Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

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

  • One of the many reasons RR is not a great chart for the 1960’s. Whilst we agree they all have flaws to an extent I think the scale of these flaws in RR just really hammers home the ineffectiveness of it as a proper chart. Bit of fun yes. But proper?
    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


    • Another thing that occurs to me ...

      If he did these calculations on a Tuesday, that is after​​​​​​ the NME and MM charts had appeared in the newspapers that morning. So unless he had an 'I shalt not look at them' policy, he would be aware of what they had at number one. So I don't think he would limit his tiebreak exercise to one shop that went against this.

      Bottom line: I think he would only put Ifield top if it was the outright winner on his points.

      Comment


      • Splodj, are you saying that NME and MM charts appeared in daily newspapers on Tuesday mornings? Or that they had already appeared in the daily newspapers prior to Tuesday mornings (as on a Sunday) when RR would have begun calculating their chart? My memory wants to recall that I read somewhere here on UKMix that the NME and MM charts that appeared in daily newspapers (separately from the NME and MM weekly music papers) did so on Sundays, and they weren't necessarily the final (or full) charts for the week. That they were preliminary / early charts, calculated from just a smaller select group of record shops, perhaps a dozen of the largest shops. But nonetheless, if so, then yes, the RR compiler could have seen those preliminary NME / MM Sunday newspaper charts. It would have required a will of steel not to have glanced at them, ha.

        But based on our collective evidence, and the infamous multiple RR tiebreaker rules Alan Smith uncovered (above), I'm not convinced RR would have put Ifield on top based only on his points. As Alan said, sampling 30 shops per week, there were on average 6 ties per week. RR could have very easily seen a tie with PPM and WW during one of those weeks, and gone with whatever of the several tiebreakers they were using back then. And Dave Taylor did claim to have uncovered evidence of this #1 tie (and others) in communicating with a RR employee before that RR employee suddenly passed. Plus RR had 11 #1 records in the 60s that did not reach #1 on ANY of the other charts. Perhaps all 11 of them were decided by tiebreakers !!

        Just based on PPM being #1 on 3 charts for 2 weeks each, and on the BBC for 3 weeks, I'd guess the odds are slightly more likely that RR broke a tie of PPM / WW than WW was a #1 record all by itself. I guess we'll never know for sure...

        Comment


        • Sunday charts were mid-week. NME in Sunday Mirror, MM in People and News of the world.

          Tuesday charts were end of week. NME in Mail and Sketch, MM in Mirror and Telegraph.

          Earlier in this thread someone copied a Daily Mirror article describing how the Melody Maker chart was compiled in time to appear in their Tuesday editions.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Splodj View Post
            Earlier in this thread someone copied a Daily Mirror article describing how the Melody Maker chart was compiled in time to appear in their Tuesday editions.
            post 1967, page 79

            Comment


            • My copy just arrived. My initial thought is that I will need to use a ruler in order to read across from title / artist to the positions. The data presented looks OK, although I won't be carrying out a line-by-line check to spot errors. Interesting to see that The Beatles' "Please Please Me" was #1 on NME, MM, Disc and the BBC charts at the same time. As the RR charts aren't used, the OCC position isn't shown in 1963, of course.

              Comment


              • That's unfortunate, the chart numbers should all be on the left, artist / record on the right, ugh.

                But, does he show the full Top 50 for MM and Disc in the early to mid-60s, and late 1969 for MM, or does he cut them off?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RokinRobinOfLocksley View Post
                  That's unfortunate, the chart numbers should all be on the left, artist / record on the right, ugh.

                  But, does he show the full Top 50 for MM and Disc in the early to mid-60s, and late 1969 for MM, or does he cut them off?
                  Top 30 all the way. Unless, of course, the chart was smaller.
                  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 RokinRobinOfLocksley View Post
                    That's unfortunate, the chart numbers should all be on the left, artist / record on the right, ugh.
                    My first impression of this book which I received today is one of disappointment. I don't like the layout and chart presentation and agree with Robin's comment above as the pages are not user friendly.

                    Worse still I have already found errors so the research has not been robust. David Hill should have taken his info from The Ultimate Averaged Chart and at least then his chart positions would have been 100% accurate, or better still I should have done this book myself.

                    I'm seriously considering returning it. It's not the chart bible we hoped it would be.
                    The Record Mirror Chart Re-Calculated, Re-Worked, Extended

                    The Biggest Chart Of The Time

                    Comment


                    • My book is available for me to pick up. I had the book sent to the local Amazon locker which is located in the local garage. Perhaps I should just leave it there! If the book isn't picked up within three days it will be returned to Amazon...

