VH1 - Up-dated Top 40 Best Selling UK Singles Acts

[zeus555]

Yes - ABBA's Total in 'Music Week', (10,812,000),
included Downloads. In the up-dated Top 40 UK
Singles Acts, ABBA only had the Downloads
for 'Mamma Mia' added in. (The OCC told me that
they only counted that Hit, because it reached
the Top 75, in 2008. ABBA had 21 other 'Singles'
selling at the same time, but they failed to reach
the Top 75 - so their Sales have been ignored).

'Mamma Mia' sold 36,000 Downloads in 2008.
And that is the same figure that ABBA's Total has
risen by since the February 2004 List.

1) Leaving aside the missing ABBA Downloads -
it means that The OCC forgot to add in the 11,240
Sales of the Re-Issued 'Waterloo', from 2004.
It Peaked at No.20. The OCC told me ages ago
that it sold 11,240.

2) And, it means that several 100,000 ABBA Downloads
have been ignored.

3) I think that every Act should be treated the
same - ALL 'Singles' Downloads should be added
in - for ABBA, Queen, Michael Jackson, Madonna, &
so on.

Zeus555

[johnnyboy]

You're right, of course all acts should be treated the same.

[johnnyboy]

I would think its more likely that these differences are due to different interpretations of past data (i.e. pre-DUS) rather than errors with current / recent data.

Nothing like a jargon-free response!

[ZiggyStardust]

If I'm not mistaken, MusicWeek's list is not an all time list but only a list for the period 1959-2009 which means it ignores Elvis' early UK sales, Cliff's 1958 sales and Lonnie Donegan who was one of the most popular UK artists of the fifties.

[brian05]

Yes, there were 2 sets of figures for Cliff and Elvis. I gave the all-time list.

Sales from 1959 to 2009
1. Beatles 20,821,000
2. Cliff 20,183,000
3. Elvis 15,824,000

It does not state when the all-time list started.
So Elvis apparently sold 5 million singles from 1956 to 1958.

It also states that The Beatles sold 21,000 in the last 5 years (04 to 09). These were physical sales since they remain unavailable as downloads.

[MFR]

I would think its more likely that these differences are due to different interpretations of past data (i.e. pre-DUS) rather than errors with current / recent data.

Nothing like a jargon-free response!

DUS = Defined Universe Sales, the reporting units of sales figures in the UK since 1997, representing most of the market, particularly for singles. Hopefully, most general chart fans know this.

[brian05]

I would think its more likely that these differences are due to different interpretations of past data (i.e. pre-DUS) rather than errors with current / recent data.

I don't agree with you on this point. I think they simply got the download figures wrong. A computer operator fault!

I can't imagine that the Beatles figure lay in a misinterpretation of pre-DUS figures of 21,000 to bring them back to exactly the 2004 figure. Why were the pre-DUS figures not 25,000 out or 18,000 out? Just too much of a coincident.

It's got to be a computer mistake.

[MFR]

I accept that there are great difficulties in keeping up with downloads, because there are so many more tracks whose sales need to be accumulated than when product was only physical and mostly soon deleted.

I'm sure you're right about the Beatles, but I'm talking more generally.

The Music Week 50th anniversary issue all-time album chart credits OCC as compilers. Alan Jones says they used their own data from 1994 onwards, but before that used various sources including books, certifications, record company sources, press clippings, and Alan's own algorithms based on chart performance.

Yet I seem to recall it differed in unexplained ways from another all-time album chart on the BPI website with a cutoff point only 2 months earlier. Wasn't that chart also by OCC? Did it perhaps not use Alan's algorithms, or rely less (or more) on press clippings, books etc?

The same applies to the singles artists list. Who knows where Alan's interpretations differ from some other expert's interpretations? At least from 1994 OCC have all the data (hopefully?) and Alan presumably gets access to any part of it he asks for.

Nevertheless, last year OCC did some charts which went out, possibly on VH1, in which they chose, probably for ease of use, to use previously-unpublished DUS figures from their database for 1994 to 1996. As the result was that singles from this period came out with lower figures than people had expected there was great consternation from chart watchers.

OCC now seem to have back-tracked and are apparently using the originally published figures again. But are they using them here? And Alan Jones has sometimes quoted DUS figures for singles from 1995 and 1996 in Music Week.

Personally, I treat many figures from before DUS with a certain amount of scepticism. That's not to say you should or that I'm right to do this. But that's how I see it.

[johnnyboy]

I would think its more likely that these differences are due to different interpretations of past data (i.e. pre-DUS) rather than errors with current / recent data.

I don't agree with you on this point. I think they simply got the download figures wrong. A computer operator fault!

