Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Yip I don't give points for under #30

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Originally posted by RokinRobinOfLocksley View Post
    Example: on the 31 Aug 1968 chart, "Eleanor Rigby" by Ray Charles appeared at #42 on RR. The BBC gave him 31 points for RR, the net result being Ray got into the BBC Top 30 that week, and "Laurel and Hardy" by The Equals at #35 on RR got bumped out.
    But The Equals got bumped out of the Ultimate too - for the same reason. The BBC awarding 31 points to Ray Charles is exactly the same as the inverse method awarding him zero points.

    BBC Inverse

    31 = 0
    32 = -1
    33 = -2
    34 = -3
    35 = -4
    etc.


    If you want to give The Equals the exact RR score you should give it 35 points under the BBC method or minus 4 points under the inverse method.

    If you want to give Ray Charles the exact RR score you should give it 42 points under the BBC method or minus 11 points under the inverse method.

    Last edited by Splodj; Sat February 13, 2021, 01:09.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    I concur entirely with that logic. Adding 'best possible' scores may seem like a good idea initially but not all records outside the chart could realistically hold #31 so yes as Robin says it altered the factual basis of the chart rendering it inaccurate in part.

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    Originally posted by Splodj View Post

    Yes they awarded 31 points. But this is no worse than the inverse method awarding 0 points.

    Suppose the actual Disc position for that record was 35. This means that it should have been awarded 35 points (BBC method) or minus 4 points (inverse method).
    Yes, should have been awarded 35 points, but the BBC stuck with 31. Sadly that choice affected several records and their chart positions.

    Example: on the 31 Aug 1968 chart, "Eleanor Rigby" by Ray Charles appeared at #42 on RR. The BBC gave him 31 points for RR, the net result being Ray got into the BBC Top 30 that week, and "Laurel and Hardy" by The Equals at #35 on RR got bumped out.

    The BBC calcs: Ray was #25 on NME, not on MM (give him #31), #42 on RR (give him #31). Sum it up, Ray = 25 + 31 + 31 = 87 points. The Equals were #30 on NME, #30 on MM, #35 on RR (give them #31). Sum it up, The Equals = 30 + 30 + 31 = 91 points. Ray is lower, and gets #30 on the BBC, The Equals = no show.

    But if you assume the best Ray could do on MM was #31, and you sum up all actual chart positions, Ray = 25 + 31 + 42 = 98. The Equals = 30 + 30 + 35 = 95. The Equals are thus lower and should have appeared on the BBC at #30 but didn't.

    If you do the Brian Ultimate method with all actual positions, and assume Ray was at #31 on MM, then Ray places higher than The Equals. But if you assume Ray was at #32 or lower on MM, then The Equals place higher than Ray.

    Fascinating, interesting...

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    As I have said before it was very easy to hype the top 30 of any chart. Jeff Beck being the best example I know for certain. It was in the top 30 of several charts for at least two weeks (including after MM had taken action to stop hyping). The MM also changed the following year and became much slower than it had been with new hits. As I am currently posting the 1968 charts, I can confirm this is not down to them doing a more accurate chart compared to the others. Indeed often even RR is on the mark more with new hits in the top 30 than MM. But I came upon the Small Faces (lazy Sunday) and Love Affair's new hits in the NME top 30, landing at 82 and 83 on the 7 April (week ending 13 on the NME Charts). And behind the hyping of the Jeff Beck record was the manager of The Small Faces - Don Arden. So he was at it again with the Faces!
    After all would you given the choice put a record at 28 in your chart or get throne out of the window?

    You will get very near to what was selling that week by adding the various charts together like the BBC did. What you miss out on is that odd record. For example Sam and Dave - Thank You. 34 on the RR chart and 14 in the full chart. The rest of the 30 might be two or three slots out for the records in it, or spot on!

    Mind you by 1976 the Official Chart was just a mess! Records dropping out after climbing and getting a Top of The Pops appearing from being at 31, to returning two weeks after the sales effect from the show would have negligible!
    Even with computers the industry has never sorted out the problem and due to the dominance of Woolies in the 80's and later iTunes and then the change to streaming, the charts are still a mess.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    I always trusted the MM chart more too in the sixties. I too agree that they should have continued to compile a Top 50. They should have weathered the hyping storm rather than run for cover and reduce the chart size. If they had continued with a Top 50 chances are MM would be considered the 'official' chart now and it would therefore have carried way more credibility.

    RR /Music Week had their own issues with hyping too in the seventies and they braved it out and didn't surrender the size of their chart.

