• Two exciting new Carpenters releases are now available. The new book Carpenters: The Musical Legacy can be ordered here. A big thanks to the authors and Richard Carpenter for their tremendous effort in compiling this book! Also, the new solo piano album Richard Carpenter's Piano Songbook is available for ordering here.

Goofus re-evaluated

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
It helps to understand Billboard's history. Its roots, which go back to 1894, are as an inside trade magazine. It was never conceived of as a magazine the general public would even hear of, much less consider an authority.

I'm a little tight on time and want to get this right and not leave anything out, so I'm cutting and pasting a post I made on a broadcasting board about this earlier this year:

Thanks to Casey Kasem and American Top 40, a lot of Americans grew up thinking Billboard was the ultimate authority on record sales in this country. Billboard certainly seized on the spotlight afforded by AT40 to begin marketing itself that way. But until Soundscan in the 90s, it simply wasn't true.

Prior to that, Billboard was an industry magazine that focused on the inside baseball of music and entertainment. Its record charts tracked the wholesale end of the business....copies of albums and singles shipped from the record labels to distributors and record stores. There was no attempt to determine how many of those copies actually made it into the hands of paying customers.

The system was easily corruptible. Record labels could over-ship records, essentially putting free stock into the hands of the distributors, in order to goose early chart numbers...the idea being that record store owners (the real target audience for the charts) would see the record debut big, and place legitimate orders. The label would make it up on the back end if the tactic worked.

The ultimate expression of that approach came in the 70s, when albums began to "ship Platinum". The record label would press a million copies and ship them in week one. Billboard would report the album as debuting Platinum (with a correspondingly high chart number). Record store owners would order up big. Trouble was, often those records wouldn't sell to real customers. In nine months, the majority would be quietly shipped back to the label, melted down and the vinyl recycled. The "Sgt. Pepper" movie soundtrack of 1978 is probably the most notorious example. So few of those sold at retail that the joke in the industry was that it "shipped Platinum and returned double Platinum". Very likely only 100,000 or so copies sold. But if you look at Billboard back issues or the Joel Whitburn books based on the Billboard charts, you see a #1 album that sold more than a million copies (in its news pages, Billboard dutifully reported on returns, but only on an industry-wide basis, every few months...never mentioning labels, artists or specific records by name).

But let's factor out shenanigans and look at how the chart worked when everybody was playing it straight.

A record's first week on the Hot 100 wasn't an indicator of how many people bought the record, but a snapshot of how many wholesale copies had been shipped to distributors. So debut numbers were virtually useless. The next couple of weeks worth of chart action were stores ordering first-time stock.

If a record peaked at #50 or below, that wasn't a "Hot 100 hit", it was a record that most record stores didn't think was worth stocking (or re-stocking beyond their initial 5 or 10 copy order). #40 wasn't much better, nor #30. Those basically indicate that more (but by no means all) stores placed an order, but doesn't suggest that demand was high enough for them to ever have to re-stock.

Above that, it's important to look at where a record peaks with this in mind: Let's say a record moved 25-20 last week (again, we're traveling back in time to the 60s-80s...pre-Soundscan). That suggests that stores were optimistic about the record and bought copies. But what if it slides to 24 this week? That means the optimism on the part of the record stores came after the record had already peaked with the record buyers. They were ordering stock when it was at 25 expecting it to go Top 15 or higher. But it went the other way. That "Top 20 hit" was actually a #25 wholesale record that became overstocked compared to buyer demand that week.

So, was the Hot 100 in any way reflecting the true popularity of records?

Well, any record that made the Top 10 by climbing over a period of several weeks probably was legit. Those chart jumps and bullets ("Stars", as Billboard called them) were indicative of more orders for a record being made this week than the week before. Sometimes that could be accomplished simply by more stores placing first-time orders...but the longer the timespan, the more likely it was that the stores were replacing stock that they had sold to paying customers.

Even records that debuted big fast (a new Beatles, for example) were probably legit if they stayed high on the charts for a certain period of time. But a rapid fall-off from a high chart number suggests that big peak was record stores anticipating demand that wasn't really there.

Which is why you've seen me say that anything peaking under #15 really isn't a hit....and a lot of things that peaked between #11 and #15 weren't, either (Royal Scots Dragoon Guards "Amazing Grace", anyone?). Because of what the Hot 100 measured (store owner optimism), a record that cracks #20 is a record the store owners believed could go Top 10. Those that didn't under-performed expectations. They weren't "gotta haves".