I can't imagine that the Beatles figure lay in a misinterpretation of pre-DUS figures of 21,000 to bring them back to exactly the 2004 figure. Why were the pre-DUS figures not 25,000 out or 18,000 out? Just too much of a coincident.

It's got to be a computer mistake.

I don't agree either. Just look at the case of Abba. Downloads were simply excluded when they were included for other artists! And don't forget the OCC completely forgot about Take That!

It is not a pre-DUS problem. Incidently, while I knew what DUS stoof for, I'm sure not all chart watchers would have.

[fiesta]

I dont think the compilers of these lists, pay too much attention to what sort of sales they use DUS or otherwise. 99% of people who view these list arent going to be paying to much attention to the sales, only us chart watchers that take notice.

Put it this way some bloke at OCC HQ probably gets the job to put these lists together for the various music channels. he probably hates his job, trudging through loads of figures, he probably finds it a bore. He's probably not aware of the differences between DUS sales and Panel Sales for 94-96 period, he just uses whats in front of him cause its there at hand. Sooner he compiles these lists the sooner he gets home to watch the football.

[MFR]

I dont think the compilers of these lists, pay too much attention to what sort of sales they use DUS or otherwise. 99% of people who view these list arent going to be paying to much attention to the sales, only us chart watchers that take notice.

Put it this way some bloke at OCC HQ probably gets the job to put these lists together for the various music channels. he probably hates his job, trudging through loads of figures, he probably finds it a bore. He's probably not aware of the differences between DUS sales and Panel Sales for 94-96 period, he just uses whats in front of him cause its there at hand. Sooner he compiles these lists the sooner he gets home to watch the football.

I hope that the people who put the lists together do care about what they're doing. There must be many on here who'd like the opportunity to work with record industry data.

[MFR]

I would think its more likely that these differences are due to different interpretations of past data (i.e. pre-DUS) rather than errors with current / recent data.

I don't agree with you on this point. I think they simply got the download figures wrong. A computer operator fault!

I can't imagine that the Beatles figure lay in a misinterpretation of pre-DUS figures of 21,000 to bring them back to exactly the 2004 figure. Why were the pre-DUS figures not 25,000 out or 18,000 out? Just too much of a coincident.

It's got to be a computer mistake.

I don't agree either. Just look at the case of Abba. Downloads were simply excluded when they were included for other artists! And don't forget the OCC completely forgot about Take That!

It is not a pre-DUS problem. Incidently, while I knew what DUS stoof for, I'm sure not all chart watchers would have.

Well, it wouldn't have been the computer that decided to exclude Take That sales, or decided to exclude most of Abba's downloads, but to include all of Queen's.

Perhaps Take That were not on a list of artists to check out. Perhaps the sales period was wrong for some acts, affecting downloads. But I'm sure it's all there in the files.

What they are saying they don't have is the information they want for pre-1994, so they are forced to use other sources and these can be interpreted differently by different people and new sources of information become available. One source would be the BPI's own data and OCC are now based in the same building.

[brian05]

Well, it wouldn't have been the computer that decided to exclude Take That sales, or decided to exclude most of Abba's downloads, but to include all of Queen's.

Ever used MS Access and tried to create a Report?

First you need to set up a Query.
This can be done either using a Query Grid or by SQL programming. Its quite simple to make mistakes.

My A Level pupils make mistakes all the time setting up Queries. Then its up to me to de-bug their mistakes. (I usually spot their mistakes within seconds - to their great annoyance).

It depends on what software OCC use and the level of competence of the operator. Maintaining databases is a full-time job. Human error does occur!

[sfcolley]

Guys,

I am new to this forum but I believed that the 2004 figures were calculated from 1967 - this always seemed a strange date to select. My view was that it was a statistical nonsense that allowed the C4 programme to have an interview with "the winner".
Additionally it does not seem sensible that Elvis sold 5 million, or 25% of his total sales in a two year period.

[zeus555]

Guys,

I am new to this forum but I believed that the 2004 figures were calculated from 1967 - this always seemed a strange date to select. My view was that it was a statistical nonsense that allowed the C4 programme to have an interview with "the winner".
Additionally it does not seem sensible that Elvis sold 5 million, or 25% of his total sales in a two year period.

The 2004 List couldn't have started in 1967 -
The Beatles would not have had over 20 Million
Singles Sales in it, if it had. Their 5 UK Million
Sellers were all before 1967. They were selling
more UK Singles before 1967, than from 1967 onwards.

The 2004 List was supposed to be from November
1952 onwards, but - as many suspect - it was probably
from later in the 1950's than that. But 1967 is far too
late for it to have started from.

