The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

[MrTibbs]

Hello Mr Tibbs

I purchased this book and just recieved it.

Apart from not including the Record Retailer Chart, I thought he may have used your Ultimate Averaged Charts?

The difference in layout is that the BBC Chart has been moved to where the Record Retailer Chart was!!

Just an observation.

What were your observations if you don't mind sharing.

Most respectfully

Germanicus

THE POP FANS CHARTS BOOK

My book was manufactured and printed by Amazon New South Wales Australia :-)

It was only printed in October 2022, well after you finished your work?

I am not saying The Book is plagarised, it is very much a strong mirrored image reflection of your work.

Thanks for your thoughts on that Germanicus.

You are not the only guy to think along these lines. Some other guys here have also agreed and commented to me along a similar line of thought.
It is certainly possible because of a number of reasons.

The suspected author of the book visited the thread and therefore the information was readily available to him.
The timing of the book's issue following roughly the same format of my work displaying the charts side by side for comparison.
The suspected author advertised his book on the thread.
When I made a few criticisms of the book I got a whole lot of abuse from him on the thread.

But I take some comfort from the fact that my well researched chart facts and subsequent corrections I made along the way make my chart positions for the music papers as close to 100% accurate as is possible. The rushed out book contains a number of errors so is not as factually correct as my work.

Thanks again for coming back to me on this.

Brian

[Germanicus]

Thanks for your thoughts on that Germanicus.

You are not the only guy to think along these lines. Some other guys here have also agreed and commented to me
along a similar line of thought. It is certainly possible because of a number of reasons.

The suspected author of the book visited the thread and therefore the information was readily available to him.
The timing of the book's issue following roughly the same format of my work displaying the charts side by side for comparison.
The suspected author advertised his book on the thread.
When I made a few criticisms of the book I got a whole lot of abuse from him on the thread.

But I take some comfort from the fact that my well researched chart facts and subsequent corrections I made along
the way make my chart positions for the music papers as close to 100% accurate as is possible. The rushed out book contains a number of errors so is not as factually correct as my work.

Thanks again for coming back to me on this.

Brian

My respects to you Brian and for taking the time to respond

I enjoyed reading your response.

"The suspected author of the book visited the thread and therefore the information was readily available to him." Ouch.. that is disturbing.

"roughly the same format of my work displaying the charts side by side for comparison". I totally agree with you Brian
and more so, the fact that the bottom of the chart has those singles, which are not in the BBC average, yet were still charting on the other notable charts.

"The suspected author advertised his book on the thread". Wow, now that is a kicker, I will look at those posts.

"When I made a few criticisms of the book I got a whole lot of abuse from him on the thread". I am sorry to hear that, because from what I can see, as a labor of love and I would imagine, a long and not very easy process, you posted your research for the benefit of all for FREE.

As you state "my chart positions for the music papers as close to 100% accurate as is possible". Well said Brian and
there are many serious chart compilers on this forum, who were encouraging and applauding you all through your posts.
I would say respected what you were doing.

From my observation, I found it interesting that out of nowhere you began posting your research in a format that I
had not seen before which was great to see, side by side and then just as you had finished, I wonder what a reasonable person would think?

Furthermore, the following was posted in relation to the book [just like yours Brian, however you were not writing a
book at that stage yet could have]

An interesting comment was the following : -

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

kingofskiffle responded

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.

Food for thought Brian

As for me, I was aware that the UK Charts were based on say the Big 3.. NME, Melody Maker and the Record Retailer Charts [what is now OCC].

I was not aware of the BBC Charts and Disc Charts, until I read your posts, which were the first posts I started viewing on
this forum in a serious manner, which then allowed me to expand my horizon. [THANK YOU] I don't think the public were aware of BBC or Disc.. yet here it is in a book .. coincidental??

Why would someone include Disc charts or BBC Charts [which was in my mind, obscure] yet say that they
would not include Record Retailer Charts, because that was a trade paper and not well known to the public.. What??

The whole Chart Controversy is based upon the OCC using the Record Retailer, as it's main source and one of the
main controversies, amongst many, is that PLEASE, PLEASE ME did not make Number 1, even though it was No. 1
on all Charts, except in a trade paper, that supposedly, as the author states, the general public was not even aware existed..HUH..

