The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

[Splodj]

BMRB is a question. In one post (2014) Alan says starting out BMRB barely got above 20% of 300 supposed returns (= 60 shops). In another post (2014), he says they only got 10 to 25% of returns available or valid to use (assuming of 300 = 30 to 75 shops). In a 3rd post (2012), he says BMRB doesn't hold a record of the proportion of early returns, but based on the number of tied positions, the math suggests they only received 20-25% (assuming of 300 = 60 to 75 shops). Going for the max, that would mean 75 shops starting out before ramping up. For the upper end ramp up, in earlier posts above someone found 2 BMRB/BPI reports of 200+ shops prior to 1976, and Cable's book notes 159 out of 299 returns for a specific week in 1976. So a 200 max ramp up sounds reasonable. Thus if it were me, I'd start with 75 shops, then ramp up to 200.

Alan also says (in his History of Record Retailer thread) that after receiving the postal returns BMRB made 50 supplementary phone calls. Are these included in the returns figures cited?

[brian05]

How Do You Do It? - Gerry and The Pacemakers

3 in NME and Disc, but only 12 in MM. How can that be as a Top 3 record usually sells in large quantities?

[MrTibbs]

Cliff surrenders #1 to the Shadows this week. It will be the last time The Shadows top the chart and will this year lose their crown as top British group to The Beatles, another indication of changes to come in 1963.

[MrTibbs]

Greetings Pop Pickers !

Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending March 30th 1963

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending March 30th 1963								NME	MM	DISC	RR	Total
Last	This		The Sound Survey				Stores	100	150	50	30	Points
Week	Week		The Top 30 Singles Chart				BBC			TOP	30	Scored
2	1	Foot Tapper - The Shadows					1	1	2	1	1	9750
1	2	Summer Holiday / Dancing Shoes - Cliff Richard					2	2	1	2	2	9720
4	3	Like I've Never Been Gone - Billy Fury					3	5	3	4	3	8990
10	4	From A Jack To A King - Ned Miller					4	4	4	5	4	8860
8	5	Charmaine - The Bachelors					5	6	6	8	6	8150
3	6	That's What Love Will Do - Joe Brown					7=	8	5	9	8	7990
5	7	Please Please Me - The Beatles					7=	9	7	7	7	7720
20	8	How Do You Do It - Gerry and The Pacemakers					6	3	12	3	10	7680
13	9	Rhythm Of The Rain - The Cascades					9	11	8	6	9	7360
7	10	Island Of Dreams - The Springfields					10	10	9	11	5	7180
15	11	Say Wonderful Things - Ronnie Carroll					11	7	13	10	11	6750
6	12	The Night Has A Thousand Eyes - Bobby Vee					12=	13	10	15	13	6290
9	13	Hey Paula - Paul and Paula					12=	15	11	13	12	6070
16	14	Brown Eyed Handsome Man - Buddy Holly					14	12	15	12	16	5700
14	15	Tell Him - Billie Davis					15	14	14	14	15	5580
11	16	The Wayward Wind - Frank Ifield					17	17	16	16	17	4820
12	17	One Broken Heart For Sale - Elvis Presley					16	16	17	18	14	4760
21	18	Let's Turkey Trot / Old Smokey Locomotion - Little Eva					18	18	19	19	18	4090
28	19	The Folk Singer - Tommy Roe					19	19	20	17	19	3910
25	20	Robot - The Tornados					22	19	21	20	30	3280
19	21	Cupboard Love - John Leyton					20	28	18	21	22	3020
26	22	In Dreams - Roy Orbison					21	22	23	23	20	2830
17	23	Loop-De-Loop - Frankie Vaughan					24=	30	22	26	21	2000
NEW	24	Mr Bass Man - Johnny Cymbal					24=	23	27	24	25	1930
27	25	All Alone Am I - Brenda Lee					23	27	26	22	23	1840
NEW	26	The End Of The World - Skeeter Davis					26	25	28	28	24	1410
22	27	Walk Right In - The Rooftop Singers					27=		24		27	1170
18	28	Diamonds - Jet Harris and Tony Meehan					27=		25		26	1050
NEW	29	Say I Won't Be There - The Springfields					30	21				1000
NEW	30	So It Will Always Be - The Everly Brothers					27=	23			28	890
B		Walk Like A Man - The Four Seasons						26		30		550
X		Can You Forgive Me - Karl Denver						29		25		500
23		Hava Nagila - The Spotnicks							29	29		400
24		Hi-Lili Hi-Lo - Richard Chamberlain							30		29	210
X		Fireball XL5 - Don Spencer								27		200
29		Sukiyaki - Kenny Ball
30		Little Town Flirt - Del Shannon

[Graham76man]

Some of the comments on here are like the people in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy that were dumped on Earth. Example:
"We have adopted the leaf as currency. So we have all become rich. But due to the high level of trees, we have hit an inflation problem. So to get around the problem we are going to burn down the forests!

