Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

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

  • You are right Germanicus RR does not have EP'S in their chart. What has happened here is I have taken an average from the other charts and a2arded it to RR to compile the chart. Normally after I have done that I remove this average from the spreadsheet to prevent confusion but obviously I for got to do that for this week. I will correct that. Thanks for picking up on that oversight.

    Brian
    The Record Mirror Chart Re-Calculated, Re-Worked, Extended

    The Biggest Chart Of The Time

    Comment


    • Pop Weekly did not do any RR-compensating calculations for EPs, and their significantly lower EP positions are a dead giveaway that their charts are not based on store returns.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post
        You are right Germanicus RR does not have EP'S in their chart. What has happened here is I have taken an average from the other charts and a2arded it to RR to compile the chart. Normally after I have done that I remove this average from the spreadsheet to prevent confusion but obviously I for got to do that for this week. I will correct that. Thanks for picking up on that oversight.

        Brian
        My Respects to you Mr Tibbs

        Your post in relation to The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined was very detailed and concise.

        I enjoyed following your narrative, as well as reading others discussing this topic ie; The Ultimate Averaged......
        I appreciate your response and happy to assist.

        Most respectfully

        Germanicus

        Comment


        • There is a new book that members of this forum may find interesting.

          It is January 1958 and you are the world’s biggest rock and roll fan. You are rushing to the newsagents to buy the latest edition of your favourite music paper. You absolutely must find out if Elvis has entered the charts at number 1 with ‘Jailhouse Rock’.

          Fast forward five years – its February 1963. The papers are reporting a musical earthquake. The Beatles are topping the charts for the first of many times with their second record, ‘Please Please Me’.

          Whether it was the ‘New Music Express’, ‘Melody Maker’, ‘Record Mirror’ or Disc Magazine, the story was that thesewere milestones in the history of pop music.

          On the radio, Sunday was chart day. Sunday at four always meant Alan freeman counting down the charts on ‘Pick of the Pops’ on the BBC. A few hours later, the tuning knob was turned to point to 208 to hear the Radio Luxembourg ‘Top Twenty’, presented by star broadcasters such as Keith Fordyce, Barry Alldis, David Gell or Paul Burnett.



          These music paper and radio charts have become lost in time, that is, until now.

          ‘The Pop Fans Charts Book’ lists every weekly music paper and broadcast chart side by side from January 1956 to the end of the 1960s.





          Amazon.co.uk : pop fans charts

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TopTwenty View Post
            There is a new book that members of this forum may find interesting.

            It is January 1958 and you are the world’s biggest rock and roll fan. You are rushing to the newsagents to buy the latest edition of your favourite music paper. You absolutely must find out if Elvis has entered the charts at number 1 with ‘Jailhouse Rock’.

            Fast forward five years – its February 1963. The papers are reporting a musical earthquake. The Beatles are topping the charts for the first of many times with their second record, ‘Please Please Me’.

            Whether it was the ‘New Music Express’, ‘Melody Maker’, ‘Record Mirror’ or Disc Magazine, the story was that thesewere milestones in the history of pop music.

            On the radio, Sunday was chart day. Sunday at four always meant Alan freeman counting down the charts on ‘Pick of the Pops’ on the BBC. A few hours later, the tuning knob was turned to point to 208 to hear the Radio Luxembourg ‘Top Twenty’, presented by star broadcasters such as Keith Fordyce, Barry Alldis, David Gell or Paul Burnett.



            These music paper and radio charts have become lost in time, that is, until now.

            ‘The Pop Fans Charts Book’ lists every weekly music paper and broadcast chart side by side from January 1956 to the end of the 1960s.





            Amazon.co.uk : pop fans charts
            Interesting ! I have mine ordered already.
            The Record Mirror Chart Re-Calculated, Re-Worked, Extended

            The Biggest Chart Of The Time

            Comment


            • I've ordered a copy too.

              Comment


              • As have I. It looks interesting. I’m wondering if it has been produced using the Amazon print on demand service - if so the Graham Betts chart books were done like that and the books are therefore very good quality production (In terms of paper, binding, etc) which is of course what you want from this kind of a book - one designed to be thumbed through constantly.
                http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
                Now including NME, Record Mirror and Melody Maker from the UK and some Billboard charts

                Comment


                • 'Temporarily out of stock' - you've snapped up all their copies!

