19 4 Jerry Lee Lewis
17 4 Bobby Darin
16 4 The Platters
16 3 Bobby Bland
16 3 Lloyd Price
16 3 The Impressions
15 4 Sonny Boy Williamson
15 4 Johnny Burnette
15 3 Ben E. King
15 3 The Shirelles
14 3 Ruth Brown
14 3 John Lee Hooker
14 3 Eddie Cochran
14 3 The Miracles
14 3 Carl Perkins
14 2 U.S Bonds
14 2 The Dell-Vikings
13 3 Ivory Joe Hunter
13 3 Johnny Cash
13 3 Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup
13 3 Johnny Ace
13 2 The Isley Brothers
13 2 The Falcons
12 3 The Four Seasons
12 3 The Spiders
12 3 The Five Royales
12 2 Del Shannon
12 2 The Penguins
12 2 Jerry Butler
11 3 Johnny Otis
11 3 Little Esther
11 3 Patsy Cline
11 2 The Flamingos
11 2 The Cadillacs
11 2 The Five Satins
11 2 The Ronettes
11 2 Jackie Brenston & His Delta Cats
10 3 Shirley & Lee
10 3 Gene Pitney
10 2 Elmore James
10 2 The Chiffons
10 2 Tampa Red
10 2 Les Paul & Mary Ford
10 2 Wild Bill Moore
10 2 The Swallows
10 2 Clyde McPhatter
10 2 Little Willie Littlefield
9 2 The Moonglows
9 2 Huey "Piano" Smith
9 2 The Harptones
9 2 Brook Benton
9 2 Mary Wells
9 2 Little Junior's Blue Flames
9 2 Little Willie John
9 2 Etta James
9 2 Jesse Belvin
9 2 Frankie Lymon & Teenagers
9 2 Dean Martin
8 2 Tennessee Ernie Ford
8 2 Marvin Gaye
8 2 Charles Brown
8 2 LaVern Baker
8 2 Tommy Edwards
8 2 The Beach Boys
8 2 The Cleftones
8 2 The Olympics
7 2 Gene Vincent
7 2 The Ravens
7 2 Bull Moose Jackson
7 2 Ricky Nelson
7 2 Brenda Lee
7 2 Bobby Mitchell & The Toppers



-- Rick Schubert <***@san.rr.com>
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-26 21:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Can these not be grouped as individual artists? This would mean
duplicating some entries tho of course. Does this skew the other
results?
Like this I mean :-
As JOHNNY OTIS
       Johnny Otis
       Johnny Otis Show
       Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As MARILYN SCOTT
       Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As BROOK BENTON
       Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
As DINAH WASHINGTON
       Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
       Dinah Washington
       Dinah Washington & The Ravens
As THE RAVENS
       Dinah Washington & The Ravens
       The Ravens
And so on and so on..............
Sure, I can do that.  Using that approach, I've computed how many songs each
artist has in the BATTLE OF BATTLES, and I've also attempted to compute a
"Power Score" for each.  I did this by assigning a Power Score to each of the
640 songs and then adding up these scores for each artist.  I briefly played
around with a few ways of assigning a Power Scores but settled on giving 1
point for each round that the song won in its Yearly Battle (I decided to give
half a point for winning the Consolation Finals so that first place got 9
points, second 8 points, third 7.5 points, fourth 7 points, fifth-eighth 6
points, etc.).  I know that this is not close to ideal -- in particular, it
gives the same weight to each year, and I think most of us believe that, for
example, the #16 song from 1948 would be expected to do as well in this contest
as the #16 song from 1956.
Anyway, the following is a list of all the artists who have at least 2 songs in
the BATTLE OF BATTLES, sorted by their Power Score.
PScore  #Songs  Artist
130     23      Hank Williams
120     26      Fats Domino
95      18      The Drifters
94      17      Chuck Berry
72      15      Elvis Presley
63      13      Wynonie Harris
56      11      Ray Charles
54      11      Joe Turner
51      9       Little Richard
45      10      The Clovers
Good job, although the battle of the battles will show that artists
who have a lot of songs in less competitive early years (Wynonie) are
not near as "powerful" as artists who have less songs in more
competitive years (Ray Charles).

I predict that Ray Charles and Little Richard will win more rounds in
the battle of the battles than Wynonie even though they each have
fewer songs in the contest than he does.

You can redo the power rankings based just on the upcoming battle and
they will look much different.

I'm actually more interested in which year(s) will do the best rather
than which artists. All years have the same number of entries.
Sharx35
2011-01-27 00:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:09:27 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Can these not be grouped as individual artists? This would mean
duplicating some entries tho of course. Does this skew the other
results?
Like this I mean :-
As JOHNNY OTIS
Post by Roger Ford
Johnny Otis
Johnny Otis Show
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As MARILYN SCOTT
Post by Roger Ford
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As BROOK BENTON
Post by Roger Ford
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
As DINAH WASHINGTON
Post by Roger Ford
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
As THE RAVENS
Post by Roger Ford
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
The Ravens
And so on and so on..............
Sure, I can do that. Using that approach, I've computed how many songs each
artist has in the BATTLE OF BATTLES, and I've also attempted to compute a
"Power Score" for each. I did this by assigning a Power Score to each of the
640 songs and then adding up these scores for each artist. I briefly played
around with a few ways of assigning a Power Scores but settled on giving 1
point for each round that the song won in its Yearly Battle (I decided to give
half a point for winning the Consolation Finals so that first place got 9
points, second 8 points, third 7.5 points, fourth 7 points, fifth-eighth 6
points, etc.). I know that this is not close to ideal -- in particular, it
gives the same weight to each year, and I think most of us believe that, for
example, the #16 song from 1948 would be expected to do as well in this contest
as the #16 song from 1956.
Anyway, the following is a list of all the artists who have at least 2 songs in
the BATTLE OF BATTLES, sorted by their Power Score.
PScore #Songs Artist
130 23 Hank Williams
120 26 Fats Domino
95 18 The Drifters
94 17 Chuck Berry
72 15 Elvis Presley
63 13 Wynonie Harris
56 11 Ray Charles
54 11 Joe Turner
51 9 Little Richard
45 10 The Clovers
Good job, although the battle of the battles will show that artists
who have a lot of songs in less competitive early years (Wynonie) are
not near as "powerful" as artists who have less songs in more
competitive years (Ray Charles).
I predict that Ray Charles and Little Richard will win more rounds in
the battle of the battles than Wynonie even though they each have
fewer songs in the contest than he does.
You can redo the power rankings based just on the upcoming battle and
they will look much different.
I'm actually more interested in which year(s) will do the best rather
than which artists. All years have the same number of entries.
Numb nuts Bruthie already has twigged onto the FACT that most of his ghetto
dreck whack off favorites are going to GO DOWN IN FLAMES. Too bad the
ignorant ones will still spill their seed for Tiny Dick, though.
Rick Schubert
2011-01-28 08:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
I'm actually more interested in which year(s) will do the best rather
than which artists. All years have the same number of entries.
OK, here's one for you. Without counting the Consolation Finals, each year will lose a total of 40
rounds, except for the year that has the Champion, which will lose 39 rounds. The number of rounds
won per year will vary, though, but will average almost 40 rounds per year (39.9375). Would you
(or anyone else who wants to play) like to predict how many rounds each year will win?
Roger Ford
2011-01-28 10:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
I'm actually more interested in which year(s) will do the best rather
than which artists. All years have the same number of entries.
OK, here's one for you. Without counting the Consolation Finals, each year will lose a total of 40
rounds, except for the year that has the Champion, which will lose 39 rounds. The number of rounds
won per year will vary, though, but will average almost 40 rounds per year (39.9375). Would you
(or anyone else who wants to play) like to predict how many rounds each year will win?
All I can say is that I reckon 1956 will do best of all with 1957 not
far behind and 1955 in there too. But I go with the winner not to come
from any of these years but instead from 1958.

And I need say no more as to which record I mean I assume :)

Goode!!

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-28 15:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
I'm actually more interested in which year(s) will do the best rather
than which artists. All years have the same number of entries.
OK, here's one for you.  Without counting the Consolation Finals, each year will lose a total of 40
rounds, except for the year that has the Champion, which will lose 39 rounds.  The number of rounds
won per year will vary, though, but will average almost 40 rounds  per year (39.9375).  Would you
(or anyone else who wants to play) like to predict how many rounds each year will win?
No, but I predict that 1956 will win the most battles.

I also predict that the early years, 1948-1950 will no come close to
winning 40 battles. They will have trouble even winning 20 battles.

The years will not technically win or lose 40 "rounds" because two
items that lose in the first "round" are still only losing one
"round." Two battles within that one "round," but only one "round."
Rick Schubert
2011-01-28 20:37:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:39:22 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
I'm actually more interested in which year(s) will do the best rather
than which artists. All years have the same number of entries.
OK, here's one for you.  Without counting the Consolation Finals, each year will lose a total of 40
rounds, except for the year that has the Champion, which will lose 39 rounds.  The number of rounds
won per year will vary, though, but will average almost 40 rounds  per year (39.9375).  Would you
(or anyone else who wants to play) like to predict how many rounds each year will win?
No, but I predict that 1956 will win the most battles.
I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to your predictions.
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
I also predict that the early years, 1948-1950 will no come close to
winning 40 battles. They will have trouble even winning 20 battles.
I was thinking they might be in that range.
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
The years will not technically win or lose 40 "rounds" because two
items that lose in the first "round" are still only losing one
"round." Two battles within that one "round," but only one "round."
If you are saying that if there are 32 songs from 1956 that are in Round 1 and
10 of them lose, that's only 1 round lost for 1956, not 10, OK. Then I'll
change my statement to "each year will lose a total of 40 times" or "each year
will have a total of 40 losses" -- except for the year that has the Champion.



