nm

They were both pretty similar, but Billboard seemed to be geared towards the record business executives, while Cash Box was geared towards the record retailers. Billboard probably had more accurate information and charts (most of the time), while Cash Box was often accused of catering to some of the sleazier elements of the music industry.

Cash Box was not without it's merits, though. It's weekly listings and reviews of new releases were much more comprehensive than Billboard's, and Rhythm and Blues fans will swear that the Cash Box R&B charts of the early sixties were much more reflective of the genre than Billboard's.

Personally, I always liked Record World -- it seemed like a music industry weekly that was written by music fans. Imagine that! And their charts were based on actual numbers of units sold, so they may have been the most accurate in the business at the time.

As for the re-incarnation of Cash Box at cashboxmagazine.com, it's utterly pathetic. Their charts are position-by-position reproductions of Billboard's charts. Who do they think they're fooling?

I liked the quality of editorial at Cashbox, one of my favorite rock-journalists ever, Ed Kelleher was there in the early seventies and he was a fantastic writer.
I do agree with you, however, that of the three major
trade publications in the States Record World was always the best. The most readable and usable trade magazine we ever.