                  Comment


                  • What! We only bought one …. Each….
                    http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
                    Now including NME, Record Mirror and Melody Maker from the UK and some Billboard charts

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Splodj View Post
                      'Temporarily out of stock' - you've snapped up all their copies!
                      Oh Dear ! .. now I'm feeling guilty
                      The Record Mirror Chart Re-Calculated, Re-Worked, Extended

                      The Biggest Chart Of The Time

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Splodj View Post
                        'Temporarily out of stock' - you've snapped up all their copies!
                        Don't worry I just refresh the page & now working, it's selling for 15.99

                        https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pop-Fans-Ch...ks%2C93&sr=1-1

                        Comment


                        • This would appear to be a most interesting book, a weekly chart comparison, which has always been on my wish list, ha. I checked out the 'look inside' pages on Amazon and discovered:

                          --the history of the UK charts 50s & 60s in the intro appears to be mostly accurate as we know it, seemingly based on Alan Smith's research and articles, though a statement here or there is questionable or opinion

                          --but the way David Hill says NME used sales data on a pre-order basis, giving the appearance that their chart was ahead of the others, seems to imply that NME did this for every record, that's how he comes across to me anyway. Though I think it has been our collective impression this was only done for major artists, Elvis, Cliff, The Beatles, etc.

                          --he does point out the flaws of Record Retailer, most good (he sounds like me at times !!)

                          --but I wish he would have started prior to 1956

                          --the included charts are NME till Dec 1969, RM till Mar 1962, MM till Dec 1969, Disc till Aug 1967, BBC/BRMB (instead of BMRB) till Dec 1969. But in the next paragraph all these are mentioned again except the BBC ends at Feb 1969, and no mention of BMRB.

                          --he states RR charts are not included because these were not available to the general public. Hello, they were printed in RM 1962-69 !! So as much as I have railed against RR, I still want them in my perfect weekly chart comparison book !!

                          --his discussion of split sides isn't completely correct either. Yes NME continued listing some split sides long after the others had ceased, but they also listed combo sides. He claims the other charts listed both sides together, eventually yes, but they also listed split sides in earlier years.

                          --I wonder if the full charts will be listed, up to 50 positions for MM and Disc, or will they be truncated at 30? Will he show the BBC complete calculated 30 when only the Top 20 was broadcast?

                          --what are the sources for David's charts? Did he do all the original chart gathering work, or just copy info from websites?

                          FYI, David published an earlier chart book, only available on kindle, for the BBC charts of the 60s, titled "The 1960s Charts Book". Dated as June 2021 on Amazon US. The 'look inside' intro part again shows a good knowledge of 50s & 60s UK charts history, with some occasional questionable statements and opinion. Link:

                          https://www.amazon.co.uk/1960s-Chart...s%2C213&sr=1-1

                          I want to order this book, but I think I'll hold off until I hear back from more of you. I hope it's a job well done, but the above comments give me pause. Is this guy really a chart freak like us, where history, knowledge, and accuracy matter, or is he out for financial gain?

                          Yall let me know when your copies arrive. Cheers...

                          Comment


                          • I am hoping against hope that this book is well researched, detailed, thoroughly checked to make it as accurate as possible, because I too want the convenience of all the major charts under one roof.

                            I pray it doesn't disappoint by being yet another cobbled together book just to make a fast buck like for example David Armstrong's BBC Chart book which used inaccurate incomplete data of Dave Taylor and Trevor poached off sites like here and others on line.
                            Also I hope it uses accurate reliable source material and doesn't just pull the information from the likes of Tony Jasper's error ridden Record Mirror Chart Top Twenty book. I too am already disappointed a bit to hear from Robin's perusal that the RR charts (although we all berate them) are not included even just for comparison's sake.

                            I've ordered it, fingers crossed, and hope it doesn't turn out to be a turkey.
                            The Record Mirror Chart Re-Calculated, Re-Worked, Extended

                            The Biggest Chart Of The Time

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RokinRobinOfLocksley View Post

                              FYI, David published an earlier chart book, only available on kindle, for the BBC charts of the 60s, titled "The 1960s Charts Book". Dated as June 2021 on Amazon US. The 'look inside' intro part again shows a good knowledge of 50s & 60s UK charts history, with some occasional questionable statements and opinion. Link:

                              https://www.amazon.co.uk/1960s-Chart...s%2C213&sr=1-1

                              I want to order this book, but I think I'll hold off until I hear back from more of you. I hope it's a job well done, but the above comments give me pause. Is this guy really a chart freak like us, where history, knowledge, and accuracy matter, or is he out for financial gain?

                              Yall let me know when your copies arrive. Cheers...
                              Interesting, the sample from "The 1960s Charts Book" says (Under re-writing chart history) talking about RR not having Please Please me as a no.1 "In the case of the Beatles disc, Record Retailer actually had it confused with "Wayward Wind" by Frank Ifield...." anyone know what the evidence for this statement is, or have you heard of it before?