I could go on, however, again thank you for your time and research.

My respects to you Brian

Germanicus

[MyFriendJack]

Good post, Germanicus. As I remarked elsewhere, David Bull's argument for not including the RR charts is fatuous, because for most of the period covered, the RR charts were published every week in Record Mirror.

Edit: it's David Hill (auto correct strikes again).

[Germanicus]

Good post, Germanicus. As I remarked elsewhere, David Bull's argument for not including the RR charts is fatuous,
because for most of the period covered, the RR charts were published every week in Record Mirror.

Thank you MyFriendJack :-)

I agree exactly with your sentiments and response.

Crazy to think, that someone else, was doing exactly what Mr Tibbs [Brian] was doing at the very same time ...in virtually the same format that was being freely posted for all to see..shall we call it coincidental..!!

.. the fact that Mr Tibbs work was viewed ... well .. I am working on a Beatles
Chart History, Mr Tibbs [Brian] was the inspiration for that, however I have not set it out the same way.

Yet I look at Brians work and look at the book in front of me, I can only conclude one thing...

Most respectfully

Germanicus

[kingofskiffle]

I do think that we have to be a little careful as I do not think we can say that the person making the book copied what MrTibbs had done. I think the mistakes in the book - not present in MrTubbs work - and the differences (lack of RR chart for example) mean that he will have used different sources. When going through the Ultimate chart at the start it became clear to me that the Tony Jasper book (for example) had errors and some of those are present in the book, so that could be a source. A significant number of the chart scans are freely available on the internet, and on forums - with mistakes - and so without strong evidence I think we have to be careful over suggesting he copied. Like many things, the idea could have been arrived at independently.... or it is a complete copy. Evidence is always needed to make accusations.

Various libel laws and copyright laws come into my mind that might be best for UKMix to steer away from - so the above is very definitely said with my Moderator hat on. I would hope that the author has tried his best to be error free, and I would hope that he is unhappy that his book does contain errors. I know MrTibbs is unhappy when error is spotted in things he posts here - the difference with a forum post is that it can be edited and corrected quite easily. A book, not so much.

When Graham Betts produced his series for the OCC I got a little upset as his first volume came out just as I was reaching the 1980's with my own, but he had arrived at that idea quite independently and had been working on it for some significant time so it was clear (to me at least) he had not copied the idea of me - you could argue I copied the idea of him (I did not). I paused my series for a while to not detract from his and was able to offer some small advice to it. My point with that is that ideas can come independently and I do think that the idea for such a book is an excellent one. Somebody should do one - he has - but now I want one without errors. Or should I say with less errors, as they always creep in! And as Robin would say as well, can I also have it with this and that chart and this bit in here and...

[Germanicus]

I do think that we have to be a little careful as I do not think we can say that the person making the book copied what MrTibbs had done. I think the mistakes in the book - not present in MrTubbs work - and the differences (lack of RR chart for example) mean that he will have used different sources. When going through the Ultimate chart at the start it became clear to me that the Tony Jasper book (for example) had errors and some of those are present in the book, so that could be a source. A significant number of the chart scans are freely available on the internet, and on forums - with mistakes - and so without strong evidence I think we have to be careful over suggesting he copied. Like many things, the idea could have been arrived at independently.... or it is a complete copy. Evidence is always needed to make accusations.

Various libel laws and copyright laws come into my mind that might be best for UKMix to steer away from - so the above is very definitely said with my Moderator hat on. I would hope that the author has tried his best to be error free, and I would hope that he is unhappy that his book does contain errors. I know MrTibbs is unhappy when error is spotted in things he posts here - the difference with a forum post is that it can be edited and corrected quite easily. A book, not so much.

When Graham Betts produced his series for the OCC I got a little upset as his first volume came out just as I was reaching the 1980's with my own, but he had arrived at that idea quite independently and had been working on it for some significant time so it was clear (to me at least) he had not copied the idea of me - you could argue I copied the idea of him (I did not). I paused my series for a while to not detract from his and was able to offer some small advice to it. My point with that is that ideas can come independently and I do think that the idea for such a book is an excellent one. Somebody should do one - he has - but now I want one without errors. Or should I say with less errors, as they always creep in! And as Robin would say as well, can I also have it with this and that chart and this bit in here and...

