Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

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

  • Graham76man
    replied
    Originally posted by Gambo View Post
    Such a shame Brian that your magnum opus will never see the light of day in print. If you did publish it, the OCC would have you clapped in irons! Or worse-still, arrange to have you 'starred-out'....
    I doubt they would be interested to be honest. However the BBC would. I don't know if they would be pleased, but if you were using the BBC name they would have to know that what you are intending to publish. I don't think they would be interested in publishing it, since they have little to say on the old charts they used to do. But you might get a radio interview once it is published to talk about it.
    But you could self-publish it via Amazon. There's no copyright issues with any of the material you have submitted on here and it wouldn't be too difficult a task to get the charts laid out in book format. I think the Page Plus software I use would do the job, you can buy a copy of that cheaply. And do it yourself! You would have to decide on the page size you would need and fitting the charts on each page so they were readable, yet not making it too big to increase the cost of the printing of it. But a few tests would reveal that. If you are interested I could do a test of A5 page using one of the charts from here. And if you got stuck with Page Plus you can e-mail me for help too.
    I would look into it, if I were you, once all the charts are done. You might even make some money out of it!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Thanks for that Richard. Feedback like yours makes all the work that goes into this project worthwhile.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard M White
    replied
    I've recently returned to UKMix having referred to this amazing thread for months. The work gone into this has been outstanding. No I'm not old enough to have been there at the time but I didn't know of the existence of the BBC's own charts until they were played on POTP when Fluff returned to Radio 1. A lot of the concerns I've had about their chart have been fully explained here. I always questioned how you could have a chart with three songs jointly at number 1 when not based on actual over the counter sales? Questions like these (and others) have been answered perfectly. Keep up the amazing work!

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    So 'Gee Whiz' appeared first on the RM chart. No wonder their singles reviewer was miffed!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Elvis holds on at the top but The Allisons re group and edge back up to #2. The novelty hit of 1961 debuts on the chart, The Temperance Seven with You're Driving Me Crazy probably due to it's crazy 1920's sound with a mix of jazz which was popular at the time.

    As mentioned in an earlier post in too comes Cliff's Gee Whiz.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending April 1st 1961

    The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending April 1st 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 Wooden Heart - Elvis Presley 1 1 1 1 1 1 9900
    3 2 Are You Sure - The Allisons 2 2 3 2 2 2 9510
    2 3 Walk Right Back / Ebony Eyes - The Everly Brothers 3 4 2 3 3 4 9190
    4 4 Theme For A Dream - Cliff Richard 4 3 4 4 4 3 9020
    5 5 My Kind Of Girl - Matt Monro 5 5 5 5 5 6 8550
    6 6 Will You Love Me Tomorrow - The Shirelles 6= 8 8 6 6 5 8000
    7 7 Exodus - Ferrante and Teicher 6= 6 7 7 7 8 7970
    13 8 Lazy River - Bobby Darin 8= 7 6 9 9 10 7570
    10 9 And The Heavens Cried - Anthony Newley 8= 9 8 8 8 7 7540
    9 10 F.B.I. - The Shadows 10 10 11 10 12 11 6740
    8 11 (Ghost) Riders In The Sky - The Ramrods 11 13 10 11 10 9 6610
    15 12 Samantha - Kenny Ball 12 11 17 16 11 13 5630
    17 13 Marry Me - Mike Preston 14 16 13 13 15 15 5540
    26 14 Where The Boys Are - Connie Francis 15 12 13 14 20 21 5320
    16 15 Calendar Girl - Neil Sedaka 17 15 17 18 16 17 4720
    11 16 Wheels - The String-A-Longs 13 14 15 13 12 4590
    12 17 Who Am I / This Is It - Adam Faith 16 18 12 17 14 4340
    14 18 Sailor - Petula Clark 18 28 20 14 16 2750
    18 19 Baby Sittin' Boogie - Buzz Clifford 19 16 16 20 2430
    20 20 Goodnight Mrs Flintstone - The Piltdown Men 23 19 18 23 2250
    23 21 Let's Jump The Broomstick - Brenda Lee 20 29 17 19 2060
    27 22 African Waltz - Johnny Dankworth 20 15 26 1990
    25 23 Warpaint - The Brook Brothers 21 12 1940
    21 24 Seventy Six Trombones - The King Brothers 26 19 24 1930
    19 25 Are You Lonesome Tonight - Elvis Presley 26 19 18 1390
    NEW 26 You're Driving Me Crazy - The Temperance Seven 18 29 1100
    NEW 27 Don't Treat Me Like A Child - Helen Shapiro 21 28 890
    22 28 Ja-Da - Johnny and The Hurricanes 24 22 830
    24 29 Exodus - Semprini 25 25 660
    NEW 30 Gee Whiz It's You - Cliff Richard 20 660
    Dream Girl - Mark Wynter 27 120
    'Til There Was You - Peggy Lee 30 80
    Pepe - Duane Eddy 30 30