Zeus555

[MFR]

Well, it wouldn't have been the computer that decided to exclude Take That sales, or decided to exclude most of Abba's downloads, but to include all of Queen's.

Ever used MS Access and tried to create a Report?

First you need to set up a Query.
This can be done either using a Query Grid or by SQL programming. Its quite simple to make mistakes.

My A Level pupils make mistakes all the time setting up Queries. Then its up to me to de-bug their mistakes. (I usually spot their mistakes within seconds - to their great annoyance).

It depends on what software OCC use and the level of competence of the operator. Maintaining databases is a full-time job. Human error does occur!

Oh God, yes, I've written a few SQL queries in my time, and of course it's easy to make mistakes.

But my point has been that the computer gives the 'right' answer. It's just that the question may be wrong, such as with a query which due to human error in setting the criteria finds the wrong records (too many, too few, or none perhaps in the case of Take That).

Maybe, OCC don't do much checking to see whether the results are as expected. But it's hard to see that they don't know what to expect. They produce so many of these charts for VH1 or somesuch, admittedly with inconsistent results, and people on here and on other forums pick up on these inconsistencies. Maybe it is the disenterested person Fiesta was writing about who gets lumbered with this.

But the pre-1994 'sales' are not on their computer. Alan Jones has his figures. Others have their own figures. Probably all are wrong in some way.

Music Week admitted that the 50th anniversary album chart has 'some degree of accuracy'. It's clear to me that it's the pre-1994 estimates that require that qualification to be made.

[brian05]

Additionally it does not seem sensible that Elvis sold 5 million, or 25% of his total sales in a two year period.

1956, 1957, 1958 = 3 years.
Elvis had 29 Top 30 hits in that period.

[TIfan]

Congrats to Britney for making so high above Celine and Mariah. Hopefully Whitney will cross 8,000,000 within the next two years. I would have thought Mihcael would be top 5 by now since his death increased eveything.

[Gambo]

Maybe OCC don't do much checking to see whether the results are as expected. But it's hard to see that they don't know what to expect. They produce so many of these charts for VH1 or somesuch, admittedly with inconsistent results, and people on here and on other forums pick up on these inconsistencies. Maybe it is the disinterested person Fiesta was writing about who gets lumbered with this.

Regardless of the universal problems even the OCC have with obtaining, managing and deploying record sales figures from various sources prior to their 1994 threshold, I think what is conjectured above regarding these rankings being produced by a single person is probably correct. Let's remind ourselves that despite its bold, corporate-sounding big id and logo, the OCC is I believe an assembly of no more than 7 or 8 permanent staff (someone like Zeus will correct me if I'm wrong), and given the increased interest in their data and having set themselves up as the single and only trusted primary source for it, I imagine that these people do have a fair amount of number-crunching work to do, and perhaps this does preclude even the most enlightened and decorous of employees from providing the kind of complete and almost error-free service we all expect, because that service emanates from an "official" source.
Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't excuse slapdash or erroneous work by their staff. After all they are paid what one assumes a reasonable sum to perform such tasks and it would be nice to believe that they have the necessary means and experience to discharge their duties professionally, and maintain some interest or engagement with their daily grind beyond the "it's just a job" mentality. But I do think that these demonstrably complex round-ups of historical sales data really could be just down to 1 person, who must pull all this often incomplete, inconsistent and sometimes downright inaccurate material together and come up with some sort of table that approaches what most will accept as "definitive". I think we should be alive to the possibility that they may genuinely struggle to be as thorough (or as obsessed!) about absolute accuracy/consistency of data capture and interpretation as some users of this forum like to be!

We can only hope that one of our more database and computer-savvy contributors (sadly this does not include me) ends up getting a job at the OCC and then we'll know no excuses can be given for any errant data delivery in future....!

[TIfan]

Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Leona Lewis, and Beyonce are on the come up.

[blackcat]

So Elvis needs 510k to surpass Sir Cliff Richard.

The Fab Four can easily sell more than 600k if EMI decides to release their singles digitally.

There might be another factor as regarding the Beatles figures - I call it the Magical Mystery Tour factor!

Magical Mystery Tour came out as a double e.p. in Britain, and must have sold at least 600,000 copies.

Now did the OCC, assuming that they counted E.P. sales as singles (which I assume that they have) count this release as just one unit sold or, as they do with double lp's in the USA, did they count it as two singles sold.

Because if they counted it as just one single sold, and thus sales of just 600,000 or so, then a case can be made that that is wrong - it was actually released as a two single package, and thus, counting it the American way, it should be counted as 1.2 million singles sold.