[Graham76man]

I am confused. Is tossing a coin more random than drawing a lot?

I suggest that the record enthusiasts who enter info on records owned on 45cat are not a representative cross section of people who bought records at the time they charted.

I think you would find them a better sample then any of the record charts done at that time.
It doesn't have to be perfect either. Since you simply couldn't fit into a top 50 all the most owns on 45 Cat for any particular time. But a lot of the records especially in 1963, I can't see them having a great interest, but still a lot of owns, that didn't chart. Indeed you would expect to see many collectors after chart records and this is what you do find. It's rare that a top 50 record has very low owns on there. Even the ones you know where hyping failures. Often the ones that enter at 49 and go to 41, then fall to 46. Mostly in the 70's these. They still have high owns!
I wasn't implying that all the 15 records would have made the top 30. Simply because of the ones that were chart records keeping them out. But I reckon around five tended to get into the 30 that were not on the published charts. Remember these 60's chart treated each of it's shops supplying them with top 10's or whatever as the same. Some of the London stores alone (a single one) could have outsold several record shops in a survey! But they would have only got 10 points, but say 4 stores all had the same record at the top they would have got 40 points. But if it was based on records sold the four stores would have 20 points for there top seller and the one London store 80 points for it's number one that didn't make the top 30, whereas the four shop one did.

A comparison from 45 Cat "years ago" is no longer relevant. Since the site has grown rapidly and the members and records are vast numbers. In fact it's that big, they had to cut down the results due to technical issues with the numbers. Plus then they added the valuations, which shows what record collectors are after. If you want to be pedantic about the issue you just need to look at the wants and take that figure off too. But a lot of the Feb 1963 I saw didn't have any wants on.

[MrTibbs]

This week's Ultimate & BBC are remarkably similar!

Thank-you Robin for those details. It certainly explains how records could have won a tiebreaker that would not on a straight 'trend' basis as used (irregularly) by the BBC. So that mystery is solved. But their system seems very strange to me. Why didn't they just look at the returns of their largest shops? Surely this would have given a more reliable picture than phoning one or two or tossing a coin.

MM and Disc must have had ties after their initial computation, although not so many as RR. What method did they use?

This shows that adding record store returns as an extra tier in the averaging process is achieving its goal by fine tuning rather than distorting. I'm therefore more than happy with the outcome of the UAC in providing a more robust chart.

I too think using the largest shop return is the best and fairest way to break a tie hence why I have used this system right from the start.

[Metalweb]

I suggest that the record enthusiasts who enter info on records owned on 45cat are not a representative cross section of people who bought records at the time they charted.

Quite so - some artists are far more collectible than others. Years ago I did a detailed comparison (for the '70s) of 'owns' on 45cat with chart position attained. The correlation was fairly close but certain types of hit (easy listening, novelty) were "under-owned".

[brian05]

Tossing a coin has 2 outcomes - heads or tails.
Drawing a lot from 2 straws has 2 outcomes - one straw or the other.
But it obviously changes if you use more than 2 straws.
Depends on your definition of what a "lot" is.

On-line definition,

Drawing lots - making a chance decision by using lots (straws or pebbles etc.) that are thrown or drawn.

[Splodj]

I am confused. Is tossing a coin more random than drawing a lot?

I suggest that the record enthusiasts who enter info on records owned on 45cat are not a representative cross section of people who bought records at the time they charted.

[Graham76man]

Assuming Robin is right, which by the way he is partially wrong, since he quotes copies sold and the shops didn't supply that kind of information. All of these point based charts would have errors in them. Melody Maker having Cliff at four would have been wrong for a start. But if you really want to see how wrong these early charts were, you only have to go to 45 Cat and and search using the date February 1963 (no day number). UK and most collected.
This will produce a list of 50 records with high owns on them. A good indication of what they sold like. Limiting to the first 30 of that 50, to compare with Mr Tibbs top 30 chart, I counted about 15 records that never went near the top 50 charts. And with the exception of the Embassy Records (sold only at Woolworths), which were only three. The rest were all sold in shops that could qualify for the charts. In vary high numbers indeed.
I have found this system to be very reliable and the valuation numbers help to remove people wanting to own copies just for the money. What I tend to do is knock off a record owned for every pound. But if you look at that top 50 it's not full of valuable records. Many have high owns for no money. I have also calculated chart hits verses owns to find out how many owns their are on top 50 records, which shows what a record would need to make a top 50 chart. 14 for number 50 and anything above 70 for a number one.
It's a pity they reduced the results down from 100 to 50. I have words with them on the subject, but they are not really interested in being a valuable resource for music historians and see the site as for "fun".
That aside! With some records having owns of 80, more than some chart toppers and a chart position of say 45 on Record Retailer, even Mr Tibbs top 30 can't put records into the chart that were not in the other charts.
These charts then become a card shuffle where the dealer (NME, MM, Disc,RR) has fiddled them already.