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Originally posted by Gambo View Post
    Such a shame Brian that your magnum opus will never see the light of day in print. If you did publish it, the OCC would have you clapped in irons! Or worse-still, arrange to have you 'starred-out'....
    I'd be clapped in irons and thrown in the tower Gambo for committing high treason. How dare I challenge The Official Charts'

    Leave a comment:


  • Gambo
    replied
    Such a shame Brian that your magnum opus will never see the light of day in print. If you did publish it, the OCC would have you clapped in irons! Or worse-still, arrange to have you 'starred-out'....

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Where I personally think TUAC succeeds is by doing exactly what it says on the title 'Re Imagining The BBC Chart'

    As you guys highlight above again The BBC chart itself was error and tie ridden made more problematic by discovering the typos in the BBC charts from Dave and Trevor and therefore not fit for purpose.

    Where TUAC comes into its own is that it takes the original BBC chart and polishes it up removing errors and ties and making it more robust. It keeps by and large the guiding principle of averaging the BBC used but adds another layer to reflect music paper sample size and factor in another level of mathematical data relevant to producing an all embracing chart.

    The proof and evidence of where I think it succeeds is in the fact that it does not hugely differ from the BBC findings so stays true to the averaging principle yet delivers a more accurate and error free chart to us all.

    With the evidence we currently have to go on from that era it ticks all the boxes as the most thorough chart of the time we have to date.
    Last edited by MrTibbs; Thu January 28, 2021, 20:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Adding a BBC points column (which I have done many times on my own spreadsheet, as you may have gathered from my comments!) shows a load of questionable ties and non-ties. I don't know whether the additional clutter would be justified by what it reveals.

    There are three cases identified so far where I think there is overwhelming evidence for a typo ...
    (1) was confirmed by the original tape;
    (2) was where a tie at number one did not make sense because all the contributory charts had straight ones and straight twos;
    (3) having no number 7 and a tie at 8 does not make sense, in addition to the scores for 8 being wide apart.

    Leave a comment:


  • brian05
    replied
    Good to see this one enter.

    NEW 30 'Til There Was You - Peggy Lee

    Later recorded by a well known group (whose name escapes me).

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post
    The BBC chart made an error this week. It did not list a #7 but listed 2 records at '8 then continued with #9, #10 and so on.
    Just had a thought, Brian. What do you think about adding an extra BBC 'sum of inverse points' column to your ultimate spreadsheet chart? For the charts that the BBC was actually using for the current time period, i.e., where we are in 1961 = NME, MM, Disc. This would allow us to inspect the BBC point totals, and better see if there were other possible BBC errors, or Dave/Trevor file typos. There could be the rare Dave/Trevor math error as well. A BBC 'inverse sum' would expose possible blips of all kinds, offering us the chance to explore and correct the D/T BBC file if need be. (Of course we'd also want to check the found audio files and fan write downs before amending the D/T file.) Just a thought...

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    It is true to that there was a difference between the number of stores used by a compiler and the returns used in a particular week. But Alan Smith was alive to this, and he specified both the higher numbers for the stores and the lower numbers for the samples that Brian correctly uses.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    I think that is the case too Splodj. I just wanted to flag it up .