So if the OCC did not count it as a two single package, that means that another 600,000 copies can be added onto the Beatles singles total, putting them slighly ahead of Sir Cliff...............

[MFR]

Maybe OCC don't do much checking to see whether the results are as expected. But it's hard to see that they don't know what to expect. They produce so many of these charts for VH1 or somesuch, admittedly with inconsistent results, and people on here and on other forums pick up on these inconsistencies. Maybe it is the disinterested person Fiesta was writing about who gets lumbered with this.

Regardless of the universal problems even the OCC have with obtaining, managing and deploying record sales figures from various sources prior to their 1994 threshold, I think what is conjectured above regarding these rankings being produced by a single person is probably correct. Let's remind ourselves that despite its bold, corporate-sounding big id and logo, the OCC is I believe an assembly of no more than 7 or 8 permanent staff (someone like Zeus will correct me if I'm wrong), and given the increased interest in their data and having set themselves up as the single and only trusted primary source for it, I imagine that these people do have a fair amount of number-crunching work to do, and perhaps this does preclude even the most enlightened and decorous of employees from providing the kind of complete and almost error-free service we all expect, because that service emanates from an "official" source.
Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't excuse slapdash or erroneous work by their staff. After all they are paid what one assumes a reasonable sum to perform such tasks and it would be nice to believe that they have the necessary means and experience to discharge their duties professionally, and maintain some interest or engagement with their daily grind beyond the "it's just a job" mentality. But I do think that these demonstrably complex round-ups of historical sales data really could be just down to 1 person, who must pull all this often incomplete, inconsistent and sometimes downright inaccurate material together and come up with some sort of table that approaches what most will accept as "definitive". I think we should be alive to the possibility that they may genuinely struggle to be as thorough (or as obsessed!) about absolute accuracy/consistency of data capture and interpretation as some users of this forum like to be!

We can only hope that one of our more database and computer-savvy contributors (sadly this does not include me) ends up getting a job at the OCC and then we'll know no excuses can be given for any errant data delivery in future....!

Fiesta has posted on HavenForum that a member (Dynamoe88) posted some singles sales figures for 1988-1995 there, and on the Buzzjack forum. He used sources such as Record Mirror and Hit Music, and many of his estimates were very good.

However, he was undoubtedly led to some incorrect conclusions with 1990-1993 singles by mistakes or shortcuts in Hit Music's occasional decade-to-date 1990s updates. Amazingly, enough a 1990s chart broadcast by Smash Hits had the same charts, and the 'mistakes' were the same, too. This also applies to charts broadcast by other stations, leading to the possibility that the broadcasters used these charts posted by Dynamoe88.

Or they may have done the same research and come to the same results, but...

[TIfan]

I predict Madonna or Michael Jackson to pass them due to some possible new releases from Mike and Madonna continuation on the charts.

[pier]

madonna has sold more than 36 m of records in uk (cd+singles) THE QUEEN

[zeus555]

The OCC are thinking of up-dating the Best Selling
UK Singles Acts List - to put in the 2010 Edition of
the 'British Hit Singles' Book. (In November).

In the meantime, I have some questions for
UK 'Chart Fans' here:,

1) ELVIS PRESLEY

Is it really true that the UK Singles Acts
List,(since it was first revealed in February
2004), has missed out a few of Elvis Presley's
first 1950's Years? So that he loses several
Million Singles Sales?

2) THE BEATLES

Should The Beatles really be given an extra
600,000 Sales for the 'Magical Mystery Tour' EP,
on the grounds that it was really a 'Double Single'
& should have 1,200,000 UK Sales - not 600,000?
(It is usually given about 620,000 UK Sales.
So, it would be doubled to 1,240,000).

3) GIRLS ALOUD

Should Girls Aloud be in the Top 50 Best Selling UK
Singles Acts, by now? They've had 20 Top 10 Hits, &
a No.11 Hit.

4) SUGABABES

Should Sugababes be in the Top 50 UK Singles Acts?
They've had 18 Top 10 Hits, 5 more in the Top 20, &
3 others in the Top 40

5) THE SHADOWS

As The OCC, (& UK Chart Books), add Cliff Richard
& The Shadows Hits to both Cliff's Section, & The
Shadows Section, shouldn't their Sales be given
to The Shadows too? What's the point in calling them
Shadows Hits, if their Sales are only ever counted
towards Cliff Richard's Sales? Surely they should be
added to The Shadows Sales as well?

The Shadows are clearly only having The Shadows
Singles Sales counted - hence why they are only 48th
in the Top 50, with 4,794,000 Singles Sales.

Zeus555