-- Rick Schubert <***@san.rr.com>
Sharx35
2011-01-27 00:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:09:27 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Can Rick or somebody give us some stats after each round...
B - The won/loss record for the major artists in each round and for
the cumulative contest to date?
Can these not be grouped as individual artists? This would mean
duplicating some entries tho of course. Does this skew the other
results?
Like this I mean :-
As JOHNNY OTIS
Post by Roger Ford
Johnny Otis
Johnny Otis Show
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As MARILYN SCOTT
Post by Roger Ford
Marilyn Scott with Johnny Otis
As BROOK BENTON
Post by Roger Ford
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
As DINAH WASHINGTON
Post by Roger Ford
Brook Benton & Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
As THE RAVENS
Post by Roger Ford
Dinah Washington & The Ravens
The Ravens
And so on and so on..............
Sure, I can do that. Using that approach, I've computed how many songs each
artist has in the BATTLE OF BATTLES, and I've also attempted to compute a
"Power Score" for each. I did this by assigning a Power Score to each of the
640 songs and then adding up these scores for each artist. I briefly played
around with a few ways of assigning a Power Scores but settled on giving 1
point for each round that the song won in its Yearly Battle (I decided to give
half a point for winning the Consolation Finals so that first place got 9
points, second 8 points, third 7.5 points, fourth 7 points, fifth-eighth 6
points, etc.). I know that this is not close to ideal -- in particular, it
gives the same weight to each year, and I think most of us believe that, for
example, the #16 song from 1948 would be expected to do as well in this contest
as the #16 song from 1956.
Anyway, the following is a list of all the artists who have at least 2 songs in
the BATTLE OF BATTLES, sorted by their Power Score.
PScore #Songs Artist
130 23 Hank Williams
120 26 Fats Domino
95 18 The Drifters
94 17 Chuck Berry
72 15 Elvis Presley
63 13 Wynonie Harris
56 11 Ray Charles
54 11 Joe Turner
51 9 Little Richard
45 10 The Clovers
38 8 The Orioles
37 7 Dion
36 7 Buddy Holly
33 8 Muddy Waters
32 7 The Coasters
32 7 Bo Diddley
32 6 The Dominoes
29 6 Roy Orbison
29 6 Nat "King" Cole
29 6 Sam Cooke
28 6 The Midnighters
28 6 Amos Milburn
27 7 Smiley Lewis
25 6 The Everly Brothers
24 5 Bill Haley
23 7 The Robins
23 6 Dinah Washington
22 5 Roy Brown
22 5 The Crystals
22 5 The Beatles
22 5 Louis Jordan
20 5 Jackie Wilson
20 4 The Five Keys
19 4 Professor Longhair
19 4 Jerry Lee Lewis
17 4 Bobby Darin
16 4 The Platters
16 3 Bobby Bland
16 3 Lloyd Price
16 3 The Impressions
15 4 Sonny Boy Williamson
15 4 Johnny Burnette
15 3 Ben E. King
15 3 The Shirelles
14 3 Ruth Brown
14 3 John Lee Hooker
14 3 Eddie Cochran
14 3 The Miracles
14 3 Carl Perkins
14 2 U.S Bonds
14 2 The Dell-Vikings
13 3 Ivory Joe Hunter
13 3 Johnny Cash
13 3 Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup
13 3 Johnny Ace
13 2 The Isley Brothers
13 2 The Falcons
12 3 The Four Seasons
12 3 The Spiders
12 3 The Five Royales
12 2 Del Shannon
12 2 The Penguins
12 2 Jerry Butler
11 3 Johnny Otis
11 3 Little Esther
11 3 Patsy Cline
11 2 The Flamingos
11 2 The Cadillacs
11 2 The Five Satins
11 2 The Ronettes
11 2 Jackie Brenston & His Delta Cats
10 3 Shirley & Lee
10 3 Gene Pitney
10 2 Elmore James
10 2 The Chiffons
10 2 Tampa Red
10 2 Les Paul & Mary Ford
10 2 Wild Bill Moore
10 2 The Swallows
10 2 Clyde McPhatter
10 2 Little Willie Littlefield
9 2 The Moonglows
9 2 Huey "Piano" Smith
9 2 The Harptones
9 2 Brook Benton
9 2 Mary Wells
9 2 Little Junior's Blue Flames
9 2 Little Willie John
9 2 Etta James
9 2 Jesse Belvin
9 2 Frankie Lymon & Teenagers
9 2 Dean Martin
8 2 Tennessee Ernie Ford
8 2 Marvin Gaye
8 2 Charles Brown
8 2 LaVern Baker
8 2 Tommy Edwards
8 2 The Beach Boys
8 2 The Cleftones
8 2 The Olympics
7 2 Gene Vincent
7 2 The Ravens
7 2 Bull Moose Jackson
7 2 Ricky Nelson
7 2 Brenda Lee
7 2 Bobby Mitchell & The Toppers
I note the heavy preponderance at the bottom of the list for the ghetto
crap.
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 14:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
A couple more thoughts on the forthcoming contest.................
Post by Roger Ford
4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes impossible
to maintain
I'm wondering if there should be at least TWO years seperation between
different records (until and unless this comes unworkable)??

Otherwise without a deal of checking involved you *could* get a
scenario where a record from say late 1960 is pitted against a record
from early 1961 where both titles were high in the charts at the same
time.
Post by Roger Ford
5. From the Preliminary Round onwards NO artist or act will be pitted
against themselves. This process will stay in force until and unless
it becomes impossible to maintain
I assume everyone agrees that the above precludes the obvious case of
Buddy Holly vs. The Crickets in a matchup .

I think it should also apply in a case like Clyde McPhatter (solo) vs.
The Drifters (where he is the lead) or similarly Ben E. King vs The
Drifters (where he is the lead) and any other similar cases.
Post by Roger Ford
6. From the Preliminary Round onwards NO song or number will be
pitted against another version of the SAME song or number (e.g Wynonie
Harris' "Good Rockin' Tonight" won't meet Elvis' version of the same
song UNLESS the next sentence applies) ,This process will stay in
force until and unless it becomes impossible to maintain
Of course both 5) and 6) above apply in spades to cases which will
definitely be doubly barred like

John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillen' - Modern 627 - 1948
John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillun - Vee Jay 319 - 1959
or
Tommy Edwards - It's All In The Game - MGM 11035 - 1951
Tommy Edwards - It's All In The Game - M-G-M 12688 - 1958


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-22 14:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
A couple more thoughts on the forthcoming contest.................
Post by Roger Ford
4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes impossible
to maintain
I'm wondering if there should be at least TWO years seperation between
different records (until and unless this comes unworkable)??
Otherwise without a deal of checking involved you *could* get a
scenario where a record from say late 1960 is pitted against a record
from early 1961 where both titles were high in the charts at the same
time.
No, you should only bar records from coming up against records from
the same year. The point is not whether they were on the charts at the
same time, the point is that records from the same year have already
competed against each other in the yearly contests.
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 14:43:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:34:40 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
A couple more thoughts on the forthcoming contest.................
Post by Roger Ford
4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes impossible
to maintain
I'm wondering if there should be at least TWO years seperation between
different records (until and unless this comes unworkable)??
Otherwise without a deal of checking involved you *could* get a
scenario where a record from say late 1960 is pitted against a record
from early 1961 where both titles were high in the charts at the same
time.
No, you should only bar records from coming up against records from
the same year. The point is not whether they were on the charts at the
same time, the point is that records from the same year have already
competed against each other in the yearly contests.
That's so and in the case I postulated you have almost but not quite
the same thing happening. I take your point but what do others say?
ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-22 15:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:34:40 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
A couple more thoughts on the forthcoming contest.................
Post by Roger Ford
4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes impossible
to maintain
I'm wondering if there should be at least TWO years seperation between
different records (until and unless this comes unworkable)??
Otherwise without a deal of checking involved you *could* get a
scenario where a record from say late 1960 is pitted against a record
from early 1961 where both titles were high in the charts at the same
time.
No, you should only bar records from coming up against records from
the same year. The point is not whether they were on the charts at the
same time, the point is that records from the same year have already
competed against each other in the yearly contests.
That's so and in the case I postulated you have almost but not quite
the same thing happening.
I don't follow this. How would it be "almost the same thing" if
something like "Sea Cruise" from the 1958 contest comes up against a
record from the 1959 contest that happened to be on the charts early
that year? That would not in any way be "almost the same thing" as if
"Sea Cruise" came up against a record from 1958 that it already
mayched up with in the 1958 contest.

The idea here is that since the 40 records from 1958 have all competed
against each other already in the 1958 contest they shouldn't have to
again. The fact that some records from 1958 coinicidentally may have
been on the charts at the same time as some records from 1959 is not
relevant.