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Rather than the BBC making an error, I think another transcription error is more likely - with Exodus's 8 being a typo for 7.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    It would seem that Elvis has won then ! He claims the top spot and The Allisons are relegated to a second week at #3. But is their challenge over

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    The BBC chart made an error this week. It did not list a #7 but listed 2 records at '8 then continued with #9, #10 and so on.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending March 25th 1961

    The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending March 25th 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
    2 1 Wooden Heart - Elvis Presley 1 1 1 1 1 1 9900
    1 2 Walk Right Back / Ebony Eyes - The Everly Brothers 2 3 2 2 2 2 9490
    3 3 Are You Sure - The Allisons 3 2 3 3 4 3 9270
    4 4 Theme For A Dream - Cliff Richard 4 4 4 4 3 4 8960
    9 5 My Kind Of Girl - Matt Monro 5 5 7 5 6 5 8410
    5 6 Will You Love Me Tomorrow - The Shirelles 6 6 5 6 5 6 8360
    12 7 Exodus - Ferrante and Teicher 8 7 6 7 8 9 7870
    7 8 (Ghost) Riders In The Sky - The Ramrods 8 10 8 10 9 8 7160
    6 9 F.B.I. - The Shadows 9 12 10 11 7 7 6900
    17 10 And The Heavens Cried - Anthony Newley 10 9 11 9 13 12 6850
    11 11 Wheels - The String-A-Longs 12 11 12 12 16 13 6120
    10 12 Who Am I / This Is It - Adam Faith 11 16 20 8 12 11 5940
    24 13 Lazy River - Bobby Darin 14= 8 9 15 18 23 5810
    8 14 Sailor - Petula Clark 14= 17 13 14 10 10 5750
    14 15 Samantha - Kenny Ball 13 14 13 13 14 17 5690
    13 16 Calendar Girl - Neil Sedaka 16 13 15 17 11 15 5420
    19 17 Marry Me - Mike Preston 18 18 16 16 20 14 4650
    20 18 Baby Sittin' Boogie - Buzz Clifford 20 24 17 19 19 22 3590
    15 19 Are You Lonesome Tonight - Elvis Presley 17 20 18 15 16 3560
    21 20 Goodnight Mrs Flintstone - The Piltdown Men 19 15 19 21 2300
    NEW 21 Seventy Six Trombones - The King Brothers 22 20 24 2140
    16 22 Ja-Da - Johnny and The Hurricanes 23 17 20 1670
    18 23 Let's Jump The Broomstick - Brenda Lee 21 18 1190
    26 24 Exodus - Semprini 18 27 1160
    29 25 Warpaint - The Brook Brothers 30 17 920
    NEW 26 Where The Boys Are - Connie Francis 24 26 710
    27 27 African Waltz - Johnny Dankworth 27 19 680
    22 28 Gather In The Mushrooms / Pepy's Diary - Benny Hill 28 25 420
    23 29 Dream Girl - Mark Wynter 26 400
    NEW 30 'Til There Was You - Peggy Lee 29 160
    I Count The Tears - The Drifters 28 90
    Pepe - Duane Eddy 29 60
    You're Sixteen - Johnny Burnette 30 30
    0
    The BBC chart made an error this week. It did not list a #7 but listed 2 records at '8 then continued with #9, #10 and so on. 0

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    We will never know the exact number of returns each music paper received week on week but we do know the stated sample for each is the figure I use and therefore it is the proportion difference between each chart that is the important factor therefore even if I halved or even quartered the returns I use the outcome would still be the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metalweb
    replied
    Yes, would have been far more practical to determine sales from a weekly stocktake than try to record each sale on an individual basis....

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    Originally posted by Metalweb View Post
    Isn't it rather odd the shops were ever asked to provide a list of their best sellers?

    To do this accurately a shop would need to record all sales during the week, then go through the info and assemble a chart.