There's one exception to that rule: There are some records that were strong performers in certain markets, but it just didn't translate nationally. Tower of Power's "You're Still A Young Man" was a huge record in Los Angeles and San Francisco....Top 5, in fact. But it peaked at #29 in Billboard. Not enough stores stocking or selling it elsewhere (TOP was a California band).

Most radio stations did their own local charts, so Billboard's numbers weren't a factor in airplay back in the day. For millions of Americans, a chunk of Casey Kasem's countdown each Sunday included songs they only heard when listening to AT40, because their local stations weren't playing those records.

Which means the people in those cities who didn't listen to AT40 every week...didn't hear them at all.


Again, it's important to remember, none of the trades charted actual retail sales to paying individuals until Soundscan. Record World and Cash Box made no attempt to market themselves beyond their traditional trade paper audience.

Billboard was unknown to the general public until its weekly exposure in AT40, and it was slow to capitalize on that. Eventually (after 1980, IIRC), Joel Whitburn began publishing mass-market chart books you could buy at mainstream book stores ( his Record Research books had always been mail order), Fred Bronson followed suit, and the Billboard branded greatest hits CDs were released.

It was based largely on the public's misunderstanding of what those numbers really represented. Billboard never said they were accurately charting actual retail sales, but they never corrected the impression, either...and furthered it by marketing products based on their charts to the public at large.

If Billboard (and Casey Kasem) had gone out of their way to say "The Hot 100 chart represents wholesale shipments of 45 RPM records to distributors and record stores and is not indicative of actual retail sales. Such sales may not occur, in which case the records are returned to the label. No re-accounting of the chart to reflect the actual sales of the record, which may be substantially less than the number shipped wholesale, will be done and no adjustment made to chart rankings as a result", on every AT40 broadcast, Whitburn or Bronson book or CD compilation, i doubt the Billboard chart would be anything the public would have paid much attention to.
 

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Oh, and I'll add one more thing....how American Top 40 and Billboard got together.

Watermark Productions needed a chart of the Top 40 songs in the country to count down every week. Record World's editorial offices were in New York. Billboard's were less than two miles away from Watermark in L.A. A lot easier to make the deal and to get the numbers in a hurry in 1970 (pre-electronic transmission). Basically, the deal was that AT 40 would get the new numbers as soon as Billboard's chart department tabulated them, so the show could be recorded, duplicated and shipped to stations in time for its weekend airing.

If Billboard had said no, Watermark would have had to approach Cash Box and/or Record World. Failing that, they might have had to compile it based on the playlists of AT40 stations around the country....but they began July 4, 1970 with only six stations, so it wouldn't have been representative.
 

newvillefan

I Know My First Name Is Stephen
If Billboard (and Casey Kasem) had gone out of their way to say "The Hot 100 chart represents wholesale shipments of 45 RPM records to distributors and record stores and is not indicative of actual retail sales. Such sales may not occur, in which case the records are returned to the label. No re-accounting of the chart to reflect the actual sales of the record, which may be substantially less than the number shipped wholesale, will be done and no adjustment made to chart rankings as a result", on every AT40 broadcast, Whitburn or Bronson book or CD compilation, i doubt the Billboard chart would be anything the public would have paid much attention to.


I'm gobsmacked that the Billboard chart held such sway in light of this. It's almost like many #1 records are built on sand then. Isn't it the case that when artists say "oh we've sold 275,000,000 records" the figure could be a fraction of that? The mind boggles :hmmm:
 

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
The true monsters (Dark Side of the Moon, Rumours, Tapestry) are legit. They rack up those huge numbers by selling big when new and adding to the total over time. The suspect ones were generally the ones that came out of the box big and that's it. Returns happened within 90 days, usually....so the stock wasn't in the stores to continue follow-through sales (when was the last time you saw the Sgt. Pepper Movie soundtrack in a store?).

The main point isn't that big records weren't big...it's that small ones were very small.

And it should be noted that since the advent of Soundscan, Billboard has been showing actual retail sales. The above applies to the period before Soundscan came along in the 90s.
 

A&Mguyfromwayback

Well-Known Member
Industry Member
This is pretty mind-boggling....I remember the book "Hit Men" talking about a lot of records that were basically payola-ed up the charts in one way or another; one of them was "Jesse" by Carly Simon, which is a record I really like....this breakdown makes it all make sense, but is kind of sad somehow.