The yearly contests are all separate entities and the proximity of the
years involved from one yearly contest to another doesn't mean
anything. We should only be concerned with what occurred in these
contests. There's no difference in "Sea Cruise" facing a 1959 record
from early in that year or "Sea Cruise" facing a 1949 record. In each
case it would merely be facing a record from one of the other yearly
contests.
F R
2011-01-22 18:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Bloomfield Bloviator>
The yearly contests are all separate entities and the proximity of the
years involved from one yearly contest to another doesn't mean anything.
We should only be concerned with what occurred in these contests.
There's no difference in "Sea Cruise" facing a 1959 record from early in
that year or "Sea Cruise" facing a 1949 record. In each case it would
merely be facing a record from one of the other yearly contests.
-----------------------------
I agree with Bruce.

Already anticipating a Chuck Berry vs. Little Richard final, although
I'm not sure which songs they may be. I also wouldn't be surprised to
see a Berry vs. Berry or an LR vs. LR final.
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 18:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by F R
Bloomfield Bloviator>
The yearly contests are all separate entities and the proximity of the
years involved from one yearly contest to another doesn't mean anything.
We should only be concerned with what occurred in these contests.
There's no difference in "Sea Cruise" facing a 1959 record from early in
that year or "Sea Cruise" facing a 1949 record. In each case it would
merely be facing a record from one of the other yearly contests.
-----------------------------
I agree with Bruce.
Thanks for your comment Frank

At the moment it looks like the "one year seperation" minimum between
competing records is favorite.

And I am perfectly happy with that.


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Mark Dintenfass
2011-01-22 19:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by F R
Bloomfield Bloviator>
The yearly contests are all separate entities and the proximity of the
years involved from one yearly contest to another doesn't mean anything.
We should only be concerned with what occurred in these contests.
There's no difference in "Sea Cruise" facing a 1959 record from early in
that year or "Sea Cruise" facing a 1949 record. In each case it would
merely be facing a record from one of the other yearly contests.
-----------------------------
I agree with Bruce.
Thanks for your comment Frank
At the moment it looks like the "one year seperation" minimum between
competing records is favorite.
And I am perfectly happy with that.
I have no problem with it.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 18:45:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:11:52 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:34:40 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
A couple more thoughts on the forthcoming contest.................
Post by Roger Ford
4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes impossibl=
e
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
to maintain
I'm wondering if there should be at least TWO years seperation between
different records (until and unless this comes unworkable)??
Otherwise without a deal of checking involved you *could* get a
scenario where a record from say late 1960 is pitted against a record
from early 1961 where both titles were high in the charts at the same
time.
No, you should only bar records from coming up against records from
the same year. The point is not whether they were on the charts at the
same time, the point is that records from the same year have already
competed against each other in the yearly contests.
That's so and in the case I postulated you have almost but not quite
the same thing happening.
I don't follow this. How would it be "almost the same thing" if
something like "Sea Cruise" from the 1958 contest comes up against a
record from the 1959 contest that happened to be on the charts early
that year?
My point was that as far as the time element involved was concerned
"Sea Cruise" being pitted against say "Since I Don't Have You" also
from 1958 (released at almost the same time) is "almost the same
thing as it coming up against another record from a few weeks later
but this time from 1959. On the time scale involved this would CLEARLY
be "almost the same thing".

But I am NOT advocating "Sea Cruise" vs. "Since I Don't Have You" for
the reason that they are from the same year and matchups from same
years WILL NOT HAPPEN.

On that basis I just wondered if anyone would also have concerns about
it facing another record very near to it in the time frame (but from
the following year) and whether or not a two year gap (at least) would
make for a better contest.

Personally I am happy to run the contest either way.
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
That would not in any way be "almost the same thing" as if
"Sea Cruise" came up against a record from 1958 that it already
mayched up with in the 1958 contest.
That's not what I said nor is it what you originally said.

Anyway there is only ONE record in the contest from 1958 that "Sea
Cruise" has already been matched against---and under the present
contest structure it would only face that same record again if both
records made it to the Grand Final

Anyway you've voiced your opinion which I take on board

Any others?

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-22 19:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:11:52 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:34:40 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
A couple more thoughts on the forthcoming contest.................
Post by Roger Ford
4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes impossibl=
e
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
to maintain
I'm wondering if there should be at least TWO years seperation between
different records (until and unless this comes unworkable)??
Otherwise without a deal of checking involved you *could* get a
scenario where a record from say late 1960 is pitted against a record
from early 1961 where both titles were high in the charts at the same
time.
No, you should only bar records from coming up against records from
the same year. The point is not whether they were on the charts at the
same time, the point is that records from the same year have already
competed against each other in the yearly contests.
That's so and in the case I postulated you have almost but not quite
the same thing happening.
I don't follow this. How would it be "almost the same thing" if
something like "Sea Cruise" from the 1958 contest comes up against a
record from the 1959 contest that happened to be on the charts early
that year?
My point was that as far as the time element involved was concerned
"Sea Cruise" being pitted against say "Since I Don't Have You" also
from 1958  (released at almost the same time) is "almost the same
thing as it coming up against another record from a few weeks later
but this time from 1959. On the time scale involved this would CLEARLY
be "almost the same thing".    
It's not even remotely close to "the same thing."

The reason for not matching up records from the same year against each
other in the battle of the battles is because they already competed in
the same earlier contest. NOT because they are from the same year, but
because they already competed in the same contest.

The 1959 contest has no closer relation to the 1958 contest than does
the 1948 contest. Each contest was a separate entitiy and how close or
far away one year is from another has no bearing on this.

In the NCAA basketball tournament, for instance, they do not allow any
teams from the same regular season conference to have to play each
other in the tournament in the first two or three rounds. But teams
from two different conferences that are geographically close to each
other can meet at any time, because they have not already competed
against each other in a separate tournament (the conference schedule).

I say if, for instance, "Sea Cruise" comes up against a 1959 record
from early in the year that the matchup should stand.
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 20:15:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:01:37 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:11:52 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:34:40 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
A couple more thoughts on the forthcoming contest.................
Post by Roger Ford
4. From the Preliminary Round onwards each single will be pitted
against another single FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT YEAR.
This process will stay in force until and unless it becomes imposs=
ibl=3D
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
e
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
to maintain
I'm wondering if there should be at least TWO years seperation betw=
een
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
different records (until and unless this comes unworkable)??
Otherwise without a deal of checking involved you *could* get a
scenario where a record from say late 1960 is pitted against a reco=
rd
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
from early 1961 where both titles were high in the charts at the sa=
me
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
time.
No, you should only bar records from coming up against records from
the same year. The point is not whether they were on the charts at th=
e
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
same time, the point is that records from the same year have already
competed against each other in the yearly contests.
That's so and in the case I postulated you have almost but not quite
the same thing happening.
I don't follow this. How would it be "almost the same thing" if
something like "Sea Cruise" from the 1958 contest comes up against a
record from the 1959 contest that happened to be on the charts early
that year?
My point was that as far as the time element involved was concerned
"Sea Cruise" being pitted against say "Since I Don't Have You" also
from 1958 =A0(released at almost the same time) is "almost the same
thing as it coming up against another record from a few weeks later
but this time from 1959. On the time scale involved this would CLEARLY
be "almost the same thing". =A0 =A0
It's not even remotely close to "the same thing."
I never used the words "the same thing". I said it was "almost the
same thing" ---a slight difference there. Which I think any fair
minded person looking at it from a timewise perspective would agree
with.
The reason for not matching up records from the same year against each
other in the battle of the battles is because they already competed in
the same earlier contest. NOT because they are from the same year, but
because they already competed in the same contest.
We know all this. NOBODY as far as I know is advocating "same year vs
same year" matchups. And yes,because such matchups would consist of
records that already competed in the same contest (tho not
neccessarily individually against each other)

And of course it obviously follows on from that,that they would all be
from the same year.
The 1959 contest has no closer relation to the 1958 contest than does
the 1948 contest. Each contest was a separate entitiy and how close or
far away one year is from another has no bearing on this.
If the 1959 contest was really as far away from the previous year
contest as the 1948 is,then there would be no errors such as a 1958
record accidentally appearing in the 1959 one by mistake (as happened)
so your statement above is not entirely 100% correct. However as far
as the upcoming contest is concerned I personally have no problem with
a year (minimum) seperation but I wondered if everyone else felt the
same way.
In the NCAA basketball tournament, for instance, they do not allow any
teams from the same regular season conference to have to play each
other in the tournament in the first two or three rounds. But teams
from two different conferences that are geographically close to each
other can meet at any time, because they have not already competed
against each other in a separate tournament (the conference schedule).
My sport is FOOTBALL and since I know nothing about basketball......

No comment
I say if, for instance, "Sea Cruise" comes up against a 1959 record
from early in the year that the matchup should stand.
If that is the general concensus (as so far it seems to be) so be it.

I have no problem with a minimum year seperation as long as it's the
will of the group and as long as I don't hear from anyone after the
contest starts who seriously disagrees---hence the reason for floating
the alternative argument now.

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-22 22:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
My sport is FOOTBALL and since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.

Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 22:27:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:20:32 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
My sport is FOOTBALL and since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.
Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
I'm backing Blackburn to win in the football tomorrow

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-22 22:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:20:32 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
My sport is FOOTBALL and since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.
Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
I'm backing Blackburn to win in the football tomorrow
GOOGLE SEARCHES

"football" "blackburn" About 1,070,000 results
"football" "packers" About 4,100,000 results
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 22:45:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:35:02 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:20:32 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
My sport is FOOTBALL and since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.
Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
I'm backing Blackburn to win in the football tomorrow
GOOGLE SEARCHES
"football" "blackburn" About 1,070,000 results
"football" "packers" About 4,100,000 results
"Blackburn Lancashire" - holes in = 4,000


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-23 14:13:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:20:32 -0800 (PST), The BloomfieldBloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
My sport isFOOTBALLand since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.
Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
I'm backing Blackburn to win in thefootballtomorrow
Do you like this one?


Roger Ford
2011-01-23 14:16:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:13:16 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:20:32 -0800 (PST), The BloomfieldBloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
My sport isFOOTBALLand since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.
Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
I'm backing Blackburn to win in thefootballtomorrow
Do you like this one?

I don't know.

It says not available.


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-23 14:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:13:16 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:20:32 -0800 (PST), The BloomfieldBloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
My sport isFOOTBALLand since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.
Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
I'm backing Blackburn to win in thefootballtomorrow
Do you like this one?
http://youtu.be/3DIbd7PF2ByAo
I don't know.
It says not available.
Football Rock - Jack Hammer - 1956
Roger Ford
2011-01-23 14:48:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:22:45 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:13:16 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:20:32 -0800 (PST), The BloomfieldBloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
My sport isFOOTBALLand since I know nothing about basketball......
Sorry....you must be psyched for the two conference finals tomorrow.
Are you rooting for the Packers, Bears, Jets or Steelers?
I'm backing Blackburn to win in thefootballtomorrow
Do you like this one?

I don't know.
It says not available.
Football Rock - Jack Hammer - 1956
Not bad considering its about the "wrong" game. I used to have this

With a name like that he should have been a porn star.Guess he had to
settle for penning "Great Balls Of Fire"

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-22 22:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
If the 1959 contest was really as far away from the previous year
contest as the 1948 is,then there would be no errors such as a 1958
record accidentally appearing in the 1959 one by mistake (as happened)
As I recall there were also a couple of mistakes where a record from
like 1947 was listed in 1954 because you forgot or didn't realize that
it was a reissue of an older master.
Roger Ford
2011-01-22 22:41:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:22:06 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
If the 1959 contest was really as far away from the previous year
contest as the 1948 is,then there would be no errors such as a 1958
record accidentally appearing in the 1959 one by mistake (as happened)
As I recall there were also a couple of mistakes where a record from
like 1947 was listed in 1954 because you forgot or didn't realize that
it was a reissue of an older master.
Sure there were mistakes in different years for various reasons.

But by far the most common mistakes were cases of records being
attributed to January or February of one year that actually were
really released late in the preceding year.

And of course there was at least one serious dating mistake that went
un noticed by everybody real deep into its contest and had an effect
on the upcoming battle



ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Roger Ford
2011-01-23 06:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
2. The top 24 singles of each year will all get a shoo in to ROUND ONE
of the Battle which will contain 512 entries (the round will be split
into 2 parts as in previous contests)
3. The remaining 16 titles from each year will ALL be required to
fight a Preliminary Round (16 years X 16 titles = 256 entries). All
winners in this round progress to ROUND ONE
This seems to be a good time to put up an up to the minute list of all
the records that will take part in said Preliminary Round :-

Peggy Lee - Why Don't You Do Right - Capitol 15118 - 1948
The Orioles - Barbara Lee - Natural 5000 - 1948
K.C Douglas Trio - Mercury Boogie - Down Town 2004 - 1948
Sonny Thompson - Long Gone - Miracle 126 - 1948
Sister Rosetta Tharpe & Marie Knight - Up Above My Head I Hear Music
In The Air - Decca 48090 - 1948
Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup - Hey Mama-Everything's All Right - RCA
20-3261 - 1948
Eddie "Cleanhead" Vinson - Some Women Do - Mercury 8076 - 1948
Dinah Washington - West Side Baby - Mercury 8079 - 1948
Hank Williams - The Blues Come Around - M-G-M 10212 - 1948
Brother Bones & His Shadows - Sweet Georgia Brown - Tempo 652 - 1948
Wynonie Harris - Lollipop Mama - King 4226 - 1948
Louis Jordan - Run Joe - Decca 24448 - 1948
T-Bone Walker - West Side Baby - Comet 50 - 1948
4 Steps Of Jive - Brown Gal - Chord 656 - 1948
Hal Singer - Corn Bread - Savoy 671 - 1948
The Basin Street Boys - I Sold My Heart To The Junkman - Exclusive 225
- 1948
Anton Karas - The "Harry Lime" Theme - UK Decca 9235 - 1949
Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup - Shout Sister Shout - RCA 50-0013 - 1949
Muddy Waters - You're Gonna Miss Me - Aristocrat 1307 - 1949
Louis Jordan - Beans And Corn Bread - Decca 24673 - 1949
Pearl Bailey & Hot Lips Page - Baby It's Cold Outside - Harmony 1049 -
1949
Amos Milburn - Real Pretty Mama - Aladdin 3038 - 1949
Little Willie Littlefield - Farewell - Modern 709 - 1949
Little Eddie Boyd Trio - Chicago Is Just That Way - RCA 50-0006 - 1949

Dinah Washington - Long John Blues - Mercury 8148 - 1949
Sonny Boy Williamson - Bring Another Half A Pint - RCA 50-0005 - 1949

Hank Williams - Lost Highway - M-G-M 10506 - 1949
The Robins - Around About Midnight - Score 4010 - 1949
The Robins - You Sure Look Good To Me - Score 4010 - 1949
Duke Bayou & His Mystic Six - Rub A Little Boogie - Apollo 440 - 1949

Bull Moose Jackson - Why Don't You Haul Off And Love Me - King 4322 -
1949
Joe Turner & The Flennoy Trio - I Don't Dig It - Excelsior 533 - 1949

Lowell Fulson - Every Day I Have The Blues - Swingtime 196 - 1950
Professor Longhair - She Walks Right In - Atlantic 897 - 1950
Smiley Lewis - Tee-Nah-Nah - Imperial 5067 - 1950
Fats Domino - Detroit City Blues - Imperial 5058 - 1950
Amos Milburn - Sax Shack Boogie - Aladdin 3064 - 1950
Fats Domino - Little Bee - Imperial 5065 - 1950
Fats Domino - Hey La Bas Boogie - Imperial 5085 - 1950
Gunter Lee Carr - We're Gonna Rock - Decca 48170 - 1950
Patti Page - The Tennessee Waltz - Mercury 5534 - 1950
Louis Jordan - Blue Light Boogie - Decca 27114 - 1950
Roy Brown - Love Don't Love Nobody - DeLuxe 3306 - 1950
Wynonie Harris - Mr.Blues Is Coming To Town - King 4402 - 1950
Fats Domino - Boogie Woogie Baby - Imperial 5065 - 1950
Joe Turner - Jumpin' Tonight - Imperial 5090 - 1950
The Robins - Turkey Hop - Savoy 732 - 1950
The Dominoes - Chicken Blues - Federal 12001 - 1950
The Clovers - Fool, Fool, Fool - Atlantic 944 - 1951
The Swallows - Tell Me Why - King 4515 - 1951
Sonny Boy Williamson - Pontiac Blues - Trumpet 145 - 1951
The Dominoes - Harbor Lights - Federal 12010 - 1951
Little Esther - Looking For A Man - Federal 12036 - 1951
Muddy Waters - Still A Fool - Chess 1480 - 1951
Tommy Edwards - It's All In The Game - M-G-M 11035 - 1951
The Orioles - Baby, Please Don't Go - Jubilee 5065 - 1951
Wynonie Harris - Lovin' Machine - King 4485 - 1951
Hank Williams - Lonesome Whistle - M-G-M 11054 - 1951
Peppermint Harris - I Got Loaded - Aladdin 3097 - 1951
Johnny Otis - All Nite Long - Savoy 788 - 1951
Nat "King" Cole - Red Sails In The Sunset - Capitol 1468 - 1951
Dinah Washington & The Ravens - Out In The Cold Again - Mercury 8257 -
1951
Jackie Brenston & His Delta Cats - Juiced - Chess 1472 - 1951
Charles Brown - Black Night - Aladdin 3076 - 1951
Marie Adams - I'm Gonna Play The Honky Tonks - Peacock 1583 - 1952
Little Esther - Aged And Mellow - Federal 12078 - 1952
Jesse & Marvin - Dream Girl - Specialty 447 - 1952
The Clovers - Middle Of The Night - Atlantic 963 - 1952
Tex Ritter - High Noon (Do Not Forsake Me) - Capitol 2120 - 1952
Little Walter - Mean Old World - Checker 764 - 1952
The Clovers - Ting-A-Ling - Atlantic 969 - 1952
Todd Rhodes - Rocket Sixty-Nine - King 4528 - 1952
Bill Haley & The Saddlemen - Rock The Joint - Essex 303 - 1952
The Clovers - Hey Miss Fannie - Atlantic 977 - 1952
Shirley & Lee - I'm Gone - Aladdin 3153 - 1952
Nat "King" Cole - Walkin' My Baby Back Home - Capitol 2130 - 1952
Little Esther & The Robins - Mainliner - Federal 12100 - 1952
Amos Milburn - Roll Mr Jelly - Aladdin 3133 - 1952
Perry Como - Don't Let The Stars Get In Your Eyes - RCA 47-5064 - 1952

