The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

[Metalweb]

^

Agreed, please carry on.

There's no controversy or confrontation as far as most of us are concerned!

[Borobear]

A real pity, your Average is the only thread I follow daily.

Same here, I look forward to new charts being posted daily. Please reconsider

[Robbie]

I'd like you to keep posting your charts. This is a great thread. It's very interesting and very unique.

[brian05]

Please reconsider MrTibbs and continue to publish your charts. They are very interesting to view.

[kjell]

A real pity, your Average is the only thread I follow daily.

[MrTibbs]

Guys, I just want to say that when I started this thread my sole intention was to provide a chart that took the BBC chart a stage further to iron out discrepancies, errors and ties and share this with you. I started this thread as a follow up to my Dealer Return 54/55 charts as I wanted to contribute more to the forum and offer you something new and better than what we had as an averaged fifties/sixties chart.

I never intentionally set out at any time to upset anyone or be confrontational but obviously I have failed in this respect. I honestly believed I was only justifying my chart system in the face of criticism

It is clear from the feedback above that my comments have contributed towards an element of confrontation and I am therefore sorry for my part in this and any embarrassment I have caused, so going forward it is with disappointment and regret, and reluctance, that I have decided to stop posting any more charts on the forum for the reasons I have outlined above.

May the force be with you guys.

[kjell]

I second that. As long as there does not exist a continuous sales chart from the fifties and sixties Brian’s Averaged is the best chart we can get for that timespan.

[kingofskiffle]

I agree I think we need to wind down the confrontation as it was a nice discussion up until quite recently. Graham, I don't think anybody is saying anything against your points raised (unless I have missed something somewhere when reading the thread) and I do think that all charts have flaws unless you can get total sales (which the Real Chart, as you say, does). I agree that we can compare things and thats what this forum is for - to compare and debate the relevant merits of A vs B. As MrTibbs says all charts have flaws and yes - I think he has also said this - his chart does still have flaws because it is a mixture of other, flawed, charts, but the larger the sample size the less likely the known errors have of making a big impact. If a record sells 234,567 copies and the next sells 123,456 copies, missing 10 sales from the number 1 doesn't affect the outcome, even if it does mean that something is missing.

I would request we all focus on new charts he posts each week for comment as I feel the method has been discussed and debated enough. I am sure some will always disagree with whatever process is presented (be that the OCC chart, the Real Chart, or any other because that's human nature for some people) and I think MrTibbs has explained his process enough over 630 odd posts. Lets go back to discussing each weekly chart. I do like your posts, Graham, comparing sales data from your sources with what's here so do please keep those up.

Hyping always makes me wonder because whilst some cases are caught, what about the ones that where not caught?

[Splodj]

I think the confrontation needs to be wound down somewhat.

It is easy to criticise the sample sizes but I would not be so dismissive of the published charts in the 60s.

Melody Maker in particular provided information about its chart, starting in MM 9-Feb-63 explaining the compilation process and saying it was verified by a team of auditors from Middlesex County Council. Then there was a Daily Mirror article on 5-Dec-64 which monitored the process and reported that they had used 187 returns. Then MM 11-Dec-65 went into detail about how it had entered the Beatles at number 3. Then it was open about the hyping activity and how it intended to deal with it.

The Sun article in 1964 (reproduced earlier in the thread) showed that the points-based charts were remarkably accurate when measured against a survey of actual sales, as Robin has pointed out. The Sun's own points based chart agreed with the Top 7 of its sales chart and that week's Disc chart.

[Graham76man]

Graham no chart was ever perfect back then even the BMRB chart which in its early years was questionable in its accuracy due to so few actual useable returns.
Also you can't compare NME and BMRB in 1970 one used supposed sales and the other points. ALL charts back then were accurate as far as their own criteria used.

The point I made above, and stand by, was that it didn't matter if the exact number of store returns was used, we will never know. Those are points of measurement to simply identify the most likely proportions between the music paper's to allocate proportionate points, so please don't denigrate or belittle my work on this.

Point allocated charts are all we will ever have until Feb 69 I simply made the case the system I use is perhaps the best possible retrospectively to provide a definitive chart of the times.