    I think from mid sixties onwards NME were more album orientated and paid lip service to a singles chart. If they had been serious about their singles chart then perhaps they would have expanded it in size and got rid of split sides, ties, and albums in the singles chart.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    One of the reasons I trust MM more is that they were far more open about their charts and willing to discuss their reasons for doing things. It has been stated that NME only ever produced a Top 30 to prevent hyping, but unless NME themselves said this it is just an assumption.

    I still think MM should have persevered with a Top 50 and taken firmer measures to exclude hyped records. As they had been attacked on TV, I suppose they felt that more drastic action was needed to restore their credibility.

    The Sun still had a problem getting as many stores as they wanted to provide sales figures. This may have been because The Sun was contacting stores who were already supplying info to the chart companies, and they found the easiest way to answer The Sun's enquiries was simply to give them the same info - i.e. a simple list - rather than compile a different return just for them specifying actual sales figures.
    Last edited by Splodj; Fri February 12, 2021, 20:50.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    I wonder why the NME stuck with just 30 positions during the 60's? They had enough shops on the book to get to the top 50 of the Record Retailer and Melody Maker. And with the smaller number of shops the RR had you would have thought they would have stuck with a top 30!
    It's ironic that the Sun Newspaper was the first to produce the only actual sales based chart (if only for a week) in the UK!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Yeah I wanted to go with exact numbers that were at least measurable rather than taking a guess outside the top twenty or top thirty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post
    the BBC would award some points to this record for Disc as well as it was assumed it was just outside their Top 30
    Yes they awarded 31 points. But this is no worse than the inverse method awarding 0 points.

    Suppose the actual Disc position for that record was 35. This means that it should have been awarded 35 points (BBC method) or minus 4 points (inverse method).

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Corrected

    Leave a comment:


  • Woz1234
    replied
    On 22nd July in RR charts, Neil Sedaka should be #27 & Joe Loss should be #28

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Outwith that though, if I am remembering correctly, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, the BBC allocated points to records outside a chart, so for example in 1964 if a record was 29 in NME, 28 in RR, 27 in MM, but not on the DIsc Top 30 the BBC would award some points to this record for Disc as well as it was assumed it was just outside their Top 30 ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Originally posted by braindeadpj View Post
    The 21 is for calculating the inverse points on a top 20 chart basis and not a replacement position.
    The need to enter 21 proves that there is no difference between the two methods. Under the BBC method you need to enter 21 to make the score 21. Under the inverse method you need to enter 21 to make the score 0, having inserted '21-' before each number to make it inverse.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    I've just caught the next column of the spreadsheet Robbie, doesn't change anything but I will delete it as unnecessary

    Leave a comment:


  • Robbie
    replied
    ^
    You've included an extra column MrTibbs (NME inverse points).

    I'd completely forgotten about 'Temptation' by The Everly Brothers. What a great song!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending July 22nd 1961


    The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending July 22nd 1961 NME RM MM DISC RR Total
    Last This The Sound Survey Stores 80 60 110 50 30 Points
    Week Week The Top 30 Singles Chart BBC TOP 30 Scored
    1 1 Temptation - The Everly Brothers 1 2 1 2 1 1 9710
    2 2 Runaway - Del Shannon 2 3 4 1 3 2 9430
    5 3 Well I Ask You - Eden Kane 3 1 2 3 4 5 9350
    3 4 A Girl Like You - Cliff Richard 4 5 3 4 2 3 9020
    4 5 Hello Mary Lou / Travellin' Man - Ricky Nelson 5 4 5 5 7 4 8590
    6 6 Halfway To Paradise - Billy Fury 7 7 6 6 6 7 8140
    7 7 Pasadena - The Temperance Seven 6 6 7 7 5 6 8130
    11 8 You Don't Know - Helen Shapiro 8 8 8 8 8 9 7560
    8 9 Surrender - Elvis Presley 11 13 9 9 12 11 6730
    14 10 Time - Craig Douglas 12 15 11 10 10 13 6380
    21 11 You Always Hurt The One You Love - Clarence 'Frogman' Henry 9 9 10 13 9 22 6370
    9 12 But I Do - Clarence 'Frogman' Henry 10 10 19 11 11 8 6290
    10 13 Running Scared - Roy Orbison 13 11 12 12 17 10 6160
    20 14 Romeo - Petula Clark 14 12 13 16 14 19 5460
    15 15 Weekend - Eddie Cochran 15 16 18 17 13 15 4900
    18 16 Baby I Don't Care / Valley Of Tears - Buddy Holly 16 22 16 14 15 16 4740
    13 17 The Frightened City - The Shadows 17= 18 15 18 14 3960
    12 18 Pop Goes The Weasel - Anthony Newley 17= 14 15 16 17 3490
    16 19 Ring Of Fire - Duane Eddy 19 20 19 18 3330
    22 20 Moody River - Pat Boone 19 16 16 19 20 3030
    19 21 Breakin' In A Brand New Broken Heart - Connie Francis 20 26 18 20 12 2950
    23 22 Old Smokie / High Voltage - Johnny and The Hurricanes 25 14 20 2710
    NEW 23 Dum Dum - Brenda Lee 20 880
    NEW 24 Quarter To Three - The U.S. Bonds 20 880
    29 25 That's My Home - Mr. Acker Bilk 23 29 700
    NEW 26 Quite A Party - The Fireballs 24 560
    17 27 You'll Never Know - Shirley Bassey 27 23 560
    28 28 I've Told Every Little Star - Linda Scott 28 21 540
    27 29 Nature Boy - Bobby Darin 30 24 290
    26 30 Have A Drink On Me - Lonnie Donegan 25 180
    Don't You Know It - Adam Faith 29 160
    She She Little Sheila - Gene Vincent 26 150
    Little Devil - Neil Sedaka 27 120
    The Boll Weevil Song - Brook Benton 30 80
    Wheels Cha Cha - Joe Loss 28 90
    Marcheta - Karl Denver 30 30