Jo Stafford - You Belong To Me - Columbia 39811 - 1952
Bill Haley with Haley's Comets - Crazy, Man, Crazy - Essex 321 - 1953
Frankie Lee Sims - Lucy Mae Blues - Specialty 459 - 1953
The Robins - How Would You Know - RCA 47-5434 - 1953
Bobby Mitchell & The Toppers - 4 X 11 = 44 - Imperial 5250 - 1953
The Five Royales - Too Much Lovin' - Apollo 448 - 1953
Smiley Lewis - Big Mamou - Imperial 5234 - 1953
Buddy Johnson - Hittin' On Me - Mercury 70116 - 1953
Hank Williams - Weary Blues From Waitin' - M-G-M 11574 - 1953
The Royals - Get It - Federal 12133 - 1953
The Five Royales - Laundromat Blues - Apollo 448 - 1953
The Prisonaires - Just Walkin' In The Rain - Sun 186 - 1953
Smiley Lewis - Caldonia's Party - Imperial 5241 - 1953
Johnny Ace - The Clock - Duke 112 - 1953
The Five Keys - My Saddest Hour - Aladdin 3214 - 1953
Bobby Mitchell & The Toppers - Rack 'Em Back - Imperial 5236 - 1953
The Drifters - The Way I Feel - Atlantic 1006 - 1953
LaVern Baker - Tweedlee Dee - Atlantic 1047 - 1954
The Drifters - Bip Bam - Atlantic 1043 - 1954
The Clovers - Little Mama - Atlantic 1022 - 1954
The Penguins - Hey Senorita - Dootone 348 - 1954
Ray Charles - Don't You Know - Atlantic 1037 - 1954
Gene & Eunice - Ko Ko Mo - Combo 64 - 1954
Joe Turner - Well All Right - Atlantic 1040 - 1954
The Mellows - Smoke From Your Cigarette - Jay-Dee 797 - 1954
The Drifters - Such A Night - Atlantic 1019 - 1954
Muddy Waters - I'm Your Hoochie Coochie Man - Chess 1560 - 1954
The Clovers - Your Cash Ain't Nothin' But Trash - Atlantic 1035 - 1954

The Spiders - I'm Slippin' In - Imperial 5291 - 1954
Smiley Lewis - Blue Monday - Imperial 5268 - 1954
The Robins - Framed - Spark 107 - 1954
Sugar Boy & The Cane Cutters - Jock-A-Mo - Checker 787 - 1954
Ray Charles - It Should've Been Me - Atlantic 1021 - 1954
Bill Haley & His Comets - See You Later Alligator - Decca 29791 - 1955

The Cardinals - Come Back My Love - Atlantic 1067 - 1955
The Cleftones - You Baby You - Gee 1000 - 1955
Nappy Brown - Don't Be Angry - Savoy 1155 - 1955
Little Willie John - Need Your Love So Bad - King 4841 - 1955
The Spiders - Bells In My Heart - Imperial 5354 - 1955
Smiley Lewis - Real Gone Lover - Imperial 5349 - 1955
Lonnie Donegan - Rock Island Line - UK Decca 10647 - 1955
Fats Domino - I Can't Go On - Imperial 5369 - 1955
The Clovers - Blue Velvet - Atlantic 1052 - 1955
Etta James & The Peaches - The Wallflower - Modern 947 - 1955
The Jacks - Why Don't You Write Me - RPM 428 - 1955
Shirley & Lee - Feel So Good - Aladdin 3289 - 1955
The Platters - Only You - Mercury 70633 - 1955
The Four Deuces - W-P-L-J - Music City 790 - 1955
The Drifters - Adorable - Atlantic 1078 - 1955
Lavern Baker - Jim Dandy - Atlantic 1116 - 1956
Johnny Cash - Get Rhythm - Sun 247 - 1956
Johnny Burnette Trio - Honey Hush - Coral 61719 - 1956
The Cleftones - Little Girl Of Mine - Gee 1011 - 1956
The Willows - Church Bells May Ring - Melba 102 - 1956
James Brown - Please,Please,Please - Federal 12258 - 1956
Fats Domino - So Long - Imperial 5396 - 1956
The Schoolboys - Please Say You Want Me - Okeh 7076 - 1956
The Dells - Oh What A Nite - Vee Jay 204 - 1956
Little Richard - The Girl Can't Help It - Specialty 591 - 1956
Mickey & Sylvia - Love Is Strange - Groove 0176 - 1956
Chuck Berry - Brown Eyed Handsome Man - Chess 1635 - 1956
Elvis Presley - Hound Dog - RCA 47-6604 - 1956
Carl Perkins - Boppin' The Blues - Sun 243 - 1956
Elvis Presley - Heartbreak Hotel - RCA 47-6420 - 1956
Frankie Lymon & Teenagers - I Want You To Be My Girl - Gee 1012 - 1956

The Five Satins - To The Aisle - Ember 1019 - 1957
Robert & Johnny - We Belong Together - Old Town 1047 - 1957
Johnny Burnette Trio - Rock Billy Boogie - Coral 61918 - 1957
The Coasters - Young Blood - Atco 6087 - 1957
Lloyd Price - Just Because - KRC 587 - 1957
The Coasters - Idol With The Golden Head - Atco 6104 - 1957
The Dubs - Don't Ask Me To Be Lonely - Johnson 102 - 1957
The Paragons - Let's Start All Over Again - Winley 220 - 1957
Gene Vincent - Lotta Lovin' - Capitol 3763 - 1957
Little Richard - Lucille - Specialty 598 - 1957
Lee Andrews & Hearts - Long Lonely Nights - Main Line 102 - 1957
The Crickets - Not Fade Away - Brunswick 55055 - 1957
Patsy Cline - Walkin' After Midnight - Decca 30221 - 1957
The Rays - Silhouettes - XYZ 102 - 1957
Bo Diddley - Hey Bo Diddley - Checker 860 - 1957
Frank Sinatra - All The Way - Capitol 3793 - 1957
Ritchie Valens - La Bamba - Del-Fi 4110 - 1958
Chuck Berry - Around And Around - Chess 1691 - 1958
Bobby Freeman - Do You Want To Dance - Josie 835 - 1958
The Olympics - Western Movies - Demon 1508 - 1958
Clyde Mc Phatter - A Lover's Question - Atlantic 1199 - 1958
Bobby Darin - Splish Splash - Atco 6117 - 1958
The Crickets - Think It Over - Brunswick 55072 - 1958
Dean Martin - Return To Me - Capitol 3894 - 1958
Frankie Ford - Sea Cruise - Ace 554 - 1958
Larry Williams - Slow Down - Specialty 626 - 1958
The Danleers - One Summer Night - Amp-3 1005 - 1958
The Capris - There's A Moon Out Tonight - Planet 1010 - 1958
Elvis Presley - One Night - RCA 47-7410 - 1958
Jerry Lee Lewis - Breathless - Sun 288 - 1958
Brenda Lee - Rockin' Around The Christmas Tree - Decca 30776 - 1958
Jerry Lee Lewis - High School Confidential - Sun 296 - 1958
The Viscounts - Harlem Nocturne - Madison 123 - 1959
Marv Johnson - You Got What It Takes - United Artists 185 - 1959
Marty Robbins - El Paso - Columbia 41511 - 1959
Fats Domino - I'm Gonna Be A Wheel Someday - Imperial 5606 - 1959
Jackie Wilson - That's Why - Brunswick 55121 - 1959
Sam Cooke - Only Sixteen - Keen 2022 - 1959
The Crests - The Angels Listened In - Coed 515 - 1959
Eddie Cochran - Somethin' Else - Liberty 55203 - 1959
John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillun - Vee Jay 319 - 1959
The Drifters - Dance With Me - Atlantic 2040 - 1959
The Fleetwoods - Come Softly To Me - Dolphin 1 - 1959
The Genies - Who's That Knocking - Shad 5002 - 1959
The Everly Brothers - ('Til) I Kissed You - Cadence 1369 - 1959
Chuck Berry - Almost Grown - Chess 1722 - 1959
The Coasters - That Is Rock And Roll - Atco 6141 - 1959
Chuck Berry - Little Queenie - Chess 1722 - 1959
Jackie Wilson - Doggin' Around - Brunswick 55166 - 1960
Roy Hamilton - You Can Have Her - Epic 9434 - 1960
Fats Domino - My Girl Josephine - Imperial 5704 - 1960
The Olympics - Dance By The Light Of The Moon - Arvee 5020 - 1960
Chuck Berry - Let It Rock - Chess 1747 - 1960
Chubby Checker - The Twist - Parkway 811 - 1960
Bo Diddley - Road Runner - Checker 942 - 1960
The Devotions - Rip Van Winkle - Delta 1001 - 1960
Sam Cooke - Chain Gang - RCA 47-7783 - 1960
The Miracles - Shop Around - Tamla 54034 - 1960
The Shirelles - Tonight's The Night - Scepter 1208 - 1960
The Ventures - Walk Don't Run - Blue Horizon 101 - 1960
Jessie Hill - Ooh Poo Pah Doo - Minit 607 - 1960
Gene Pitney - (I Wanna) Love My Life Away - Musicor 1002 - 1960
Bobby Darin - Beyond The Sea - Atco 6158 - 1960
Johnny Burnette - You're Sixteen - Liberty 55285 - 1960
The Impressions - Gypsy Woman - ABC-Paramount 10241 - 1961
Patsy Cline - Crazy - Decca 31317 - 1961
Ray Charles - Unchain My Heart - ABC-Paramount 10266 - 1961
The Everly Brothers - Walk Right Back - Warner Bros 5199 - 1961
The Crystals - There's No Other (Like My Baby) - Philles 100 - 1961
Patsy Cline - I Fall To Pieces - Decca 31205 - 1961
The Jarmels - A Little Bit Of Soap - Laurie 3098 - 1961
The Drifters - Please Stay - Atlantic 2105 - 1961
Don & Juan - What's Your Name - Big Top 3079 - 1961
The Marvelettes - Please Mister Postman - Tamla 54046 - 1961
Curtis Lee - Pretty Little Angel Eyes - Dunes 2007 - 1961
Dee Clark - Raindrops - Vee Jay 383 - 1961
Fats Domino - I Hear You Knocking - Imperial 5796 - 1961
The Mar-Keys - Last Night - Satellite 107 - 1961
Ricky Nelson - Travelin' Man - Imperial 5741 - 1961
The Dreamlovers - When We Get Married - Heritage 102 - 1961
Gene Pitney - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Musicor 1020 - 1962
Solomon Burke - Cry To Me - Atlantic 2131- 1962
Del Shannon - Little Town Flirt - Big Top 3131- 1962
The Drifters - When My Little Girl Is Smiling - Atlantic 2134- 1962
The Surfaris - Wipe Out - DFS 11- 1962
The Rivingtons - Papa Oom Mow Mow - Liberty 55427- 1962
The Crystals - He's Sure The Boy I Love - Philles 109- 1962
Steve Alaimo - Every Day I Have To Cry - Checker 1032- 1962
The Contours - Do You Love Me - Gordy 7005- 1962
The Orlons - The Wah-Watusi - Cameo 218- 1962
Marvin Gaye - Stubborn Kind Of Fellow - Tamla 54068- 1962
Bo Diddley - You Can't Judge A Book By The Cover - Checker 1019- 1962