By the way, why would a record company ship (or record stores want to advance order) so many copies of a bagpipe group playing "Amazing Grace"? Was it in a movie or something?
 

song4u

Well-Known Member
The true monsters (Dark Side of the Moon, Rumours, Tapestry) are legit. They rack up those huge numbers by selling big when new and adding to the total over time. The suspect ones were generally the ones that came out of the box big and that's it. Returns happened within 90 days, usually....so the stock wasn't in the stores to continue follow-through sales (when was the last time you saw the Sgt. Pepper Movie soundtrack in a store?).

The main point isn't that big records weren't big...it's that small ones were very small.

And it should be noted that since the advent of Soundscan, Billboard has been showing actual retail sales. The above applies to the period before Soundscan came along in the 90s.


Michael Hagerty - nice to "read" you here again. Thanks for the background info on the charts. I had wondered how they could ever be precise in their tabulations.

And by the way . . . 116F on Friday??
 

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
This is pretty mind-boggling....I remember the book "Hit Men" talking about a lot of records that were basically payola-ed up the charts in one way or another; one of them was "Jesse" by Carly Simon, which is a record I really like....this breakdown makes it all make sense, but is kind of sad somehow.

By the way, why would a record company ship (or record stores want to advance order) so many copies of a bagpipe group playing "Amazing Grace"? Was it in a movie or something?



No. I was a baby PD at the time. "Amazing Grace" literally came out of nowhere....sort of.

Wikipedia (best taken with a grain of salt) says the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards' version was based on Judy Collins', just slowed down for the bagpipes. Judy made it to #15 with hers in 1970. And Aretha Franklin had a live album called "Amazing Grace", including the song, the same year as the Royal Scots.

Record store owners tended to go big on novelty records, because when they took off, everybody wanted them...now. And if you weren't in one of the biggest cities, by the time you got your re-stock, the demand might cool. This was before FedEx. A record store in Anytown, USA would mail in their order once a week. It'd take three or four days to get to the distributor, which might take two or three days to process the order, and then it'd take another three or four days to arrive...counting weekends, it might be two weeks between placing the order and getting the stock.

That's almost certainly the scenario with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (no disrespect intended in calling a sacred song a novelty...but anything outside mainstream pop was really a novelty). Google Books has an archive (incomplete, but still remarkable) of back issues of Billboard. Checking the charts, "Amazing Grace' debuted at #59. That's a big number for the first week. Remember, though...that's only wholesale...first shipments from the labels to wholesalers, rackjobbers and retailers (some of whom placed direct orders with labels).

The second week...#31. Awfully early for re-orders to replace sold stock at retail, but maybe. More likely wholesalers stocking up because they see enthusiasm at retail and know it'll be a short window. There's very little disincentive. They have to wait 90 days, but they'll be able to return any unsold copies if they overbuy.

Third week...#23.

Fourth week #19...momentum's slowing (Note: It's taken Bill Withers' "Lean On Me" twice as long...eight weeks...to get to #20. The only other record moving up the charts as fast is Jimmy Castor Bunch's "Troglodyte"...another novelty...which was #19 in its fourth week, and one week later is #13).

Fifth week #17. Retail's pulling back. There are re-orders, but it's not universal.

Sixth week #12. A big batch of re-orders.

Seventh week (in which the first print ad for Aretha's "Amazing Grace album runs) #11.

Eighth week......#21. Now, remember the lag time on making and getting the orders and print deadlines for the magazine. Very likely that big batch of re-orders that shot "Amazing Grace" to #12 two weeks earlier was unfounded optimism. Meaning the last real hot week was the third week. Which was either before or at the very beginning of any sales at the retail level.

Ninth week.....#40.

Tenth week....Gone. Not just from the Top 40, from the Hot 100.

So, realistically, was this a #11 record? As in, was it, at any point really the "eleventh most popular record in the USA"?
 

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Michael Hagerty - nice to "read" you here again. Thanks for the background info on the charts. I had wondered how they could ever be precise in their tabulations.

And by the way . . . 116F on Friday??



Thanks, Song4U. The Weather Channel just bumped it to 117 Friday and Saturday!

There's something else that worked against precision in those days, too....ties. There were more of them than you might think, though Billboard never showed a tie.

A minimum order for a record (apart from special orders of catalog material) was five copies. And they sold in multiples of 5 (10, 15, 20, 25 and so on).