                              Comment


                              • He also says that RR had a cutoff of Friday night rather than the Saturday night of the other papers...

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by braindeadpj View Post

                                  Interesting, the sample from "The 1960s Charts Book" says (Under re-writing chart history) talking about RR not having Please Please me as a no.1 "In the case of the Beatles disc, Record Retailer actually had it confused with "Wayward Wind" by Frank Ifield...." anyone know what the evidence for this statement is, or have you heard of it before?
                                  Yeah brain, Dave Taylor told me both Wayward Wind and Please Please Me both tied for #1 in RR but due to their tie breaking system The Beatles lost out. He also said because of the low sample rate RR was riddled with ties which were all broken down.
                                  The Record Mirror Chart Re-Calculated, Re-Worked, Extended

                                  The Biggest Chart Of The Time

                                  Comment


                                  • I purchased the 60s kindle book and it essentially features the combined chart (BBC?) for each week. However, the back page says:
                                    "There is an expanded version of this book containing a complete list of all of the records that made the UK top thirty during the 1960s. This data includes the highest chart positions achieved in the NME, Melody Maker, Record Mirror and Disc charts. You can purchase this books by visiting https://payhip.com/b/Mvb0z


                                    Purchase from that link appears to be cheaper than the one from Amazon!

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post

                                      Yeah brain, Dave Taylor told me both Wayward Wind and Please Please Me both tied for #1 in RR but due to their tie breaking system The Beatles lost out. He also said because of the low sample rate RR was riddled with ties which were all broken down.
                                      A tie breaking system and confusing the two doesn't really sound like the same kind of problem....

                                      Comment


                                      • I'd never heard the term 'confused' before relating to PPM / WW, but only as Brian quoting Dave Taylor described it as they actually tied at #1 for at least 1 week on RR, and PPM lost the tie.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by braindeadpj View Post
                                          He also says that RR had a cutoff of Friday night rather than the Saturday night of the other papers...
                                          I asked Alan Smith about this after reading similar comments on a few other forums, and he very firmly stated this was absolutely not the case, that ALL charts cut off on Saturday, the end, period !! Now, a Friday cutoff would definitely help explain things, and RR were always on top of their reporting shops to get their lists in on time. Per Alan, RR even calculated their charts a day later than the others, and still had problems. I can only guess that some RR reporting shops ended their tabulations on Friday without telling RR, and put them in the mail so they wouldn't be late, and they wouldn't get yelled at. Now that very well could have happened, with just enough of the RR reporting shops doing that to affect the final RR tabulations. Mathematically it wouldn't take many 1 day early RR reporting shops to cause a Beatles debut to miss out at entering #1 the 1st week.

                                          Comment


                                          • I must be missing something, but doesn't the Ultimate thread give all the major charts under one roof?

                                            To repeat some points we've discussed before:

                                            - NME could not have been using pre-order in the 50s when RM were ahead of them.

                                            - Using RRs tiebreak rules Please Please Me would win a tie against Wayward Wind.

                                            - RR must have calculated their chart on a Monday by the time Radio 1 started and had their Tuesday lunchtime reveal of the new BBC chart.

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by RokinRobinOfLocksley View Post
                                              I can only guess that some RR reporting shops ended their tabulations on Friday without telling RR, and put them in the mail so they wouldn't be late, and they wouldn't get yelled at.
                                              Then why didn't MM have this problem? The big test is those Beatles records that entered at number one at the height of Beatlemania, as you would expect. Any 'official chart' analysis of records debuting at the top is hampered by RRs inability to register these.

                                              Comment


                                              • I can't answer all your questions Splodj, but here's what I posted in this thread up above #2468:

                                                ----------------

                                                Final thoughts on Record Retailer tie-breakers per Alan Smith: responding to Graham's post #2409 above responding to my previous post #2400; a NEW discovery; summary. Ready, steady, GO !!

                                                Alan didn't say that ALL RR reporting shops furnished actual sales data to Jeremy Wilder; Alan did say that after Jeremy had calculated a summed points RR chart he then phoned ONLY 1 or 2 of the largest RR reporting shops in London or Liverpool to get their sales data in order to break the half dozen ties per week. That the shops kept this data for 1 week, and Jeremy could get it if he phoned in time. One might could assume that Jeremy had his 1 or 2 shops already lined up in advance with a standing order to hold onto their sales data for a week just in case they were needed.

                                                Nonetheless, I went ahead and plowed thru more of Alan’s articles dealing with RR tie-breaking, and discovered yet another interesting item of note. In all 6 of Alan’s “Updated Chart History” articles here on UKMix (in 2014, 2012, 2007, twice in 2006, 2005), he states that RR ties were broken by looking at the “rate of sales change from the previous week”.