Skeeter Davis - The End Of The World - RCA 8098- 1962
The Chantays - Pipeline - Downey 104- 1962
Jan Bradley - Mama Didn't Lie - Formal 1044- 1962
Dion - Lovers Who Wander - Laurie 3123- 1962
The Beatles - Twist And Shout - Parlophone (Holland) HHR-125 (UK LP)-
1963
Jackie De Shannon - Needles And Pins - Liberty 55563- 1963
The Four Seasons - Walk Like A Man - Vee Jay 485- 1963
The Impressions - Talking About My Baby - ABC Paramount 10511- 1963
Dave Dudley - Six Days On The Road - Golden Wing 3020- 1963
Lesley Gore - It's My Party - Mercury 72119- 1963
Freddie Scott - Hey Girl - Colpix 692- 1963
The Beatles - Please Please Me - UK Parlophone 4983 - 1963
Dion Di Muci - Donna The Prima Donna - Columbia 42852 - 1963
Sam Cooke - Another Saturday Night - RCA 8164- 1963
The Ronettes - Baby I Love You - Philles 118- 1963
The Cookies - Don't Say Nothin' Bad About My Baby - Dimension 1008-
1963
Jackie Wilson - Baby Workout - Brunswick 55239- 1963
Gene Pitney - Twenty Four Hours From Tulsa - Musicor 1034- 1963
The Beach Boys - In My Room - Capitol 5069- 1963
The Essex - Easier Said Than Done - Roulette 4494- 1963

THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!

PRELIMARY ROUND STARTS FEBRUARY 1ST!!

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Bruno
2011-01-23 12:04:01 UTC
Permalink
My apologies to Roger and the group. Having voted in the Battles for the last year or so I will be missing most of the Battle to end all Battles. I'm off to the States tomorrow. By the start of the comp I will be on a slow cruise ship back to Sydney for three weeks with very limited internet access.
Hope I'm back in time to get some of my favourites over the line. Although I expect they will be long gone by then.
Have a great comp everyone
Bruno


--------------= Posted using GrabIt =----------------
------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =---------
-= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-
Roger Ford
2011-01-23 12:27:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:34:01 +1030, "Bruno" <bruno5008yahoo.com>
Post by Bruno
My apologies to Roger and the group. Having voted in the Battles for the last year or so I will be missing most of the Battle to end all Battles. I'm off to the States tomorrow. By the start of the comp I will be on a slow cruise ship back to Sydney for three weeks with very limited internet access.
Hope I'm back in time to get some of my favourites over the line. Although I expect they will be long gone by then.
Have a great comp everyone
Bruno
Hi Bruno

Sorry to hear you will be away for at least most of the contest. By my
reckoning it should run five or perhaps six weeks (after extending the
opening rounds) making the Grand Final somewhere around mid-March.

I'm suprised to hear your cruise ship has only "limited internet
access". I live near a big cruise ship terminal (Tilbury in Essex) and
regularly pick up passengers there in my taxi and all mention that the
internet facilities on board their vessels are generally second to
none. I've never been on a cruise myself but I've seen TV ads from
well known cruise operators in all parts of the world who make similar
claims.

And added to that there are now many PC applications that let you use
YOUR OWN PC from any location in the world (with net access). Even on
board a ship. Others on here (Marc? Rick?) probably can help you more
with this but here's one such app that is famous over here

https://www.gotomypc.com/tr/google_emea/uk/go_to_my_pc-Exact/PPCEMEA/g25semuk?Target=/mm/g25semuk.tmpl&Location=en_GB

You might have to "tweak" that "GB" bit at the end to make it work :)

But there's lots of others online. Just try Googling.

Whatever happens,have a good trip and be kind to any Americans you
meet they're not that bad :)

And hope you manage to vote in at least a part of the contest!!

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-27 05:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.

Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.

So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.

I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
Roger Ford
2011-01-27 05:21:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
I think this soounds very reasonable

There is likely to be a preponderance of draws in the Preliminary
Round results,obviously due to the fact that,however the matchups come
out of the hat,there will be a slew of matches where one truly massive
group favorite faces another.

What do others say?

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Mark Dintenfass
2011-01-27 13:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
I think this soounds very reasonable
There is likely to be a preponderance of draws in the Preliminary
Round results,obviously due to the fact that,however the matchups come
out of the hat,there will be a slew of matches where one truly massive
group favorite faces another.
What do others say?
Make it so.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Roger Ford
2011-01-27 13:48:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
Closer checking reveals a slight problem with the above matchup in
that I'm not sure everyone would agree that "Hound Dog" actually comes
out ahead when,regardless of the percentage vote, it only won three
rounds in the 1956 contest.

"El Paso" won FOUR rounds in 1959 and therefore has a strong case as
the better performing single.



ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-27 14:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
Closer checking reveals a slight problem with the above matchup in
that I'm not sure everyone would agree that "Hound Dog" actually comes
out ahead when,regardless of the percentage vote, it only won three
rounds in the 1956 contest.
"El Paso" won FOUR rounds in 1959 and therefore has a strong case as
the better performing single.
I don't think something that wins four rounds in like 1949 has
performed better than something that wins three rounds in 1956, but
even if you just use the song's ranking (#1 to # 40) in its year to
break the ties that's better than dropping your vote.

You could make the song's ranking in its year the first tiebreaker and
it's vote percentage the second one, just in case a # 34 record ties
with a # 34 record from another year.
Roger Ford
2011-01-27 17:42:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:08:13 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
Closer checking reveals a slight problem with the above matchup in
that I'm not sure everyone would agree that "Hound Dog" actually comes
out ahead when,regardless of the percentage vote, it only won three
rounds in the 1956 contest.
"El Paso" won FOUR rounds in 1959 and therefore has a strong case as
the better performing single.
I don't think something that wins four rounds in like 1949 has
performed better than something that wins three rounds in 1956, but
even if you just use the song's ranking (#1 to # 40) in its year to
break the ties that's better than dropping your vote.
These are the titles from 1949 that won 4 rounds that Elvis' "Hound
Dog" could get matched against :-

25. Anton Karas - The "Harry Lime" Theme - UK Decca 9235
26. Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup - Shout Sister Shout - RCA 50-0013
27. Muddy Waters - You're Gonna Miss Me - Aristocrat 1307
28. Louis Jordan - Beans And Corn Bread - Decca 24673
29. Pearl Bailey & Hot Lips Page - Baby It's Cold Outside - Harmony
30. Amos Milburn - Real Pretty Mama - Aladdin 3038
31. Little Willie Littlefield - Farewell - Modern 709
32, Little Eddie Boyd Trio - Chicago Is Just That Way - RCA 50-0006

I reckon the chances of the voting this time resulting in a draw
against any of those is VERY slim indeed.