So when you're in the early stages of a record and retailers are being cautious, most of the orders are going to be the minimum. If (and this is just a number for the sake of example) 1,000 record stores ordered 5 copies each of 10 different records that week, you'd have 10 records that all moved 5,000 copies at retail. That's a ten-way tie, but you don't acknowledge ties. At that point, Billboard has to somehow decide which of those records is #91, which is #100 and which fall between and in what order.

And with records moving in multiples of five, ties could happen further up the chart as well.

Given that the only songs moving in huge quantities were Top 10 (give or take), the majority of the chart was made up of records that were, in any given week, moving in relatively modest to downright small numbers...and the smaller the number, the greater the opportunity for a tie and the greater the opportunity for multi-way ties, which have to be broken by some arbitrary (but hopefully consistent week to week) means.
 

Harry

Charter A&M Corner Member
Staff member
Site Admin
By the way, why would a record company ship (or record stores want to advance order) so many copies of a bagpipe group playing "Amazing Grace"? Was it in a movie or something?

[Useless trivia]
Though it has nothing to do with that record, yes, in fact, "Amazing Grace" on bagpipes has appeared in many movies. Two in particular happen to star Leonard Nimoy. The tune was played at the conclusion of STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN, and then later appeared when Nimoy starred in the remake of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.

Harry
 

Jeff

Well-Known Member
Okey dokey me next. I love the anomaly of GOOFUS! I like the curious arrangement and the clever overdubs. The sophisticated production could've been hinting at what's to come. Manhattan Transferish. I rave on those tight harmonies. Single or no single? YOU may have fared better chart wise although I think BOAT TO SAIL has been highly underrated. Karen's reading and backgrounds are a standout on HUSH. This may have been the hit that eluded that record. It does seem to me tho that the powers that be at the label did little or nothing to promote the album. I'm uncertain who has the final say regarding single releases but whoever twas had lost the ear for top 40 radio. Nonetheless, here again the focus on charting vs. making art for art sake was a bone of contention. PASSAGE tried and perhaps should've lent itself as the vehicle for an ever changing, evolving sound, style and experience. GOOFUS in its unusual way is fun, different and certainly another welcome addition to the duos efforts.
 

Glenpwood

Well-Known Member
Nice analysis of Amazing Grace but by the time Goofus had come along in 1976 Billboard had changed it's weighing of the chart to put more emphasis on airplay and jukebox vendors since they claimed the amount of retailers selling singles was down. The article mentioned this would allow the chart to better reflect the action on hot records and reflect their demand faster. That would reflect as you noted the turnaround of re-orders on product. This change was in June of 1973. Before that, in 1968 Billboard had changed the top 50 of the Hot 100 to be entirely sales based hence why their were some major discrepancies between them and Record World or Cashbox in those years. I did read a book a few years ago from one of the bigwigs that ran Casablanca Records that you could buy your position from Billboard chart manager Bill Wardlow during his tenure (1974-83). He tells the tale of giving Warlow a large amount of cash to buy the number one slot on the LP chart for Thank God It's Friday but in the end lost out to Saturday Night Fever. (Side note: I would've got my money back since BB never placed the LP higher than #10 on the chart.) I totally agree the the strength of a chart position is subjective. Lots of top 10's and number ones get zero recurrent airplay after their Hot 100 tenure while chart stiffs like "What I Like About You" and "Moondance" thrive. So it's hard to say if Goofus was over or under charted so to speak. I was still in my crib while it charted so I don't know if it was a turntable hit anywhere outside of AC radio. Even there it seems like it got a free pass from Carpenter brand recognition with the audience rather than passion for it. (See also Helen Reddy's Gladiola from that period which went AC top 10 but didnt even hit the Hot 100). At the end of the day, its a pleasant tune but seems out of step up against the competition of that moment. For a group as obsessed with chart positions as Karen & Richard allegedly were I'm not sure what the thought process could've been.
 