Sorry Brian, but I am going to have to disagree with you on that. It's not meant to belate your efforts and as I see it you are doing an excellent job in correcting the BBC chart. But if you want to say that your chart corrected chart is the best thing since sliced bread, I will take issue with that! Stick with correcting the charts of the BBC - not saying the ultimate chart is brilliant!
If you want to argue the point about figures. You have taken the list of what each chart used as the maximum for it shops and then applied it across all years. There are plenty of sources that say that the Music Paper contributions were different in the time period you have been doing these charts. That's without them using a sample of the quoted size.
As I have said before all of the 60's charts suffered from chart fiddling. The Real Chart can document this. However even if there wasn't any Real Chart there's plenty of books on the charts of the period that clearly state the amount of fiddling going on. Even inside the Music papers at the time. With Record Companies being told that if they didn't advertise in papers they wouldn't get chart positions. And of course the reverse of that too. Decca for example always had a advert for their group of new singles in the papers so one must be aware that any records covered by Decca, which included RCA, could enter the charts under false reasons.
As your ultimate chart is made up of these charts, many of which till the later sixties were not taken all that serious by those in the music industry and the public, which were flawed in design and execution (simply because none had excess to the Woolies sales) then your chart too must be by default pick up these flaws.
Having said that the top 30 you produce it's not that far off the Real Chart. Only thing is the records that sell in numbers outside the 30 on the other charts that do not make the 30. Records going down after being on TOTP. Very rare!! And the hyping of records.
One of which is well documented - Jeff Beck. Which the Real Chart doesn't have selling till week ending 29 April.
There's even a video about it the fiddle.

By the way the Attack's version had been selling 7 weeks before Jeff entered the Real Chart and had reached 16.

[MrTibbs]

Graham no chart was ever perfect back then even the BMRB chart which in its early years was questionable in its accuracy due to so few actual useable returns.
Also you can't compare NME and BMRB in 1970 one used supposed sales and the other points. ALL charts back then were accurate as far as their own criteria used.

Thepoint I made above, and stand by, was that it didn't matter if the exact number of store returns was used, we will never know. Those are points of measurement to simply identify the most likely proportions between the music paper's to allocate proportionate points, so please don,t denigrate or belittle my work on this.

Point allocated charts are all we will ever have until Feb 69 I simply made the case the system I use is perhaps the best possible retrospectively to provide a definitive chart of the times.

[Graham76man]

Advance orders were reported as 200,000 in several Music papers. But it only entered at no. 3 in the NME. So did NME and Disc stop using advance orders in compiling their charts?

The answer to that would mean that the papers were doctoring the chart if they did. Since each shop supplied a list of it's top 50. If the store included records that had not been bought by the public, unless the compilers of these charts asked the record companies to confirm that each title was issued that week, then they would have no idea if it sold or not. All the stores did was to send a list of 50 records to the compilers of the charts. Some included albums at times. And the compilers include them. Presumably the Music papers didn't like to edit them out. Though I suspect Record Retailer took out EP's and albums that the shops had put in. There was nothing to stop any shop manager or who ever was making out the list from sticking their favourite records in the top positions. Even if they sold enough to just make the top twenty of the actual list! Especially if they wanted a record to top the chart!
From 1965 to 1967 I have seen no chart put a record in that wasn't available to buy at some point of the week. So no advanced orders! Of course titles only came out Friday, so some get very high positions for only two days of sales. But since one of those days was Saturday, kids going to town to buy records on that day was as common as muck. So you could easily get very high even with two days of sales!
And 200K dived by 250 shops is only 800 copies for each shop. 400 a day for the two days. Or 133 for 6 days. We also have a good idea now of the total shops selling records. With that figure (8,000) that amounts to just 25 records in each shop, less than 13 per day in two days.
Maybe the advanced orders thing was connected with the 50's charts. But the record companies back then just issued records in the first two weeks of each month. I have never seen an example of a record being on advanced orders in the charts of the 50's and 60's. So for me it's a myth. Probably caused by the confusing dating systems of the various charts. With Week Ending dates of Thursday (when the music press came out) for charts that should have week ending for the following Saturday. Even the Official Chart site has not corrected this weird system. And I'm not talking about the present system using the Thursday dates.

[Graham76man]

Brian I do not recall Alan ever saying that the papers used all of the numbers quoted at the same time. I remember him saying they used a portion of that number, especially the Record Retailer Chart. To use all of the max of 250 shops would have made them easy to hype. By using only probably less than half that number means the record companies wouldn't be certain which shops to target. There are lots of books written by experts in the field saying that you could buy the list of shops taking part (and most were London) in all the charts. If your saying a points based chart is very accurate you only need to look at the BMRB charts for 1970 and the NME charts for the same week as I have been doing. The NME still using a point based chart. Not only is the NME slower it's often out by miles!

[MrTibbs]

The music papers purported to use the number of stores I have stated according to the extensive research by Alan Smith who is known to possess considerable knowledge in this field hence why I have used his research as the authority on store numbers for The Ultimate Averaged Charts. It may or may not be completely 100% accurate but even allowing for some leeway either way Alan's figures still clearly show the most likely proportion of difference in store allocation between the music papers of the time to allow the appropriate point allocation to The Ultimate Averaged Chart.

It stands to reason that if you take all the available credible charts of the time and average these out using a competent and consistent system such as mine we end up with a 'Chart Of Charts'. In the absence of the exact sales figures of the time week by week which we will never have this Ultimate Averaged Chart has to be the next best thing.

[Graham76man]

Engelbert had indeed sold half a million by the 19 April, but it had taken him five weeks to do it. The Beatles had clocked up 258K in the few days of it's release, but Engelbert had clocked up in the week 262K. The following week the Beatles de-throned Engelbert, staying three weeks at the top and Engelbert never returned to the top spot. He still sold several million of it!
Boots, WH Smith or Woolworths were never part of the countdowns used by the charts at the time. Most would not supply sales information to the competition. No sales were recorded by these charts, since they simply asked sellers to provide a top 50 list of their best sellers. This entirely depended on what the person put in charge of doing each shop returns puts down. Judging by the charts we can only assume they were honest about it. However there is going to a big fiddle with Jeff Beck's Hi Ho Silver Lining which for many weeks is not going to sell a single copy! Things like this will lead to Melody Maker cutting the 50 to 30.
The other problem is that each store was given 50 points for the top and one for the 50 record, regardless of size and the amount sold. And though they say 250 shops, the papers only used a sample of them. We don't know if they balanced the sample out to represent the UK.

The reason for the ballad explosion was due to a cultural change in the UK and lots resolved among the new nightclubs springing up in major UK cities. The DJ playing the slow dance romantic record at the end or a lot!

[brian05]

Penny Lane - Strawberry Fields Forever - The Beatles

Advance orders were reported as 200,000 in several Music papers. But it only entered at no. 3 in the NME. So did NME and Disc stop using advance orders in compiling their charts?

Sales were reported as100,000 on the first day and 350,000 in 5 days. Over 400,000 by 1st March and half a million by 25th March (5 weeks). These should really be shipment figures as opposed to over the counter sales. There were no bar codes in those days.

So how come it was number 1 in Melody Maker for 3 weeks? NME - 200 stores, MM - 250 stores. How representative were these stores? Did MM include Boots, WH Smith or Woolworths?

Engelbert's sales were 500,000 in 5 weeks (3rd March).

Below is a scan from DISC for 25th February 1967.

[Gambo]

Various retrospective rock press has often put this sudden and emphatic rise of MOR 'parent' acts in the singles charts from 1967 onwards down to the tailing-off of interest in the single format among many young buyers in favour of the long-player. While I would never have regarded albums as cheap, they were steadily getting more affordable as disposable income on average continued to grow during the 1960s, and those engaged with the rock and emergent psychedelic/hippie scenes so redolent of the era's youth culture were tending to focus on albums from their favourite artists rather than singles. Lots of late '60s rock acts either didn't release them, or if they did, had relatively few hits with them. Hendrix had a few, Cream had a few, but by 1970 we get Led Zep who famously didn't bother with the short-player format at all. I think there might be some truth in this theory as it would've left enough spare room in what was then a declining singles market for more adult-orientated acts to prosper, as older buyers still favoured the single and were generally perhaps less album-driven. Okay, Engelbert's LPs did okay in tandem with his string of hit singles, but many other acts of that genre made much bigger (if sometimes short-lived) impressions on the singles listings than albums.

[MrTibbs]

A blast of Purple Haze right in the middle of Release Me would certainly have made it a bit more palatable.

Yeah, the huge influx of ballads to the higher reaches of the chart in 1967 far outweighed what had gone before in the past few years and considering '67 is now considered a peak of the rock era along with the peak year of 'hippie power' makes it all the more surprising.

[Robbie]

I don't know what was in the water in 1967 but the sudden influx to the charts of awful middle of the road records by dull middle of the road acts suggests some strange was happening. Totally out of keeping with the changing times. And one of the great injustices in chart history happened as Englebert keeps The Beatles excellent double A side hit from the top. 14 years later the death of one of The Beatles partly helped keep another great number 2 from the top - 'Vienna' by Ultravox was initially kept off the top by 'Woman' by John Lennon before'Shaddap You Face' by Joe Dolce denied the record the number 1 spot for a further three weeks.

I grew up listening to Engelbert Humperdinck records as my mum had a few singles by him as well as an album. She first saw him perform under his real name of Gerry Dorsey at a social club in the north east in the early 60s. He was one of numerous acts who did concerts in workingmens clubs and nightclubs in that era. By 1967 Gerry had become Engelbert and just as 'Release Me' hit the top Engelbert was about to undertake a tour of the UK alongsideThe Walker Brothers and the support act was none other than Jimi Hendrix! Quite a bizarre line-up and even more bizarre... Jimi Hendrix stood in as guitarist for one night in Engelbert's backing band... https://www.loudersound.com/features...-saved-my-show

[MrTibbs]

Greetings Pop Pickers !

One of the great injustices in popular music takes place in 1967, The Beatles denied #1 to Engelbert Humperdinck. Parent power rearing it's head in supremacy, aaaaaaaaahh

Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending March 4th 1967. Don't look back in anger !

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending March 4th 1967								NME	MM	DISC	RR	Total
Last	This		The Sound Survey				Stores	200	250	100	85	Points
Week	Week		The Top 30 Singles Chart				BBC			TOP	30	Scored
2	1	Release Me - Engelbert Humperdinck					1	1	2	1	1	18800
3	2	Penny Lane - Strawberry Fields Forever - The Beatles					2	3	1	2	2	18465
1	3	This Is My Song - Petula Clark					3	2	3	3	3	17980
5	4	Here Comes My Baby - The Tremeloes					4	4	5	4	4	16895
11	5	On A Carousel - The Hollies					5	6	4	6	7	16290
13	6	Edelweiss - Vince Hill					7	5	8	9	6	15275
7	7	Snoopy vs The Red Baron - The Royal Guardsmen					8	8	6	7	10	15035
4	8	I'm A Believer - The Monkees					6	7	10	5	5	14860
8	9	Mellow Yellow - Donovan					9	9	7	8	8	14655
9	10	Peek-A-Boo - The New Vaudeville Band					10	10	11	11	9	13070
18	11	Detroit City - Tom Jones					11	11	9	13	13	12830
20	12	There's A Kind Of Hush - Herman's Hermits					12	12	12	14	11	11950
6	13	Let's Spend The Night Together / Ruby Tuesday - The Rolling Stones					13	13	13	12	12	11615
16	14	It Takes Two - Marvin Gaye and Kim Weston					14	17	14	10	16	10425
14	15	I Won't Come In While He's There - Jim Reeves					15	14	16	15	14	10195
30	16	Georgy Girl - The Seekers					16	15	15	16	18	9805
10	17	Matthew And Son - Cat Stevens					17	18	17	18	15	8760
24	18	Give It To Me - The Troggs					18	16	20	17	22	7915
15	19	Sugar Town - Nancy Sinatra					19	20	18	20	19	7570
12	20	I've Been A Bad Bad Boy - Paul Jones					20	21	19	19	20	7135
25	21	Single Girl - Sandy Posey					21	24	21	21	17	6090
21	22	Let Me Cry On Your Shoulder - Ken Dodd					22	19	24	24	23	5530
17	23	I'm A Man - The Spencer Davis Group					23	23	22	26	28	4605
28	24	I've Passed This Way Before - Jimmy Ruffin					24	25	23	23		4000
NEW	25	I'll Try Anything - Dusty Springfield					27	22	27	28		3100
26	26	Stay With Me Baby - The Walker Brothers					26	28	26	25	26	2875
23	27	Green Green Grass Of Home - Tom Jones					25	25		27	21	2450
NEW	28	This Is My Song - Harry Secombe						30	25			1700
NEW	29	Then You Can Tell Me Goodbye - The Casinos					28	28		22		1500
NEW	30	The Beat Goes On - Sonny and Cher							28	30	29	1020
		Night Of Fear - The Move					29		30	29	25	960
		Hey Joe - The Jimi Hendrix Experience					30		29		27	840
		Love Is Here And Now You're Gone - The Supremes						27				800
		Indescribably Blue - Elvis Presley									24	595
		Last Train To Clarksville - The Monkees									30	85

[MrTibbs]

You Only You was the best of the 2 I think. I liked that one.

[membranemusic]

Yep, as has been pointed out, the only 2 Rita Pavone minor hit singles [not a double-sider], and on the same label, happened in the same week. Doh!
membranemusic

[MrTibbs]

Yip, I did also like I'll Never Find Another You and The Carnival Is Over the first and third hits back in '65 but Georgy Girl somehow just hit the spirit of '67 spot on, I've lost count of the number of times I whistled along with the intro back then.

[Metalweb]

In the current climate Penny Lane will probably be written out of history soon...

[BobPatience]

Greetings Pop Pickers !

Two first class singles debut this week.

No word lied there. The Beatles' AA-side is my 5th favorite track of all time, and I fully agree with the Seekers' sentiment, thought I am a big fan of their first two hits as well.