But if it happened then I think the 1949 record---by virtue of winning
the extra round---should rightfully prevail

OTOH "Hound Dog" was the #37 record in 1956 scoring 67.65% vote so on
that basis it would also lose in a any draw to these from 1949 (also
3-round winners)

33. Dinah Washington - Long John Blues - Mercury 8148 - 71.60%
34. Sonny Boy Williamson - Bring Another Half A Pint - RCA 50-0005 -
70.37%
35 Hank Williams - Lost Highway - M-G-M 10506 - 69.32%

But it would come out ahead of the rest of the 1949 contingent on
vote percentage :-

36 The Robins - Around About Midnight - Score 4010 - 67.50%
37 The Robins - You Sure Look Good To Me - Score 4010 - 66.67%

And obviously it would beat these on BOTH counts :-

38 Duke Bayou & His Mystic Six - Rub A Little Boogie - Apollo 440
66.23%
39 Bull Moose Jackson - Why Don't You Haul Off And Love Me - King 4322
- 65.43%
40 Joe Turner & The Flennoy Trio - I Don't Dig It - Excelsior 533 -
65.38%
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
You could make the song's ranking in its year the first tiebreaker and
it's vote percentage the second one, just in case a # 34 record ties
with a # 34 record from another year.
Under that system nothing above changes except that the 1949 #36
single by The Robins beats "Hound Dog"

As well as "El Paso" from 1959 beating it,"Hound Dog" would also get
beat in a draw by these 3-round winners from that year under the above
system :-

33 John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillun - Vee Jay 319 - 72.83%
34 The Drifters - Dance With Me - Atlantic 2040 - 71.43%
35 The Fleetwoods - Come Softly To Me - Dolphin 1 - 70.64%
36 The Genies - Who's That Knocking - Shad 5002 - 69.16%
37 The Everly Brothers - ('Til) I Kissed You - Cadence 1369 -69.03%

But again ask yourself how likely it would be to actually DRAW against
any of these? I think "Hound Dog" would beat any of these with ease

For the record it took a single of huge quality to beat "Hound Dog" in
Round Four of the 1956 battle and that was itself as a result of a
draw :-
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Elvis Presley - Hound Dog - RCA 6604 v
Fats Domino - Blue Monday- Imperial 5417 v
Since we have a 14-14 draw here it's time to look back see how these two did in earlier rounds.
"Hound Dog" scored 20 in Round #1,20 (#2) and 15 (#3) = 55 whilst "Blue Monday" managed
22 (#1),24 (#2) and 22 (#3) = 68 giving the tie break and making Fats the winner here
WINNER : FATS
ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
The Bloomfield Bloviator
2011-01-27 19:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:08:13 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
Closer checking reveals a slight problem with the above matchup in
that I'm not sure everyone would agree that "Hound Dog" actually comes
out ahead when,regardless of the percentage vote, it only won three
rounds in the 1956 contest.
"El Paso" won FOUR rounds in 1959 and therefore has a strong case as
the better performing single.
I don't think something that wins four rounds in like 1949 has
performed better than something that wins three rounds in 1956, but
even if you just use the song's ranking (#1 to # 40) in its year to
break the ties that's better than dropping your vote.
These are the titles from 1949 that won 4 rounds that Elvis' "Hound
Dog" could get matched against :-
25. Anton Karas - The "Harry Lime" Theme - UK Decca 9235
26. Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup - Shout Sister Shout - RCA 50-0013
27. Muddy Waters - You're Gonna Miss Me - Aristocrat 1307
28. Louis Jordan - Beans And Corn Bread - Decca 24673
29. Pearl Bailey & Hot Lips Page - Baby It's Cold Outside - Harmony  
30. Amos Milburn - Real Pretty Mama - Aladdin 3038
31. Little Willie Littlefield - Farewell - Modern 709
32, Little Eddie Boyd Trio - Chicago Is Just That Way - RCA 50-0006
I reckon the chances of the voting this time resulting in  a draw
against any of those is VERY slim indeed.
But if it happened then I think the 1949 record---by virtue of winning
the extra round---should rightfully prevail
OTOH "Hound Dog" was the #37 record in 1956 scoring 67.65% vote so on
that basis it would also lose in a any draw to these from 1949 (also
3-round winners)
33. Dinah Washington - Long John Blues - Mercury 8148 - 71.60%
34. Sonny Boy Williamson - Bring Another Half A Pint - RCA 50-0005 -
70.37%
35 Hank Williams - Lost Highway - M-G-M 10506 - 69.32%
But it would  come out ahead of the rest of the 1949 contingent on
vote percentage :-
36 The Robins - Around About Midnight - Score 4010 - 67.50%
37 The Robins - You Sure Look Good To Me - Score 4010 - 66.67%
And obviously it would beat these on BOTH counts :-
38 Duke Bayou & His Mystic Six - Rub A Little Boogie - Apollo 440
66.23%
39 Bull Moose Jackson - Why Don't You Haul Off And Love Me - King 4322
- 65.43%
40 Joe Turner & The Flennoy Trio - I Don't Dig It - Excelsior 533 -
65.38%
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
You could make the song's ranking in its year the first tiebreaker and
it's vote percentage the second one, just in case a # 34 record ties
with a # 34 record from another year.
Under that system nothing above changes except that the 1949 #36
single by The Robins beats "Hound Dog"
As well as "El Paso" from 1959 beating it,"Hound Dog" would also get
beat in a draw by these 3-round winners from that year under the above
system :-
33 John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillun - Vee Jay 319 - 72.83%
34 The Drifters - Dance With Me - Atlantic 2040 - 71.43%
35 The Fleetwoods - Come Softly To Me - Dolphin 1 - 70.64%
36 The Genies - Who's That Knocking - Shad 5002 - 69.16%
37 The Everly Brothers - ('Til) I Kissed You - Cadence 1369 -69.03%
But again ask yourself how likely it would be to actually DRAW against
any of these? I think "Hound Dog" would beat any of these with ease
For the record it took a single of huge quality to beat "Hound Dog" in
Round Four of the 1956 battle and that was itself as a result of a
draw :-
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Elvis Presley - Hound Dog - RCA 6604 v
Fats Domino - Blue Monday- Imperial 5417 v
Since we have a 14-14 draw here it's time to look back see how these two did in earlier rounds.
"Hound Dog" scored 20 in Round #1,20 (#2) and 15 (#3)  = 55 whilst "Blue Monday" managed
22 (#1),24 (#2) and 22 (#3) = 68 giving the tie break and making Fats the winner here
WINNER : FATS  
Since a couple of years had less rounds than others I think that you
should use the song's ranking for its year (# 1 thru # 40) as the
first tie breaker and then the percentage of votes in all of its
battles as the second tie breaker.