                                                However, in all 3 of Alan’s “History of Record Retailer” articles here on UKMix (in 2014, 2012, 2005), he states that “the rate of increase or decrease from week-to-week points tally as a percentage was taken into account in order to separate chart positions”. Rate of tallied chart points change.

                                                Could it be that Jeremy was using both methods at different points in time? Or was Alan just simplifying his wording in his “Updated Chart History” articles, as his “History of RR” articles get into much greater detail?

                                                ----------------

                                                To accompany the above, here’s specifically what Alan told me by way of 4 emails, in his own words:

                                                1. When I spoke to Norman Bates ex R. Retailer (about 1999) who could only recall `so much` of the process- sadly, the fellow who compiled the RR chart 1960-69 Jeremy Wilder was no longer available - Both he and Editor Roy Parker devised the `Countback` system when realising only using up to 30 stores (To Jan 64) for a Top 50 listing `would` produce many tied positions. There were a few anyway in this system- but they often eliminated them by `drawing lots!` (Norman laughed about this) so that by publication; no `ties`. One once did get through on some listings, 14 Jan 67, in some RR listings both "Sunshine Superman" and "Morningtown Ride" were joint No 2. Then when the BMRB chart took over from 15 Feb 69 its Top 50s were littered with `tied` positions because they did not have a system for separating them till sometime in 1972.

                                                2. Jeremy used rates of increase or decrease in sales from last week’s figures which he kept for those purposes. `Please Please Me` [tied at #1] Yes- I think with "Wayward Wind" it may well have done. As for the Stones [19th Nervous Breakdown]- they spent 3 weeks No 2 and might have tied for one week in RR chart. No way of proving it though as Jeremy’s workings long destroyed.

                                                3. As far as I can recall from my communications with Norman Bates - actual sales figures were requested only from the largest (Either London or Liverpool based) retailers for breaking `tied` points positions. Jeremy only requested the one- or occasionally two sets of figures just to separate the points tied. It would take far too much time to go through all thirty sets of figures. Doing this for often at least half a dozen tied figures each week delayed the finished compiled RR chart to each Tuesday. The other chart compilers all had their charts done by Monday afternoons as they were ok about publishing tied positions. I suspect that `Disc` had a method for eliminating tied positions in their chart (1958- 67) but I have no data on that-sadly! The system Jeremy used I suspect would cause him to work harder producing a chart from 30 returns than one on over 100 but leaving tied positions in. No wonder it was junked by 1969.

                                                4. Most times Jeremy would use the change in percent from previous weeks - but on the rare occasion that even `those` came out level; he would phone for exact sales figures. Shops kept them for a week, so as long as he phoned in time that was ok. It was only on very rare occasions he needed to ask for exact sales figures though. That's what was relayed to me. When the RR sample increased to between 80 - 100 from start of 1964 much less instances of ties and so the chart could be passed to BBC in time for `Pick of the Pops` from this point- though they still published it in Record Mirror same day (Thursday) to end of June 67 when it was brought forward to Wednesday publication.

                                                ----------------

                                                So that’s all the Alan text. To summarize the RR tie-breaker per Alan:

                                                --half a dozen ties occurred each week Mar 1960 thru Dec 1963, when RR was sampling 30 shops

                                                --fewer ties occurred thereafter when RR went to 80 shops

                                                --RR / Jeremy used several methods to break ties:
                                                (a) a rate of change of summed chart points week over week, or
                                                (b) a rate of change of sales week over week from 1 or 2 of the largest record shops, or
                                                (c) drawing lots (!!), or
                                                (d) actual sales from 1 or 2 of the largest record shops, or
                                                (e) some combination of the above

                                                --resolving the tie-breakers delayed compiling the finished RR chart by an extra day (to Tuesdays)


                                                Hopefully RR progressed from lesser to better tie-breakers over time, but in my book only (d) above is acceptable (and not perfect), the others are bogus to ridiculous.

                                                It would’ve been better to just let ties be ties, and thus RR would’ve more often agreed with the other charts, but alas…

                                                ----------------

                                                THE END. Rock on...



                                                Comment


                                                • For more discussion on the RR tiebreaker, scroll up to my post #2398 on page 96 of this thread...

                                                  Comment


                                                  • This is my reasoning ...

                                                    With a number one he wouldn't have drawn lots. The Beatles record would certainly have won on the trend method. It would have won if he phoned a shop in Liverpool. So we are left with the scenario that he phoned a shop in London and they said that the Beatles record, despite being number one in the other charts, was outsold in that particular shop. That is possible, but what a way to run a chart!

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X