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Nice analysis of Amazing Grace but by the time Goofus had come along in 1976 Billboard had changed it's weighing of the chart to put more emphasis on airplay and jukebox vendors since they claimed the amount of retailers selling singles was down. The article mentioned this would allow the chart to better reflect the action on hot records and reflect their demand faster. That would reflect as you noted the turnaround of re-orders on product. This change was in June of 1973. Before that, in 1968 Billboard had changed the top 50 of the Hot 100 to be entirely sales based hence why their were some major discrepancies between them and Record World or Cashbox in those years. I did read a book a few years ago from one of the bigwigs that ran Casablanca Records that you could buy your position from Billboard chart manager Bill Wardlow during his tenure (1974-83). He tells the tale of giving Warlow a large amount of cash to buy the number one slot on the LP chart for Thank God It's Friday but in the end lost out to Saturday Night Fever. (Side note: I would've got my money back since BB never placed the LP higher than #10 on the chart.) I totally agree the the strength of a chart position is subjective. Lots of top 10's and number ones get zero recurrent airplay after their Hot 100 tenure while chart stiffs like "What I Like About You" and "Moondance" thrive. So it's hard to say if Goofus was over or under charted so to speak. I was still in my crib while it charted so I don't know if it was a turntable hit anywhere outside of AC radio. Even there it seems like it got a free pass from Carpenter brand recognition with the audience rather than passion for it. (See also Helen Reddy's Gladiola from that period which went AC top 10 but didnt even hit the Hot 100). At the end of the day, its a pleasant tune but seems out of step up against the competition of that moment. For a group as obsessed with chart positions as Karen & Richard allegedly were I'm not sure what the thought process could've been.

While albums began outselling singles in raw numbers by 1969, singles didn't hit their peak sales until 1974.

Billboard's attempt to blend airplay and jukebox numbers into the Hot 100 in '73 evaporated within weeks, and it may never have actually gotten off the ground. It wasn't until 1981 that they tried it again, but only airplay, no jukeboxes.

The problem: Airplay and jukebox play simply inflate the chart number of records that aren't selling. It'd be like counting every time someone rents a Chrysler 200 from AVIS as a sale.

The Casablanca book was a juicy read, but makes a lot of allegations that I'd hate to defend in court. It was a fairly open secret that you could buy a "star" (signifying chart movement), but usually by buying ad space in the magazine, not by bribing the chart manager.

Contemporary airplay of songs like "What I Like About You" and "Moondance" aren't based on decades-old chart data (shaky even when new), but on the records' current appeal to the desired demographic....what 25-54 year olds want to hear now, not what 15 year olds bought then.

As for the Easy Listening chart, that needs to be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than the Hot 100. Billboard created all kinds of charts that showed things that didn't make sense compared to the Hot 100. Most of those charts were created for one reason...to give labels more records showing promise that they could then commit advertising dollars to.
 

Rumbahbah

Well-Known Member
Michael, really interesting to have some behind-the-scenes info on how chart positions could be gained at the time - I guess before singles were scanned, there really was a large room for manoeuvre in terms of manipulating the figures. However, I'd be interested to know what part airplay had in influencing chart positions in the 1970s beyond giving the song a wider potential audience that would go and buy it. Was it included as part of the calculation of a song's chart position on any level for any length of time?

I recall reading somewhere that Calling Occupants did reasonably well from a sales perspective but didn't get the airplay to boost it higher on the chart, but coming back to the chart manipulation theme, I think Randy Schmidt's book states that A&M started using 'payola' tactics for some of the singles from Passage, even though none of the singles broke the Top 30. Were the tactics just not very effective or were other record companies also using them quite heavily, thus reducing their effectiveness in the market?
 

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Airplay was not factored into the chart as a weighting factor ( Billboard never divulged the full formula, but it was number of stations saying they're playing a record and the average position on the individual station's weekly playlist would equal X number of sales...again, like a car company counting rentals...or, for that matter, you seeing one of their cars on a TV show...as a sale) until 1981.

Until then, airplay was exposure that record companies hoped would translate into retail sales.

Except...and this is probably the Calling Occupants reference...remember that Billboard's Hot 100 reflected wholesale action...copies the labels sold to distributors and sometimes direct to retailers.

When a station added a record, the first thing the label did next was to push to get stock into the stores. Not a good thing if people hear it, want to buy it and can't find it, right?

But because Billboard was tracking wholesale, every one of those copies got counted as a sale, whether anyone bought it at retail or not.

So you could (and most companies did) structure your promotional efforts for a record so that you got 10 small market stations to add it in week one, 10 small market and 5 medium market stations in week two, 20 small market, 10 medium market and 5 large market stations in week three...and so on...essentially feeding Billboard impressive gains in wholesale shipments week after week, because the bigger markets had more record stores, nobody wanted to be left out if (made-up station) Stereo 101 was playing it, and there was a minimum order of 5 copies. A town with two record stores is 10 copies. A city with 50 record stores is 250 copies.