Using rounds won wouldn't be fair to some records in years where you
ended up with less records in the contest and less total rounds. Using
total votes for that a record got in its year would not be fair either
as some years had less people voting than others.
Sharx35
2011-01-27 23:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:08:13 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I say
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" in
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would win
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
Closer checking reveals a slight problem with the above matchup in
that I'm not sure everyone would agree that "Hound Dog" actually comes
out ahead when,regardless of the percentage vote, it only won three
rounds in the 1956 contest.
"El Paso" won FOUR rounds in 1959 and therefore has a strong case as
the better performing single.
I don't think something that wins four rounds in like 1949 has
performed better than something that wins three rounds in 1956, but
even if you just use the song's ranking (#1 to # 40) in its year to
break the ties that's better than dropping your vote.
These are the titles from 1949 that won 4 rounds that Elvis' "Hound
Dog" could get matched against :-
25. Anton Karas - The "Harry Lime" Theme - UK Decca 9235
26. Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup - Shout Sister Shout - RCA 50-0013
27. Muddy Waters - You're Gonna Miss Me - Aristocrat 1307
28. Louis Jordan - Beans And Corn Bread - Decca 24673
29. Pearl Bailey & Hot Lips Page - Baby It's Cold Outside - Harmony
30. Amos Milburn - Real Pretty Mama - Aladdin 3038
31. Little Willie Littlefield - Farewell - Modern 709
32, Little Eddie Boyd Trio - Chicago Is Just That Way - RCA 50-0006
I reckon the chances of the voting this time resulting in a draw
against any of those is VERY slim indeed.
But if it happened then I think the 1949 record---by virtue of winning
the extra round---should rightfully prevail
OTOH "Hound Dog" was the #37 record in 1956 scoring 67.65% vote so on
that basis it would also lose in a any draw to these from 1949 (also
3-round winners)
33. Dinah Washington - Long John Blues - Mercury 8148 - 71.60%
34. Sonny Boy Williamson - Bring Another Half A Pint - RCA 50-0005 -
70.37%
35 Hank Williams - Lost Highway - M-G-M 10506 - 69.32%
But it would come out ahead of the rest of the 1949 contingent on
vote percentage :-
36 The Robins - Around About Midnight - Score 4010 - 67.50%
37 The Robins - You Sure Look Good To Me - Score 4010 - 66.67%
And obviously it would beat these on BOTH counts :-
38 Duke Bayou & His Mystic Six - Rub A Little Boogie - Apollo 440
66.23%
39 Bull Moose Jackson - Why Don't You Haul Off And Love Me - King 4322
- 65.43%
40 Joe Turner & The Flennoy Trio - I Don't Dig It - Excelsior 533 -
65.38%
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
You could make the song's ranking in its year the first tiebreaker and
it's vote percentage the second one, just in case a # 34 record ties
with a # 34 record from another year.
Under that system nothing above changes except that the 1949 #36
single by The Robins beats "Hound Dog"
As well as "El Paso" from 1959 beating it,"Hound Dog" would also get
beat in a draw by these 3-round winners from that year under the above
system :-
33 John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillun - Vee Jay 319 - 72.83%
34 The Drifters - Dance With Me - Atlantic 2040 - 71.43%
35 The Fleetwoods - Come Softly To Me - Dolphin 1 - 70.64%
36 The Genies - Who's That Knocking - Shad 5002 - 69.16%
37 The Everly Brothers - ('Til) I Kissed You - Cadence 1369 -69.03%
But again ask yourself how likely it would be to actually DRAW against
any of these? I think "Hound Dog" would beat any of these with ease
For the record it took a single of huge quality to beat "Hound Dog" in
Round Four of the 1956 battle and that was itself as a result of a
draw :-
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Elvis Presley - Hound Dog - RCA 6604 v
Fats Domino - Blue Monday- Imperial 5417 v
Since we have a 14-14 draw here it's time to look back see how these two
did in earlier rounds.
"Hound Dog" scored 20 in Round #1,20 (#2) and 15 (#3) = 55 whilst
"Blue Monday" managed
22 (#1),24 (#2) and 22 (#3) = 68 giving the tie break and making Fats the winner here
WINNER : FATS
Since a couple of years had less rounds than others I think that you
should use the song's ranking for its year (# 1 thru # 40) as the
first tie breaker and then the percentage of votes in all of its
battles as the second tie breaker.
Using rounds won wouldn't be fair to some records in years where you
ended up with less records in the contest and less total rounds. Using
total votes for that a record got in its year would not be fair either
as some years had less people voting than others.
You tone-deaf cocksuckers will do ANYTHING to try and give no-count nobodies
like Wynoonie or the Howler, an edge.
Roger Ford
2011-01-28 06:21:10 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:35:16 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:08:13 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:02:43 -0800 (PST), The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Coming February 1 2011.................
THE CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES BATTLE OF BATTLES!!
7. All "draws" and "ties" will be dealt with in exactly the same
manner as happened in the previous Singles Battles
I have an idea here for # 7.
Instead of Roger's vote dropping in a prelim or first round tie, I sa=
y
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
that the percentage of votes that each of the records involved got in
their year's contest should decide the battle.
So, for instance, if "Hound Dog" by Elvis matches up with "El Paso" i=
n
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
the prelims, and the vote ends with a 16-16 tie, "Hound Dog" would wi=
n
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
that tie breaker because it got 67.65% of the votes in its 1956
battles while "El Paso" only got 60.99% of its votes in 1959.
I think this is a much more decisive and fair way to decide the early
round ties than to drop Roger's vote.
Closer checking reveals a slight problem with the above matchup in
that I'm not sure everyone would agree that "Hound Dog" actually comes
out ahead when,regardless of the percentage vote, it only won three
rounds in the 1956 contest.
"El Paso" won FOUR rounds in 1959 and therefore has a strong case as
the better performing single.
I don't think something that wins four rounds in like 1949 has
performed better than something that wins three rounds in 1956, but
even if you just use the song's ranking (#1 to # 40) in its year to
break the ties that's better than dropping your vote.
These are the titles from 1949 that won 4 rounds that Elvis' "Hound
Dog" could get matched against :-
25. Anton Karas - The "Harry Lime" Theme - UK Decca 9235
26. Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup - Shout Sister Shout - RCA 50-0013
27. Muddy Waters - You're Gonna Miss Me - Aristocrat 1307
28. Louis Jordan - Beans And Corn Bread - Decca 24673
29. Pearl Bailey & Hot Lips Page - Baby It's Cold Outside - Harmony =A0
30. Amos Milburn - Real Pretty Mama - Aladdin 3038
31. Little Willie Littlefield - Farewell - Modern 709
32, Little Eddie Boyd Trio - Chicago Is Just That Way - RCA 50-0006
I reckon the chances of the voting this time resulting in =A0a draw
against any of those is VERY slim indeed.
But if it happened then I think the 1949 record---by virtue of winning
the extra round---should rightfully prevail
OTOH "Hound Dog" was the #37 record in 1956 scoring 67.65% vote so on
that basis it would also lose in a any draw to these from 1949 (also
3-round winners)
33. Dinah Washington - Long John Blues - Mercury 8148 - 71.60%
34. Sonny Boy Williamson - Bring Another Half A Pint - RCA 50-0005 -
70.37%
35 Hank Williams - Lost Highway - M-G-M 10506 - 69.32%
But it would =A0come out ahead of the rest of the 1949 contingent on
vote percentage :-
36 The Robins - Around About Midnight - Score 4010 - 67.50%
37 The Robins - You Sure Look Good To Me - Score 4010 - 66.67%
And obviously it would beat these on BOTH counts :-
38 Duke Bayou & His Mystic Six - Rub A Little Boogie - Apollo 440
66.23%
39 Bull Moose Jackson - Why Don't You Haul Off And Love Me - King 4322
- 65.43%
40 Joe Turner & The Flennoy Trio - I Don't Dig It - Excelsior 533 -
65.38%
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
You could make the song's ranking in its year the first tiebreaker and
it's vote percentage the second one, just in case a # 34 record ties
with a # 34 record from another year.
Under that system nothing above changes except that the 1949 #36
single by The Robins beats "Hound Dog"
As well as "El Paso" from 1959 beating it,"Hound Dog" would also get
beat in a draw by these 3-round winners from that year under the above
system :-
33 John Lee Hooker - Boogie Chillun - Vee Jay 319 - 72.83%
34 The Drifters - Dance With Me - Atlantic 2040 - 71.43%
35 The Fleetwoods - Come Softly To Me - Dolphin 1 - 70.64%
36 The Genies - Who's That Knocking - Shad 5002 - 69.16%
37 The Everly Brothers - ('Til) I Kissed You - Cadence 1369 -69.03%
But again ask yourself how likely it would be to actually DRAW against
any of these? I think "Hound Dog" would beat any of these with ease
For the record it took a single of huge quality to beat "Hound Dog" in
Round Four of the 1956 battle and that was itself as a result of a
draw :-
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
Post by Roger Ford
Elvis Presley - Hound Dog - RCA 6604 v
Fats Domino - Blue Monday- Imperial 5417 v
Since we have a 14-14 draw here it's time to look back see how these two=
did in earlier rounds.
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
"Hound Dog" scored 20 in Round #1,20 (#2) and 15 (#3) =A0=3D 55 whilst =
"Blue Monday" managed
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
22 (#1),24 (#2) and 22 (#3) =3D 68 giving the tie break and making Fats=
the winner here
Post by Roger Ford
Post by The Bloomfield Bloviator
WINNER : FATS =A0
Since a couple of years had less rounds than others I think that you
should use the song's ranking for its year (# 1 thru # 40) as the
first tie breaker and then the percentage of votes in all of its
battles as the second tie breaker.
Using rounds won wouldn't be fair to some records in years where you
ended up with less records in the contest and less total rounds. Using
total votes for that a record got in its year would not be fair either
as some years had less people voting than others.
The only year that had less rounds than 9 in total was 1952 that
missed a round due to starting with only 256 records instead of the
usual 512.

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Roger Ford
2011-01-29 09:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Knowing how some of my "predictions" have worked out in the past its
risky sticking ones neck out on the difficult task of predicting the
records most likely to make up the "Last Sixteen" (there's just so
MANY possible contenders!!!) in the upcoming Championship Singles
Battle Of Battles----but these might come fairly close :-

Joe Turner - Shake, Rattle And Roll - Atlantic 1026 - 1954
The Penguins - Earth Angel - Dootone 348 - 1954
Chuck Berry - Maybellene - Chess 1604 - 1955
Little Richard - Tutti-Frutti - Specialty 561 - 1955
Fats Domino - Ain't It A Shame - Imperial 5348 - 1955
Little Richard - Long Tall Sally - Specialty 572 - 1956
Chuck Berry - Roll Over Beethoven - Chess 1626 - 1956
The Dell-Vikings - Come Go With Me - Fee Bee 205 - 1956
The Five Satins - In The Still Of The Nite - Standord 200 - 1956
Carl Perkins - Blue Suede Shoes - Sun 234 - 1956
Fats Domino - I'm In Love Again - Imperial 5386 - 1956
Jerry Lee Lewis - Whole Lot Of Shakin' Going On - Sun 267 - 1957
Chuck Berry - School Day - Chess 1653 - 1957
Elvis Presley - Jailhouse Rock - RCA 7035
Chuck Berry - Johnny B. Goode - Chess 1691 - 1958
Ray Charles - What'd I Say - Atlantic 2031 - 1959


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Sharx35
2011-01-29 20:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
The Penguins - Earth Angel - Dootone 348 - 1954
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Roger Ford
Fats Domino - Ain't It A Shame - Imperial 5348 - 1955
The Dell-Vikings - Come Go With Me - Fee Bee 205 - 1956
The Five Satins - In The Still Of The Nite - Standord 200 - 1956
Carl Perkins - Blue Suede Shoes - Sun 234 - 1956
Fats Domino - I'm In Love Again - Imperial 5386 - 1956
Elvis Presley - Jailhouse Rock - RCA 7035
Post by Roger Ford
Ray Charles - What'd I Say - Atlantic 2031 - 1959
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...