[Robbie]

Graham posted:

Robin said "draw lots", which doesn't mean a coin toss. It's remarkable how people can run with an idea and it can continue to run, even though factually incorrect.

I did read what Robin posted, my reply was a tongue-in-cheek observation (and your reply shows why the comment facitlity should be little used as its not possible to directly respond to it).

Drawing lots, i.e. something like straws or whatever would be even worse than a coin toss.

[Graham76man]

Robin said "draw lots", which doesn't mean a coin toss. It's remarkable how people can run with an idea and it can continue to run, even though factually incorrect.

[Splodj]

I have this vision of Wilder phoning NEMS in Liverpool. They tell him that the Beatles are far outselling Ifeld but, because their local fans were quick to buy Please Please Me, they sold less of it than the previous week. Wilder thereby determines that Ifield should stay as the RR no. 1!

[Splodj]

This week's Ultimate & BBC are remarkably similar!

Thank-you Robin for those details. It certainly explains how records could have won a tiebreaker that would not on a straight 'trend' basis as used (irregularly) by the BBC. So that mystery is solved. But their system seems very strange to me. Why didn't they just look at the returns of their largest shops? Surely this would have given a more reliable picture than phoning one or two or tossing a coin.

MM and Disc must have had ties after their initial computation, although not so many as RR. What method did they use?

[Gambo]

Too many coins to be tossed around in Football nowadays Robbie as we're seeing just now! However appropriate this method was thought to be in sporting contexts in the 1960s though, it is a shocker to hear that was ever utilised in the attribution of RR chart placings. For some this revelation may prove to be the final nail in the coffin of tolerating RR as the 'official' chart of record for the pre-1969 period, which begs the question what source could such disaffected pop-pickers rely on instead that has as transparent and fair an authority as possible? Well, I guess if they're UKMixers they at least have Mr T's UAC! This additional damage to RR's credibility for sixties charts can only be good for this tabulation as more may start relying on it, albeit that it carries no weight outside the users of this forum and sadly will never become a rival competitor for official status to the OCC's lazy reliance on RR.

[Robbie]

Robin thanks for this detailed and highly informative piece of research. Your findings are eye opening especially that important chart positions sometimes were decided by drawing lots. All the more interesting given that we are talking about what is the purported 'official' chart. Its yet further evidence of what a joke the RR chart was.

So the UK record industry, the BBC, and the OCC, continue to promote a shambolic thrown together chart using a handful of stores and another week's figures for ties and the toss of a coin to decide on a chart position as the chart of choice for the era. If it wasn't so serious I'd be rolling on the floor in stitches.

It seems the toss of a coin was the favoured way of settling ties in football back in those days - it was used in both the World Cup and European Championships in the 1950s and 1960s so perhaps it was seen as the "sporting" way of splitting ties and maybe Record Retailer took inspiration from this! Liverpool progressed through to the semi-finals of the European Cup in 1965 on the toss of a coin. It would be ironic if the most famous group of all from the city had lost out on a number 1 single through the same method a couple of years earlier...

[MrTibbs]

It's a pity because after two stunning singles Telstar and Globetrotter The Tornados next efforts Robot and Ice Cream Man were tame and unimaginative by comparison and their lower chart placings reflected this.

[MrTibbs]

Greetings Pop Pickers !

Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending March 23rd 1963

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending March 23rd 1963								NME	MM	DISC	RR	Total
Last	This		The Sound Survey				Stores	100	150	50	30	Points
Week	Week		The Top 30 Singles Chart				BBC			TOP	30	Scored
1	1	Summer Holiday / Dancing Shoes - Cliff Richard					1	1	1	1	1	9900
6	2	Foot Tapper - The Shadows					2	2	2	2	2	9570
3	3	That's What Love Will Do - Joe Brown					3	5	3	3	3	9040
4	4	Like I've Never Been Gone - Billy Fury					4	3	5	4	4	8860
2	5	Please Please Me - The Beatles					5	4	4	5	5	8830
5	6	The Night Has A Thousand Eyes - Bobby Vee					6	9	6	6	6	7950
8	7	Island Of Dreams - The Springfields					7	8	7	7	7	7820
13	8	Charmaine - The Bachelors					8	6	11	9	8	7290
9	9	Hey Paula - Paul and Paula					9	14	8	10	9	6860
17	10	From A Jack To A King - Ned Miller					10	7	14	8	13	6640
7	11	The Wayward Wind - Frank Ifield					11=	13	9	13	10	6630
11	12	One Broken Heart For Sale - Elvis Presley					11=	10	12	11	12	6520
18	13	Rhythm Of The Rain - The Cascades					13	11	13	12	14	6160
10	14	Tell Him - Billie Davis					14	16	10	14	11	6100
20	15	Say Wonderful Things - Ronnie Carroll					15	14	15	16	16	5300
27	16	Brown Eyed Handsome Man - Buddy Holly					16	12	19	17	19	4760
12	17	Loop-De-Loop - Frankie Vaughan					17	19	17	18	15	4430
14	18	Diamonds - Jet Harris and Tony Meehan					19	23	16	22	18	3890
21	19	Cupboard Love - John Leyton					20	21	18	19	22	3820
NEW	20	How Do You Do It - Gerry and The Pacemakers					18	17	24	15	20	3580
26	21	Let's Turkey Trot / Old Smokey Locomation - Little Eva					22	20	22	26	21	3000
16	22	Walk Right In - The Rooftop Singers					21	26	20	23	17	2970
15	23	Hava Nagila - The Spotnicks					23		21	20	27	2170
24	24	Hi-Lili Hi-Lo - Richard Chamberlain					24	25	25	27	24	1910
NEW	25	Robot - The Tornados					25=	18		25		1600
30	26	In Dreams - Roy Orbison					27=	23	27		25	1580
23	27	All Alone Am I - Brenda Lee					27=		23	29	23	1540
NEW	28	The Folk Singer - Tommy Roe					25=	22		21		1400
22	29	Sukiyaki - Kenny Ball					29		26		26	900
19	30	Little Town Flirt - Del Shannon					30=		28	30	28	590
		Old Smokey Locomotion - Little Eva						29
B		So It Will Always Be - The Everly Brothers						26				500
B		Mr Bass Man - Johnny Cymbal					30=			24		350
28		Pied Piper - Steve Race							29		30	330
X		Good Golly Miss Molly - Jerry Lee Lewis						28				300
B		The End Of The World - Skeeter Davis								28	29	210
25		The Next Time / Bachelor Boy - Cliff Richard							30			150
B		Count On Me - Julie Grant						30				100
29		Like I Do - Maureen Evans

[MrTibbs]

Robin thanks for this detailed and highly informative piece of research. Your findings are eye opening especially that important chart positions sometimes were decided by drawing lots. All the more interesting given that we are talking about what is the purported 'official' chart. Its yet further evidence of what a joke the RR chart was.

So the UK record industry, the BBC, and the OCC, continue to promote a shambolic thrown together chart using a handful of stores and another week's figures for ties and the toss of a coin to decide on a chart position as the chart of choice for the era. If it wasn't so serious I'd be rolling on the floor in stitches.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

I think I’ve solved the mystery of the Record Retailer tie-breaker: thanks to Alan Smith, I have finally cracked the code, ha. Plus there are 2 new previously unknown factoids to share.

As we have read, Alan had written up in his several chart articles that RR had broken chart position ties based on the rate of change of sales from the previous week. The record with the largest rate of sales increase would be awarded the higher chart position, the other record would get the lower position.

I had erroneously taken this to mean that if 2 records were tied at say #1 this week, then the #1 would go to the record which was LOWER on the chart last week, because it would thus have a higher rate of change week over week. But that is not what Alan said, or meant to say.

After exchanging 8 emails with Alan over this issue in Aug-Sep 2019, sifting it thru my mind, it finally hit me like a lightning bolt yesterday, and it’s all clear now. Here’s the digest of info from Alan:

--Alan had talked with Norman Bates of RR in about 1999 and learned the following info, as chart compiler Jeremy Wilder alas was no longer available.

--chart compiler Jeremy Wilder and editor Roy Parker devised the ‘countback’ tie-breaker system when realizing that using only up to 30 record shops (Mar 1960 thru Dec 1963) for a Top 50 chart would produce many tied positions.