                      I wouldn't do that of course, I'll pick it up tomorrow and have a look through it to see what I think of the book.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post

                        It's not the chart bible we hoped it would be.
                        Of course the UAC itself fits that description

                        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?
                          The two singles have similar catalogue numbers: (Parlophone) 4983 and (Columbia) 4960.

                          Maybe the contention is that this caused confusion somehow?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Metalweb View Post

                            The two singles have similar catalogue numbers: (Parlophone) 4983 and (Columbia) 4960.

                            Maybe the contention is that this caused confusion somehow?
                            I teach maths - I once saw a students homework where they began writing down an equation with b(4a + 2) and as they went through the working out the top straight line of the b curved more and more so that by the end they were writing a 6 - and using a 6 in the calculation.... So I would see that an 8 can be seen as a 6 - or a 6 look like an 8 if you flow badly. Not sure how you could confuse 3 with 0... I usually inis-write 3 as 1 - or looking like a 1 with a sort of bump in the middle. SO it could be true..... I suppose.....
                            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 MrTibbs View Post

                              My first impression of this book which I received today is one of disappointment. I don't like the layout and chart presentation and agree with Robin's comment above as the pages are not user friendly.

                              Worse still I have already found errors so the research has not been robust. David Hill should have taken his info from The Ultimate Averaged Chart and at least then his chart positions would have been 100% accurate, or better still I should have done this book myself.

                              I'm seriously considering returning it. It's not the chart bible we hoped it would be.
                              I'm glad you said that, while I didn't buy it, my thought was all the info is in the UAC thread, so what's the point?

                              Comment


                              • I didn’t consider this book. Having kingofskiffle’s chartbooks and MrTibbs’ UAC I didn’t see the point.

                                Comment


                                • I picked up my copy of the book this morning and glancing through it, the book seems fine to me. I don't have a problem with the layout though it would have been better to have used bold type to highlight the date of each chart. It's the type of book I've been after for years. I know similar is available on the internet (in this very thread in fact) but I also like to have access to the information in printed book form.

                                  Comment


                                  • Sorry to bump this thread up but more re-writing of 1960s chart history can be found here (no paywall)

                                    Platinum jubilee: The story of the singles chart decade by decade | Talent | Music Week

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Richard M White View Post
                                      Sorry to bump this thread up but more re-writing of 1960s chart history can be found here (no paywall)

                                      Platinum jubilee: The story of the singles chart decade by decade | Talent | Music Week
                                      They got one thing right – "Stranger on the Shore" not being an "official" number one is an injustice, but they probably weren't referring to it reaching #1 on four out of five charts.

                                      Also really random to mention Frank Ifield as a pre-rock 'n' roll artist, as he got his first hit almost four years after Elvis.

                                      Comment


                                      • I think for me this is not so much more re-writing as just 'same old' writing. It was 2002 when the RR charts began to be included as part of official cannon, but in effect they were official since 1977 when Guiness published their first book. Thats the point that the die was cast and while it could have been re-written, as that took off it showed that this is the definite listing. Would American history have been different if Whitburn had chosen Cashbox for his first book? Would Billboard have ended in 1996 and CashBox now be lauded as the 'best' American chart? I am pleased that the article acknowledges the fact that it was the 1970's and chart arcivisem that started to establish a history and narrative.

                                        It is a wrong, and it could be fixed, but, honestly, I can see little appetite to actually change it in the official world as it's probably all too far away (as they say in the intro). My biggest injustice in the rundown is the absence of Lonnie Donegan... but then you'd expect me to want him present right?

                                        Thanks for sharing Richard and pleased it's a free article.
                                        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


                                        • A more jaundiced view of chart history here, conjuring up images of phoning a guy at NME to buy a number 28 ...

                                          https://aroundandaroundcom.wordpress...ritish-charts/

                                          Comment


                                          • The Music Week article says that Slade had five number ones between Autumn 1971 and Summer 1973. Somehow, the writer has managed to airbrush their biggest bit of all!

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by MyFriendJack View Post
                                              The Music Week article says that Slade had five number ones between Autumn 1971 and Summer 1973. Somehow, the writer has managed to airbrush their biggest bit of all!
                                              I guess they thought 6 in 2 1/4 years didn't have quite the same ring to it.....!

                                              Comment

                                              Working...
                                              X