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Fixed

    Leave a comment:


  • braindeadpj
    replied
    You have two numbered 27 in the 15th July chart. The first 27 should be 25..

    Leave a comment:


  • braindeadpj
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post

    Yeah that's the system the BBC went with too brain. I stuck with just the charted positions as I felt that awarding all non charting records with points assumed all of those were at #31 without supporting evidence to justify this and obviously not all of them would have held that position. That was my take on it anyway, I just wanted to use the factual known positions.
    The 21 is for calculating the inverse points on a top 20 chart basis and not a replacement position. 21-21 = 0, so no points for multiplying with the chart store numbers, whereas 21-1 = 20 etc. Points calculation cell is: =((21-E2367)*80)+((21-F2367)*60)+((21-G2367)*110)+((21-H2367)*50)+((21-I2367)*30) where E, F, G, H, I cells correspond with the charts in the same order as in your chart comparison (NME through to RR).
    Last edited by braindeadpj; Fri February 12, 2021, 06:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Yeah it doesn't look like a credible or very accurate chart to me either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    In those chart discussions on Tapatalk, there was a very knowledable lady who suggested doing a composite chart using different top scores. So you would give 20 points for a Top 20 number one in one chart and 30 points for a Top 30 number one in another. This was so obviously flawed I am glad it wasn't done!

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    I used to use a points system when I compiled a chart from the Yorkshire "commercial" radio stations in the 1980's. The Hallam Top 50, Pennine 30 (Bradford) and Aire (Leeds) chart. They did use all local sales of course, unlike the the London one. And were faster than the BBC chart. I could get a 60 place chart, with a few "likely" records filling the very bottom five. I just gave each chart 50 points for the top. It did however give me some weird effect, like some cueing of records below 30. This was largely due to the fact Pennine's Chart was very fast and had a lot of records that were not making the charts of the others. Not all Yorkshire acts by the way. For example Lee Majors and his theme to the TV series Unknown Stuntman, was very big! The problem was that they never said how many shops took part in each chart and which had the biggest sales. So I couldn't factor in that like Brian does. The last charts I did was about 1983. By then many stations were using either the Record Business or later the Network Chart.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    The only way you could give a factual position to a record outside the 30 is if you had all the numbers below that for each constituent chart. For example, if you discovered that a record was at number 40 then the BBC method should have given it 40 points (instead of 31) and the inverse method should have given it minus 9 points (instead of zero). Both methods are 9 points out.

    However I agree that it looks better to see more points for higher places.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Originally posted by braindeadpj View Post

    That's the way I have it set up for my top 20 version, except of course 21 instead of 31. All positions are changed to 21 if not a top 20 position. The error explains why I was getting a greater discrepancy between 'my chart' and the Ultimate Chart for the past few charts.
    Yeah that's the system the BBC went with too brain. I stuck with just the charted positions as I felt that awarding all non charting records with points assumed all of those were at #31 without supporting evidence to justify this and obviously not all of them would have held that position. That was my take on it anyway, I just wanted to use the factual known positions.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X