Thank you kingofskiffle for your voice of reason

I have adjusted some of my comments that I posted.

Yes it is important [Various libel laws and copyright laws come into my mind that might be best for UKMix to steer away from]

I do agree. Just supporting MrTibbs I was.

I believe the fact the MrTibbs work was viewed by...was interesting???

All good

Most respectfully

Germanicus

[MrTibbs]

IMPORTANT FOR SINGLES CHART COLLECTORS !

By the way on the subject of errors I came across this while working on the album chart in the Record Mirror issue for 19th August on the chart page regarding their singles chart for 12th August.

The Record Mirror posted the following.

' Last week we dropped a big 'clanger' by omitting Shirley's latest hit from the charts. Together with our apologies we now print the corrected chart '

So the corrected chart for 12th August 1961 places Shirley's Reach For The Stars / Climb Every Mountain at #7 up from #18 the previous week pushing all the other previous chart positions down one place starting with Del Shannon's Runaway which was #7 but is the new # 8.
Pat Boone's Moody River is now #19 but there are two at #20 on the amended chart Clarence 'Frogman' Henry's But I Do, and The Fireballs' Quite A Party.

This means Tony Jasper's books are wrong as he doesn't have the corrected chart, so is the Record Mirror Singles Chart posted here on UKMIX, so is my chart for this week on the UAC and probably many other publications of the original Record Mirror charts.

I intend to revisit the UAC today and make this important amendment to the chart for 12th August 1961to reflect accuracy given this newly discovered information.

Brian

[Splodj]

Looking at the 12-Aug-61 chart it does seem odd that Shirley had disappeared from RM, and maybe something we should have noticed at the time. However number 7 does seem a rather high position for her when looking at the other charts. I would have expected RM to place her at about number 12. The following week there is a consensus around the 6ish position, so I can't help thinking RM might have made another mistake in their recalculation.

[MrTibbs]

Looking at the 12-Aug-61 chart it does seem odd that Shirley had disappeared from RM, and maybe something we should have noticed at the time. However number 7 does seem a rather high position for her when looking at the other charts. I would have expected RM to place her at about number 12. The following week there is a consensus around the 6ish position, so I can't help thinking RM might have made another mistake in their recalculation.

I have now re-calculated the UAC to take account of the Record Mirror error and have now replaced them on here. For those of you who want to see the changes you will find the replaced charts on Page 69.

The UAC now places Shirley Bassey at #13 overall as opposed to record Mirror's #7 Splodj so the averaging process aligns it in a much more realistic position which you correctly referred to. Evidence again that averaging is for that era a much better method for producing a valid and representative chart.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

Good catch Brian !!

[Satchmo76]

Does anyone know the longest gap between a record's debut in the unranked positions below the Top 30 and its entry into the Top 30? I noticed above that there were quite a few that were "sleepers" for quite a while before cracking the 30.

[Germanicus]

Does anyone know the longest gap between a record's debut in the unranked positions below the Top 30 and its entry into the Top 30? I noticed above that there were quite a few that were "sleepers" for quite a while before cracking the 30.

Louis Armstrong – What a Wonderful World

This much-covered track took a while to establish itself as a favourite, spending 11 weeks inside the Top 40 before
hitting the top in 1968.

https://www.officialcharts.com/chart...-climb__21928/

Most respectfully

Germanicus

[Satchmo76]

I noticed that in 1964-65, Beach Boys singles would always climb into the Top 30, not crash in, but that changes in 1966, when they are top act in the country on total points (according to Chartwatch) so they probably start to get a pre-release buzz and then finally their first No. 1, with one of the most groundbreaking records ever made, following one of the best albums ever made.

[Germanicus]

I noticed that in 1964-65, Beach Boys singles would always climb into the Top 30, not crash in, but that changes in 1966, when they are top act in the country on total points (according to Chartwatch) so they probably start to get a pre-release buzz and then finally their first No. 1, with one of the most groundbreaking records ever made, following one of the best albums ever made.

Well said Satchmo76

Unfortunately Brian Wilson had a nervous breakdown, after issuing one of the most groundbreaking records ever made,
followed by one of the best albums ever made after hearing what the Beatles had responded with, in reply to those groundbreaking
records and best album from the Beach Boys .

Most respectfully

Germanicus