Now, every company wanted a real hit. So there wasn't anything wrong or dishonest...not even a little shady...in this. If people bought those first shipments at retail, the stores would re-order. Keep that up over 8 or 9 weeks, and you might have a million-seller.

But if only a few sold, by the time word got out that a record was a stiff, if you had airplay to justify stocking the stores, you could push that stiff into the middle of the Hot 100, at least...and depending just how those adds came and how optimistic retailers got in their ordering, peaking in the 20s was not out of the question.

As for Payola tactics...I dealt with A&M for 10 years. They were the first record company I ever talked to as a baby programmer. I was never important enough to be offered payola even from the companies where it was rampant. But I knew who they were. I never heard it about A&M.

A&M did, as every other record company did for a few years in the late 70s/early 80s (as I was transitioning to TV) begin using independent promotion men in addition to their own staff. Frederick Dannen's book "Hit Men" paints a very accurate picture of what the worst indie promoters were like. And yes, they used payola, charging it as legitimate expenses.

NBC's Brian Ross did a Nightly News expose that ended that and put a lot of the bad guys in jail, but not before the "Hit Men" drove some excellent and ethical independent promoters out of the business because they didn't want to be mentioned in the same breath as gangsters.
 

george_b

Member
Has Richard ever commented on Goofus and why it was released as a single? I recall reading an interview with him from the early 1990s where he was asked why he thought the Carpenters' success declined in the later 1970s and his reply was that it was mainly due to resistance from radio, but he did mention that he picked 'a couple of duds' as singles - I can only imagine Goofus must have been one of these.

Nice in a way to see that some here can find something to appreciate in Goofus. Alas I can't say the same.

Even as an album track, Goofus is at best a mildly diverting novelty. It's just not a very good song - I recently listened to the Wayne King, Les Paul and Phil Harris versions and they all sound lightweight and a bit silly. That's not to say that you couldn't pick up songs from past eras and make something great - I Can Dream Can't I? on Horizon was lovely, although again not single material. You could maybe just about justify it as an album track if it weren't for the fact that a track as stellar as Ordinary Fool was left off A Kind of Hush while Goofus made it on - baffling is putting it mildly.

But to release it as a single ... I still don't grasp the logic, unless they were trying for a 'Muskrat Love'-curveball (although somehow *that* was a hit!). Their last three singles by that time hadn't made the Top 10, they'd already released a lightweight 'oldie' with There's a Kind of Hush, radio was supposedly becoming more resistant to their output, so they really had to up their game at this point. And so to remedy things, they put this out as a single...! It's difficult to imagine a worse choice at that juncture - a song that could only reinforce the apparently growing perception of them being lightweight and completely out of touch with the current music scene. I don't think the A Kind of Hush album had a smash hit on it, but even so, You or Can't Smile Without You would surely have at least made the Top 40. A poor song and an absolutely terrible single - easily their worst.

This nicely sums up how I felt when Goofus was released as a single. As a general statement singles need ENERGY of some kind but this one never fired up. It made no sense for a DJ to programme it, and generally speaking they didn't. As for "There's a Kind of Hush" - perfect 1960's hit for north=of=England toothy Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits. But one for the 60's not the 70's. Too soon for nostalgia on this occasion.
 

GaryAlan

Well-Known Member
August 1976, Fan Club Newsletter#49, and I quote:
"Comments on the new album AKOH are calculated and it seems that the favorite song is Goofus, so look for it as the next single."

Personally, I feel this to be an album cut, not a single choice.
But, it is a very good song. I like the arrangement. It's different.
Listen to the originals from the 1940's of this song to get a perspective on it versus K&R rendition.
 

Michael Hagerty

Well-Known Member
Contributor
August 1976, Fan Club Newsletter#49, and I quote:
"Comments on the new album AKOH are calculated and it seems that the favorite song is Goofus, so look for it as the next single."

When your sales are declining, you don't ask your (shrinking) fan base what the single should be. The goal is to attract new fans. Bad call on their part.
 

ullalume

Well-Known Member
That's Charlie Callas. . .the voice of Elliot the Dragon in the 1977's Pete's Dragon. . . .frankly, compared to Christmas Portrait's Peter Pitt, he reads like Marlon frickin' Brando.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom