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 Splodj View Post
    Published charts create their own dynamic, influencing what happens the following week. So if you could go back in time and have charts published based on actual sales instead and these were different, it would not just be entering a parallel universe - but branching parallel universes every week.
    I not too clear on which of the published 60's charts effected the following weeks sales. All the paper based charts were sent out to the shops so they knew what these charts looked like. However I would have thought it would be confusing to the public. I have not heard of the BBC's own chart being sent out, so if you could remember the TOTP position or the Pick of The Pops one telling the shop keeper you wanted number 12 from that would see some blank looks.
    What I do know is the ones falling down on these top 50 are always in the Real Chart 100 somewhere.

    The Real Chart can be done retrospectively because every part of human life is recorded, they same way many of us recorded the songs on the top 40 shows. Just using technology that we just don't have - yet.
    If I was to do a Marty McFly and travel back to 1966 and present each week the Real Chart to the public (all) then only the current week, I went there would be correct. As soon as the public saw the top 100, buying patterns would change. And the next chart would become incorrect, getting worse each week, especially if TOTP used the chart.
    However I am not time travelling.

    What I do know is that as the BMRB chart takes over, that should effect it's own chart. But in reality it doesn't. Especially when the shops start to layout the entire top 50 in the shops. But then not all shops laid out the full chart. Some went for as little as 20 or 10, places, especially when 12 Singles came along. With the public tending to pick up what is the charts as laid out in store. So that if the Official chart places a record outside the shops chart - be it a 30, 20 or 10 layout, that record will fall like a stone the following week. And in the the 30 and 20 and not on TV, climb fast! My findings however reveal that this is not the case. And the top 50 becomes a law onto itself. They only reason that would explain this would be the rules and the way the chart is made up. Again to represent a full NATIONAL chart when not ALL shops are taking part is to sample them. You take 10 shops to represent 50 for example. And weight the sales from 10 to turn them into 50. But the shops are not selling tins of baked beans or bread. It's entirely subjective. One out of the 10 might have been affected by bad weather. But 25 of the 50 might have been too. So overestimated sales and underestimated sales play a part. It's known regional sales and football records (unless it was a National team thing) were ignored by the National chart, regardless of how much they sell.
    The point I am making is that the rules any chart uses, including Brian's chart, affect how that chart looks. And unless Brian can locate the weekly sales books of over 8,000 shops and add them up (I will settle for any week any year) then even Brian's chart is flawed and as bad as though 60's charts it's based on. By the way the more I read about these 60's chart compilations the number of shops listed as taking part is not as precise as the figures Brian's uses. And I have read that Record Retailer arrived too late to make up the BBC's own chart. So adding it's 85 shops seems to be retrospective anyway.
    Don't get me wrong Brian. As I have said these charts you are doing are better than the BBC's charts at the time. But they are a creation of charts done after the events using methods and system of calculations you have invented to do the job. And they will have hyped records. Michael Cable in his 1977 book makes it clear that the papers and record companies openly negotiated with each other for placements in the charts for advertising space. At the end of the day Brian just because several of these charts have the same record at 19 doesn't mean that record sold lots of copies. It simply means that a number of record shops reported it as selling well. NOT 200 of them either perhaps 50, less in some charts.
    As for the sameness, well the BBC finally gave up when the sameness gave a different number one in each chart. Hence the creation of the BMRB chart.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Greetings Pop Pickers !

    Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending 11th June 1966. Enjoy.

    The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending June 11th 1966 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
    1 1 Strangers In The Night - Frank Sinatra 1 1 1 1 1 19050
    2 2 Paint It Black - The Rolling Stones 2 2 3 2 2 18165
    4 3 Monday Monday - The Mamas and Papas 3 3 2 3 5 17860
    3 4 Wild Thing - The Troggs 4 4 4 5 3 17130
    5 5 Sorrow - The Merseys 5 5 5 4 4 16695
    10 6 When A Man Loves A Woman - Percy Sledge 6 6 6 7 7 15690
    8 7 Promises - Ken Dodd 7 7 7 8 6 15225
    18 8 Don't Bring Me Down - The Animals 8 8 8 6 8 14805
    9 9 Rainy Day Women Nos 12 & 35 - Bob Dylan 10 10 9 10 10 13585
    7 10 Sloop John B - The Beach Boys 9 9 11 9 9 13470
    11 11 Hey Girl - The Small Faces 11 13 12 11 11 12050
    6 12 Pretty Flamingo - Manfred Mann 12 11 13 12 13 11930
    12 13 Shotgun Wedding - Roy C 13 12 14 13 12 11465
    14 14 Nothing Comes Easy - Sandie Shaw 14 16 10 14 14 11395
    NEW 15 Over Under Sideways Down - The Yardbirds 15 15 16 15 15 9910
    17 16 Come On Home - Wayne Fontana 16 17 15 18 16 9375
    NEW 17 Don't Answer Me - Cilla Black 17 14 19 16 25 8410
    19 18 I Love Her - Paul and Barry Ryan 18 25 17 19 17 7090
    22 19 Once There Was A Time / Not Responsible - Tom Jones 19 21 20 20 18 6955
    13 20 Daydream - The Lovin' Spoonful 20 24 18 21 20 6585
    NEW 21 River Deep Mountain High - Ike and Tina Turner 22 18 21 17 6500
    16 22 You Don't Have To Say You Love Me - Dusty Springfield 21 20 23 23 19 6020
    15 23 The Pied Piper - Crispian St Peters 23 26 22 25 21 4700
    NEW 24 Sunny Afternoon - The Kinks 25 22 24 24 4250
    NEW 25 Nobody Needs Your Love - Gene Pitney 24 19 28 22 4050
    30 26 Stop Her On Sight - Edwin Starr 26 23 26 30 2950
    23 27 (You're My) Soul And Inspiration - The Righteous Brothers 28 25 28 27 2140
    21 28 Hold Tight - Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich 27 27 29 23 1880
    NEW 29 Twinkie Lee - Gary Walker 29 27 27 28 1455
    28 30 Eight Miles High - The Byrds 29 24 1095
    California Dreamin' - The Mamas and Papas 30 26 26 925
    Bang Bang - Cher 22 765
    Opus 17 - The Four Seasons 29 30 650
    Sweet Talkin' Guy - The Chiffons 28 600
    Can't Live Without You - The Mindbenders 30 200
    I Feel A Cry Comin' On - Hank Locklin 29 170
    I'm Comin' Home Cindy - Trini Lopez 30 85

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    commented on 's reply
    All the data on how the Real Chart is done can be found on my blog site. Just search "Real Chart Graham Appleyard" for it. The 1965 and 1966 charts full PDF's can be found on the 60's chart page of it. The 1967 charts are ongoing.

  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Greetings Pop Pickers !

    Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending 4th June 1966 for your interest.

    The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending June 4th 1966 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
    3 1 Strangers In The Night - Frank Sinatra 1 1 1 1 1 19050
    1 2 Paint It Black - The Rolling Stones 2 2 2 2 2 18415
    2 3 Wild Thing - The Troggs 3 3 3 3 3 17780
    7 4 Monday Monday - The Mamas and Papas 5 4 4 6 5 16860
    5 5 Sorrow - The Merseys 4 5 5 4 4 16695
    4 6 Pretty Flamingo - Manfred Mann 6 6 6 5 12 15465
    6 7 Sloop John B - The Beach Boys 7 7 11 7 6 14325
    12 8 Promises - Ken Dodd 8 9 9 8 8 14155
    10 9 Rainy Day Women Nos 12 & 35 - Bob Dylan 10 11 7 12 7 13940
    14 10 When A Man Loves A Woman - Percy Sledge 9 8 10 9 9 13920
    9 11 Hey Girl - The Small Faces 11 12 8 11 10 13335
    8 12 Shotgun Wedding - Roy C 12 10 12 10 11 12750
    11 13 Daydream - The Lovin' Spoonful 13 13 13 13 15 11260
    25 14 Nothing Comes Easy - Sandie Shaw 14 15 15 17 14 10045
    15 15 The Pied Piper - Crispian St Peters 15 16 16 15 16 9625
    13 16 You Don't Have To Say You Love Me - Dusty Springfield 16 19 14 14 17 9540
    18 17 Come On Home - Wayne Fontana 17 14 17 18 18 9305
    NEW 18 Don't Bring Me Down - The Animals 18 17 19 19 13 8530
    21 19 I Love Her - Paul and Barry Ryan 19 18 18 16 19 8370
    16 20 Bang Bang - Cher 20 20 20 21 22 6715
    19 21 Hold Tight - Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich 21 23 21 20 24 5795
    NEW 22 Once There Was A Time / Not Responsible - Tom Jones 23 21 24 24 20 5385
    20 23 (You're My) Soul And Inspiration - The Righteous Brothers 22 29 22 22 25 4060
    22 24 Alfie - Cilla Black 25 26 23 25 3600
    26 25 Can't Live Without You - The Mindbenders 26 22 27 27 3200
    17 26 Homeward Bound - Simon and Garfunkel 24 25 28 23 26 3175
    23 27 How Does That Grab You Darlin' - Nancy Sinatra 29 25 26 29 2170
    NEW 28 Eight Miles High - The Byrds 30 28 26 30 1935
    27 29 California Dreamin' - The Mamas and Papas 27 27 28 23 1780
    NEW 30 Stop Her On Sight - Edwin Starr 23 1600
    Over Under Sideways Down - The Yardbirds 28 30 29 21 1250
    That's Nice - Neil Christian 29 30 600
    Twinkie Lee - Gary Walker 30 27 540
    I'm Comin' Home Cindy - Trini Lopez 28 255
    I Feel A Cry Comin' On - Hank Locklin 30 250

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    I agree wholeheartedly Splodj. To quote yet again, we have what we have, and what we have is the actual history as it happened, imperfections and all. Nothing can overwrite that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Published charts create their own dynamic, influencing what happens the following week. So if you could go back in time and have charts published based on actual sales instead and these were different, it would not just be entering a parallel universe - but branching parallel universes every week.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Like I said above though Graham, the times were what they were, nothing can change that, but although all the charts broadly disagreed on some of the record positioning they also broadly agreed on the same records within the actual top thirties themselves.

    I don't believe the sixties charts were 'rotten' to the extent you suggest. Lower than 30 yes, open to manipulation, hence why MM reverted to a Top 30 back in 1967 and why even in the era of BMRB the BBC only used the Top 30.
    I stand by the averaging principle I use as the best possible chart retrospectively. It is based on open transparent data available for all to see and be able to further examine and scrutinise.
    It's not perfect, I have never claimed it to be such, no chart from the time was, but it is I believe the best possible.

    You refer to your Real Chart using sales figures you have in comparison to my averaged chart which uses points so it would be of great interest to me, and probably others as well, if you could present the actual written evidence you have in a transparent and credible manner to support your database, calculations and methodology for the Real Chart positions, open to scrutiny, just like how I present my database and methodology here when posting The Ultimate Averaged Chart and welcome the same scrutiny.
    Last edited by MrTibbs; Mon September 7, 2020, 07:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post
    Sorry but on this occasion I don't agree Graham. We don't know to what exact degree any individual record was hyped and how it actually affected individual chart positions so there is no way any chart can accurately determine this although we know it did go on.
    Remember too that The Ultimate Averaged Chart is based purely on factual published chart positions supplemented by store returns to even it out further, counterbalancing any individual chart with a record out of sync with the other charts which may or may not be a hyped record. The example discussed above with The Small Faces is one example of the evidence of this counterbalance at work.

    As to Geneveve it, on a points only system would have scored 5 points in the chart above, it was ranked 26 on a chart with 200 store returns. Although Tom Jones also scored 5 points his came from a chart with 85 store returns so Geneveve was the obvious correct placement on total points.

    At the end of the day it is the records ranked with most points that place on the chart not the records that place on most charts.
    Brian, err we do know what was hyped. The Real Chart doesn't include any record that was fiddled into the chart. The 1966 Real Charts were done well before you started to do these charts. I have been comparing what is in these top 30's with what the actual sales positions are from the Real Chart. I haven't been able to do that before. But your charts can show me and everyone else what records would have been in the top 30 and those that are either selling in low quantities from things like poor distribution, or those that have been hyped. Seeing that you are trying to create a top 30 of these charts, then it is bound to include records that were hyped into the component charts that make it up. Records, even ones that you would think were very popular with the public from the day they came out, were hyped into the charts. Sandie Shaw was only just in at 29, but all the charts show it higher than that, indicating some manipulation of the track going on.
    In the compilation of the charts article records could be hyped into the top 30. One man at the time said that some would push records into the top 20. However record companies didn't have a clue of what was actually selling, since all they knew was how many records were sent out. Much like the distribution chart used in the Missing Hits book of the 1940's to 1952. To even hype a record there must be plenty of copies out there for people to really buy. And re-orders wouldn't start coming in for modest hits till the stocks ran low. The only way the record labels knew a record was selling was large re-orders. And most of them were top five sellers. Which the labels wouldn't need to fix!
    Yes they say they used 200 stores, but that was not true. It was a sample of 200 stores. Had they actually used all 200 stores, plus rated the store on size and turnover then they would have got a much better chart, but they didn't. Besides the record companies knew all the stores. You could simply buy the list. But the reps on the ground would quickly know if the store was filling in returns for these papers. For Christ's sake EMI even told which shops for the Retailer to use!
    So any "new" record more than ten places ahead of where the Real Chart has it that week, is either a chart error, but more likely hyped.
    So the Geneveve record at 30 on any chart and 85 on the Real Chart was hyped. It was selling and that happens with nearly all the top 50 tracks. Largely because any record that makes one of these components charts will be there for the public to ask for when they go into a shop to buy it. Only a few rare occasions, such as the 1967 Jeff Beck (Silver) record, which makes the top 30's of several charts without even entering the Real Chart 100 and on RR chart for nearly six weeks too, before it enters the top 100, the public just refused to buy them.

    Brian your chart is good, but it still made up of rotten charts being fiddled by very greedy people. That includes the record stores themselves. A friend of mine, who was often in Sheffield record shops doing odd jobs was told by one shop owner that they would often put down as the top seller a record they had plenty of copies that had shifted hardly any. He asked wouldn't the chart compilers pick up on that? No was the answer, for the other stores would probably be doing the same. The result of this was a chart entry, TOTP and people buying that record that wasn't selling!
    It's not like downloads, the shops had to have say 300 singles to sell. If they didn't sell them they lost money. If people buy 5 downloads the shop hasn't lost any money. If people buy only 5 records out of 300, the shop has lost money.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    To be objective, and realistic, all of the charts were flawed back then pure and simple. Each had a degree of accuracy but not one could claim to be 100% accurate. Why ?, none used actual sales figures which has already been pointed out here a few times so without that they were all really only a guide to what was selling.

    We all have our preferences as to which was the most representative and that debate rages on and shows no sign of abating.
    But to be honest we will never realistically ever have the sales figures for the period to compile a completely accurate definitive chart. We have what we have and have to live with that fact.

    So that said, it stands to reason that the best we can ever have is a robust composite chart, that takes account of all charts and by the averaging process eliminate the extremes and errors from each chart by finding the middle point which is probably the most accurate and reliable outcome we can ever expect.

    I strive to pursue that goal for us all and hopefully am delivering the best outcome possible given the raw data I have to work with.

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    Originally posted by Splodj View Post
    Agreed Brian.

    ​​In retrospect the lagging behind of RR (who ironically also used 'trend', but still lagged!) doesn't matter so much, and is not cited as a main reason for its unsuitability as the official chart. If it had got it's positions correct but one week later - who would care?

    But at the time it mattered very much. Anyone who knew about the charts in the 60s regarded RR as the duffer because it was behind the others. So in the absence of weighting (which I agree would have been preferable but think would have been difficult to do at the time) I can understand why the BBC used anti-drag techniques, as their primary consideration was to produce a chart that was suitable for broadcast.
    Good points, Splodj. However, it turns out RR is both: they were a lagger week to week (which might fluctuate over time), plus their peaks per record chart run disagreed the most often compared to the other charts, well for Top 10s anyway. Check out this study I did 3 years ago comparing the peaks of every Top 10 record March 1960 to Feb 1969, which chart had the most peak outliers, the distances from the average peak, also broken into 3 time periods when there were 5, 4, and 3 charts. RR was consistently the odd man out:

    https://www.ukmix.org/forum/chart-di...ts=&highlight=

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post
    I came across this snippet today posted in asm's Updated Chart History thread away back in March 2014 by our good friend RokinRobin.

    'I personally wish that someone would construct new weekly composite charts for the 60s, all 520 of them, using the 5 major charts as you discuss (NME, MM, Disc, RM, RR), but weight them according to the number of record shops each one sampled. If the BBC had been doing this from the beginning, there wouldn't have been a need to go with the BMRB in Feb 1969, although eventually a national sales chart would had to have come into being'.

    It's taken 6 years Robin but your wish is my command lol.
    Ha, call me a sage or a prophet, foretelling the future. And Brian, you are the genie that made it all happen, 6 years later, LOL...

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham76man View Post
    In this case your weighting system actually aids the hypers of the charts. A straight forward points system would not put the Once - Geneveve at 30.
    But if the BBC had calculated their chart properly Geneveve would also have been at number 30, jointly with Tom Jones, and with Alan Price at 29.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Sorry but on this occasion I don't agree Graham. We don't know to what exact degree any individual record was hyped and how it actually affected individual chart positions so there is no way any chart can accurately determine this although we know it did go on.
    Remember too that The Ultimate Averaged Chart is based purely on factual published chart positions supplemented by store returns to even it out further, counterbalancing any individual chart with a record out of sync with the other charts which may or may not be a hyped record. The example discussed above with The Small Faces is one example of the evidence of this counterbalance at work.

    As to Geneveve it, on a points only system would have scored 5 points in the chart above, it was ranked 26 on a chart with 200 store returns. Although Tom Jones also scored 5 points his came from a chart with 85 store returns so Geneveve was the obvious correct placement on total points.

    At the end of the day it is the records ranked with most points that place on the chart not the records that place on most charts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    In this case Disc got it right. The Real Chart has it at 11 on 55K.
    Rolling Stones 206K at the top.

    In this case your weighting system actually aids the hypers of the charts. A straight forward points system would not put the Once - Geneveve at 30. Giving it added weight over records that were on several charts, but not having that level of points.
    Hyped because the Geneveve were only at 85 that week on genuine sales, the week before it was 44.

    Ironic to say the least that trying to get the best results for the BBC charts, results in the chart being fiddled!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Yeah Bob, MM and Disc are normally well aligned but on this occasion MM is actually out of step with all the others, even RR. The averaging process reigns it in to a more realistic No 9 position.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPatience
    replied
    What is going on with 'Hey Girl'? Normally MM and Disc are a very agreeable couple, but somehow it is far ahead of the pack in MM, yet it lost 2 positions in Disc.
    Last edited by BobPatience; Sun September 6, 2020, 13:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Greetings Pop Pickers !

    Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending 28th May 1966 for your interest.

    The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending May 28th 1966 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
    6 1 Paint It Black - The Rolling Stones 1 1 1 2 1 18950
    4 2 Wild Thing - The Troggs 2 2 2 1 2 18515
    9 3 Strangers In The Night - Frank Sinatra 3 3 3 4 3 17680
    1 4 Pretty Flamingo - Manfred Mann 4 4 4 3 4 17245
    8 5 Sorrow - The Merseys 5 6 5 5 5 16310
    2 6 Sloop John B - The Beach Boys 6 5 7 7 6 15725
    14 7 Monday Monday - The Mamas and Papas 7 7 8 6 8 15005
    5 8 Shotgun Wedding - Roy C 8 8 11 9 7 13840
    10 9 Hey Girl - The Small Faces 10 12 6 11 10 13835
    12 10 Rainy Day Women Nos 12 & 35 - Bob Dylan 9 9 10 8 9 13820
    3 11 Daydream - The Lovin' Spoonful 11 10 9 10 11 13500
    17 12 Promises - Ken Dodd 12 11 13 12 12 12015
    7 13 You Don't Have To Say You Love Me - Dusty Springfield 13 14 12 13 14 11395
    24 14 When A Man Loves A Woman - Percy Sledge 14 13 14 15 15 10810
    11 15 The Pied Piper - Crispian St Peters 15 15 15 14 13 10430
    13 16 Bang Bang - Cher 16 16 16 17 16 9425
    16 17 Homeward Bound - Simon and Garfunkel 17 20 18 16 17 8140
    22 18 Come On Home - Wayne Fontana 19 17 21 21 21 7150
    15 19 Hold Tight - Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich 18 23 19 19 18 6905
    19 20 (You're My) Soul And Inspiration - The Righteous Brothers 20 28 17 18 19 6420
    NEW 21 I Love Her - Paul and Barry Ryan 21 19 23 22 20 6235
    18 22 Alfie - Cilla Black 22 21 20 20 29 6020
    21 23 How Does That Grab You Darlin' - Nancy Sinatra 23 25 24 23 22 4515
    20 24 Sound Of Silence/Love Me With All Of Your Heart - The Bachelors 24 27 22 26 24 4145
    NEW 25 Nothing Comes Easy - Sandie Shaw 25 18 30 27 25 3760
    NEW 26 Can't Live Without You - The Mindbenders 27 22 27 28 28 3355
    29 27 California Dreamin' - The Mamas and Papas 26 24 24 23 2780
    25 28 That's Nice - Neil Christian 28 29 26 25 27 2590
    23 29 I Put A Spell On You - The Alan Price Set 30 25 1500
    30 30 Once - Geneveve 26 1000
    Eight Miles High - The Byrds 28 750
    Walkin' My Cat Named Dog - Norma Tanega 29 500
    Once There Was A Time / Not Responsible - Tom Jones 29 26 425
    Highway Code - The Master Singers 30 29 400
    I Feel A Cry Comin' On - Hank Locklin 30 30 185

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Agreed Brian.