--the tie-breaker was a 3 step process: after the 30 record shop charts were averaged (added) together, there would typically be at least half a dozen tied positions each week. Jeremy would then call up 1 or 2 of the largest retailers in either London or Liverpool, get the rate of change in sales over the previous week of those tied records, and the record with the largest rate of increase in sales was awarded the higher chart position.

--if records were still tied, then Jeremy would break the tie looking at the sales of the current week.

--if the records were still tied (and this did happen on occasion), then they drew lots! That is new factoid #1. Norman laughed about this, but by publication time, there were no ties. (although Alan says sometimes a tie did leak out)

--BIG PROBLEM: it’s possible that for 2 given tied records across the 30 averaged record shop charts, the record with the larger rate of sales increase week over week at the 1 or 2 largest retailers actually did NOT sell the most copies this week at those 1 or 2 retailers !! Example: let’s say Records X and Y tied at #1 on the average of 30 RR record shop charts. At the largest record shop on RR’s list, let’s say Record X sold 200 copies last week, 250 copies this week. Record Y sold 150 copies last week, and 225 copies this week. Record X thus showed a sales increase of 25%, and Record Y showed a sales increase of 50%. According to this formula, Record Y would get the #1 position, Record X would get the #2, YET RECORD X SOLD MORE COPIES THIS WEEK THAN RECORD Y !! This is totally bogus !!

--factoid #2: Alan says these ties are what delayed RR from being compiled on Mondays as were all the other charts. Jeremy had to spend Tuesdays contacting the record shops for rate of change of sales (or sales) figures in order to break ties and finish the chart. So that secret is now out, amazing!

--to reiterate, the rate of change of sales (or sales) of 1 or 2 shops were used to break chart position ties of the 30 shops averaged together.

So mystery solved! But still, it’s mathematical malpractice to use prior week data to establish a current week chart. Last week was last week, it has nothing to do with this week. Period !!

FYI, when RR went to 80 shops in January 1964, there were much fewer instances of ties, so the chart could be passed onto the BBC sooner, in time for Pick/Top of the Pops.

Thanks Alan !!! Sad to say, I haven’t heard from Alan since Sep 2019, though I’ve sent him 6 emails since then. I do hope he’s well, and still with us…

---

More about the RR ties and errors. Dave Taylor had been in contact with someone who had worked at RR back in the day, who was supplying him with inside chart info and calcs. Dave had posted some of this RR info here on UKMix, and also at other sites, dealing with records that had tied on RR at #1 but were forced into tie-breakers, plus other chart errors. Coincidentally, both Brian and I were in contact with Dave about this at about the same time, but unfortunately Dave’s RR contact person passed away right in the middle of his discussions, sometime in 2012, and the remainder of this info is now apparently lost to history, ugh. Unless Trevor might know something.

Some of what Dave had posted / told us was:

--Please Please Me had indeed tied at #1 for at least 1 week on RR, but lost the tie-breaker

--Likewise for 19th Nervous Breakdown

--the Small Faces “Sha-La-La-La-Lee” should have hit #1 on RR, but due to a math error its chart data got mixed up with Nancy Sinatra’s “Boots”

--there was another instance on RR where Tom Jones got mixed up with Tommy James, on the infamous Aug 31, 1968 chart. This RR error resulted in the 3-way tie at #1 on the BBC average chart, which otherwise would not have happened, and the BBC #1 would have instead gone to The Bee Gees.

Incredibly fascinating, ha…

[brian05]

There is always Spotify! Or YouTube (Gerry and the Pacemakers - Hello Little Girl - YouTube). Alternatively, you can get a 30 second sample on iTunes by listening to The Greatest Beatles Covers.

Fourmost version is best, followed by Gerry, followed by Beatles (used for Decca audition).

[MrTibbs]

I've not heard Gerry's but The Fourmost's version was a really good record.

[brian05]

In an interview in the Record Mirror on 16th March 1963 Gerry said,



Wonder what happened to that song? Maybe he meant "Hello Little Girl" which was recorded by The Beatles (on Anthology 1) and was later a no. 9 hit for The Fourmost in September 1963. “Hello Little Girl” is the first song ever written by John Lennon, and credited to the Lennon–McCartney song writing partnership. The recording by Gerry & The Pacemakers was not released until the 1991 compilation, The Best of Gerry & the Pacemakers.

[MrTibbs]

26 Let's Turkey Trot / Old Smokey Locomotion - Little Eva

How come this is a double A-side?
Did the flip side make an appearance in any top 50 chart?

Yeah Brian. Both sides were credited at some point on at least one of the 4 major charts.