    Had the compilers simply asked for a list of sales this would mean less work for the shop and the compilers could have aggregated the individual returns into a more accurate combined chart....
    Record shops work on the basis of buying records from record companies and selling them back to the public for say three times the price. So in many ways they needed to know how many records they sold. They also needed to do this for tax purposes too.
    I suspect they recorded sales by looking at stock levels and then counting what was left at the end of the week. Some stores were more efficient than others at doing this. It's recorded that Brian Epstein at NEMS even devised a special system so he knew when to order more records. We also know that NEMS took part in the Record Mirror survey. So I bet the return from that store was great. Interestingly enough if other charts used NEMS it would prove that the story that they all used different shops to be false. I certainly believe this to be a lie and that the same shops were supplying the same charts. Only Record Mirror at one time named the dealers, they requested the others to so, but they never did. My bet is that we would have seen several stores sending the same lists to several papers.
    Till receipts probably only stated the money and date at this time and were no use in recording individual sales. But did record overall sales of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    Brian you do realise that what you are saying is why the chart compilers would never have used all the shops you base your figures on. In all surveys be it polls or sales you have to have more participants than you actually need. If you require 20 shops to take part to get a reasonably accurate picture of whatever you will end with, you need about 50 to 60 on the books to be certain of getting what you want. As some will only fill in say a quarter of the results or simply send in the top ten of a form for 50 records. Some of the shops might even have stated each record and the amounts sold too. Because some people are like that. If any of the papers got full 50 charts from ALL the number on the books and on time too! Then that would be a miracle. The vast majority would arrive late, covered in tea and coffee stains or worse! And be filled in by what looks like a spider with a pen in each of it's legs! Clearly some of the dealers didn't know the difference between an album and a single. Hence that weird effect. So if the papers were lucky you could a top 50 from 20 dealers. The rest were trash.
    The way to ensure a correctly filled out list from a dealer was to offer discounts on advertisements. Certainly by the 60's being a shop that supplied one of the papers could result in discounts from the record companies themselves, especially if the shop would add records that were not actually selling to the return. Of course when the Official Charts entered the scene, being a chart shop was much more profitable than not being one. Especially for those not connected with superstores.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    I agree with all comments above. Until the mid sixties record charts were seen as a fun part of the business and although much enjoyed and followed nobody paid much attention as to the accuracy of how they were compiled or methodology or took them too seriously. Then things changed and the business became aware of how charts could be used to promote and sell records for them and the era of manipulation and hyping began, which followed through to store manipulation and bribing etc etc and the fun and innocence of the charts was gone. From then till now the charts were hijacked by the industry not to reflect popularity but to market and sell artists and records as a product and make lots of cash for them. The charts are used for that now much as in the same way TV adverts are used to sell a packet of soap powder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    In the Sun's 1964 survey they asked 250 stores to provide actual sales figures and only 70 did, with the rest providing simply an ordered list. This indicates how difficult it would have been to get sales figures. The Sun also showed the chart that resulted from using only the sales figures, and it did not vary much from their overall chart.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gambo
    replied
    I must say in my early years of interest in the historical (i.e. before I was born!) British charts I naively assumed that is what would've happened - those who compiled the charts from whatever music paper did so based on actual numbers (or at least those reported by stores whether or not they were truthful), not by getting each contributing store to compile it's own in-house chart without figures and then submit that to derive an overall point score to assign rankings. If only it had been that way around. Though I suspect that the reason MrTibbs gave earlier as to why many shops probably wouldn't provide an accurate or complete list of their Top 30 (and certainly 50) sellers each and every week applied just as evenly to the five music journals who compiled what purported to be national charts - they were in the business of compiling numerous reports on what was happening in their industry more widely and selling as many copies of their papers as possible, and so their staff would've also had limited time to devote to sorting through numerous sales tallies from tens of different record shops to compile a weekly chart based on them, especially in the era before any significant computers were available to help simplify and shorten such a tedious task. Much easier to let the stores do the heavy lifting, place an unrealistic amount of trust in them being correct, and then just total-up the points.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X