    ​​In retrospect the lagging behind of RR (who ironically also used 'trend', but still lagged!) doesn't matter so much, and is not cited as a main reason for its unsuitability as the official chart. If it had got it's positions correct but one week later - who would care?

    But at the time it mattered very much. Anyone who knew about the charts in the 60s regarded RR as the duffer because it was behind the others. So in the absence of weighting (which I agree would have been preferable but think would have been difficult to do at the time) I can understand why the BBC used anti-drag techniques, as their primary consideration was to produce a chart that was suitable for broadcast.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    'Trend' was not fair though, it shouldn't matter whether the record was climbing or sliding, both held the same points. BUT that is now the beauty of The Ultimate Averaged system adding a further tier to the averaging criteria by factoring in store returns as this fairly separates records by points rather than by arbitrary chart movement trends.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    Originally posted by Splodj View Post
    I wonder what criteria NME used for separating the sides. In 1967 they listed separately Nancy Sinatra's 'You Only Live Twice' and 'Jackson'. Yet Discogs says 'Jackson' was the B-side, so was it separated because it was a duet with Lee Hazlewood?
    Technically speaking it would have been a double AA side. The problem was that both sides of the record were popular and I think NME just let the retailers decide which side they listed in the returns. In this case the fault was with the record company. They should have not have put the two tracks on the same record. Both were strong enough to chart separately. On the Real Chart I only list Nancy, but this was for reasons of space. In the Chart Book S there is a footnote to say about the other side. The fact it stopped at 12 to me says a lot. And all down to the fact that the two sides weakened the sales of the record somehow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    On the BBC charts I've analysed they did tiebreak in a majority of cases. The basis was 'trend '. There was not a consistent rule about when they did or did not tiebreak. But if pressed for a possible explanation regarding 21st May, I would say they did it for 3/4 because the Troggs were gaining fast and Spoonful were falling; but they didn't do it for 11/12 because the Faces and Dylan were going up at about the same speed.

    I take Robin's point about 'trend' being an unfair method for tiebreaking, but I can see a justification for the BBC using it - namely, by the time POTP aired it was over a week since the sales period ended for that chart.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    I came across this snippet today posted in asm's Updated Chart History thread away back in March 2014 by our good friend RokinRobin.

    'I personally wish that someone would construct new weekly composite charts for the 60s, all 520 of them, using the 5 major charts as you discuss (NME, MM, Disc, RM, RR), but weight them according to the number of record shops each one sampled. If the BBC had been doing this from the beginning, there wouldn't have been a need to go with the BMRB in Feb 1969, although eventually a national sales chart would had to have come into being'.

    It's taken 6 years Robin but your wish is my command lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    You are spot on 'brain'. I've noted this and some other occasions also when entering data that the BBC did not always consistently apply their own rules on tied positions. Normally The Troggs and Lovin' Spoonful should have tied by their rules and been equal 3 but for some reason they didn't apply this on this week or it wasn't carefully checked. It's another reason why I revisited compiling an average chart to include correcting many of the errors the BBC made.

    Leave a comment:


  • braindeadpj
    replied
    The May 21st charts raise some intriguing questions. For the no.3 and 4 the points should be identical for the BBC chart, but they aren't. Initially I thought that perhaps this was a chart where the RR chart wasn't included as that would explain why the Troggs were no.3 (2 no.3s 1 no.4) rather than the Lovin' Spoonful (2 no.4's and a no.3). However if that is so then The Rolling Stones would've been at equal 7 with Dusty and the Merseys at 6, rather than at 6 above Dusty and the Merseys, so the question is how did they decide on the Troggs being at No.3. Is this another example of miscalculation or child bias (assuming the rumors of the daughter doing the calculations is true!).
    Also this week's chart is one of the exceptions to the RR chart being behind as it has the Stones at no.5 (same as NME) while the other 2 charts (MM and Disc) have it lower, despite Disc including preorders...

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    That's an interesting point. NME seemed to arbitrarily split sides for some records and not others. Interestingly as highlighted above they were still doing it in 1967, yet for some strange reason they did not split Beatles double A sides such as Day Tripper / We Can Work It Out, Yellow Submarine / Eleanor Rigby etc.

    We all know why !!!. Denying the Beatles the No 1 slot by splitting would have caused a massive outcry. So not a fair practise, rules for some and rules for others.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X