The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

[Richard M White]

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?

[kingofskiffle]

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.....

[Metalweb]

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?

[braindeadpj]

It's not the chart bible we hoped it would be.

Of course the UAC itself fits that description

[Robbie]

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.

[MrTibbs]

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.

[kingofskiffle]

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.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

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?

[MyFriendJack]

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.

[Splodj]

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

[Splodj]

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.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

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...

[Splodj]

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.

[kingofskiffle]

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?

[Splodj]

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!

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

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

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

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...

[Splodj]

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.

[Splodj]

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.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

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.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

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.

[braindeadpj]

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....

[braindeadpj]

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!

[MrTibbs]

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.

[braindeadpj]

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