The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

[MrTibbs]

Maybe Guinness could have done what I did for the first time and produced a book listing all the charts side by side. I personally and probably lots of others too would have found such a book interesting and invaluable.

[Splodj]

One further thought, bearing in mind the Guinness compilers could not have reasonably been expected to do a composite at that time and wanted a 50.

They could have applied the simple rule: 'When RR is the odd-one-out, the record that is number one in all the other charts shall prevail.'

[Splodj]

That was one of the RR ties Dave Taylor said he had heard about. I don't see how the Beatles could have lost out on a tie though, even in the first week, using RRs 'trend' method of tiebreaking.

Elvis and Cliff had peaked before the Beatles appeared, with their records no longer entering at no. 1. And the Beatles did not start achieving this until 'Hand'. I've always thought the Elvis peak outside the USA was too late anyway artistically - should have been in the Houndog period!

The 'only chart with a 50 throughout' is an argument that I can accept for RR, but it is not the justification used now. It also has to be combined with a reason for not using composites, which are easier to calculate now. If the Guinness people had worksheets they could have used RR for only the lower positions. Similarly if RM really are the bees knees for LPs pre-60,.you could use MM for only positions below 5.

As has been said, this is all academic now.

But look at the charts above side-by-side, the Beatles are number one!

[Robbie]

Frank woz robbed

I do believe that had it not been for Record Retailer's policy of not having tied positions then for one of the weeks (perhaps the first?) Frank Ifield and The Beatles would have been a joint number 1 as both records had the same amount of chart points. I did read that years ago, I don't know how true it is.

[MrTibbs]

The Beatles successfully hold No 1 for a second week and keep Frank at bay at No 2.

Elvis doesn't know it yet but his chart dominance is over. Not only will his latest new entry fail to reach the top but will even fall short of the top ten. The shape of things to come with only occasional breakthrough.

[MrTibbs]

Greetings Pop Pickers !

Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending March 2nd 1963

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending March 2nd 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	Please Please Me - The Beatles					1	1	1	1	2	9870
2	2	The Wayward Wind - Frank Ifield					2	2	2	2	1	9600
4	3	The Night Has A Thousand Eyes - Bobby Vee					3	3	3	3	3	9240
6	4	Loop-De-Loop - Frankie Vaughan					4	5	5	4	5	8630
3	5	Diamonds - Jet Harris and Tony Meehan					5	7	4	6	4	8510
17	6	Summer Holiday / Dancing Shoes - Cliff Richard					6	4	8	5	7	8170
12	7	That's What Love Will Do - Joe Brown					7	6	7	7	6	8050
7	8	Island Of Dreams - The Springfields					8	8	6	8	9	7860
5	9	Little Town Flirt - Del Shannon					9	10	9	9	8	7190
10	10	Sukiyaki - Kenny Ball					11	12	10	14	10	6530
11	11	Walk Right In - The Rooftop Singers					10	11	12	11	11	6450
18	12	Like I've Never Been Gone - Billy Fury					12	9	14	10	14	6310
8	13	All Alone Am I - Brenda Lee					13	14	11	12	12	6220
15	14	Have Nagila - The Spotnicks					14	16	13	13	13	5640
23	15	Hey Paula - Paul and Paula					15	15	15	16	17	5170
20	16	Tell Him - Billie Davis					16	17	16	15	21	4750
26	17	Charmaine - The Bachelors					17	13	20	20	18	4390
9	18	Bachelor Boy / The Next Time - Cliff Richard*					19	22	19	17	16	4320
14	19	Globetrotter - The Tornados					20	18	18	18	20	4230
13	20	Like I Do - Maureen Evans					18	21	17	19	15	4180
16	21	Don't You Think It's Time - Mike Berry					21	23	22	22	19	2960
19	22	A Taste Of Honey - Mr. Acker Bilk					22	24	21	23	22	2870
27	23	Hi-Lili Hi-Lo - Richard Chamberlain					23	20	25	21	25	2680
25	24	My Little Girl - The Crickets					24		23	27	23	1640
22	25	Big Girls Don't Cry - The Four Seasons					26=		24		24	1260
21	26	Dance On - The Shadows					25		26	24	27	1220
NEW	27	Cupboard Love - John Leyton					26=	25	29	25		1200
NEW	28	One Broken Heart For Sale - Elvis Presley					28	19				1200
24	29	Some Kinda Fun - Chris Montez					29		27		26	750
NEW	30	Boss Guitar - Duane Eddy							28	30	29	560
		* This week the split sides would have affected NME's averaged chart position so an average was taken from the other 3 charts giving an average of 17.3 to Cliff Richard and awarded to NME to give a more representative chart position for both sides together.
		Dancing Shoes - Cliff Richard						26
		The Next Time - Cliff Richard						27
B		From A Jack To A King - Ned Miller					30	29		26	30	480
B		Rhythm Of The Rain - The Cascades						27				400
29		It's Up To You - Rick Nelson							30		28	240
X		My Kind Of Girl - Frank Sinatra								28		150
28		Loo-Be-Loo - The Chucks						30				100
B		Pied Piper - Steve Race								29		100
30		The Alley Cat Song - David Thorne

[Graham76man]

It was obvious why the Record Retailer chart was selected from 1960. When the first Guinness Book was published around 1976/77 the UK charts were a top 50 and displayed in every Record Shop in the UK. So it made no sense to use a chart smaller than a top 50. It would have left out huge amounts of hit records if they did use the top 30's only. Had Melody Maker not reduced down to a 30 in 1967, then they might have used that. The only way around it would have been to use all the charts in one book. But it would have been confusing to the readers and greatly increased the size of the book and of course production costs. Assuming Melody Maker and NME and the rest all agreed to the use of the charts.
Thanks to the digital format these days the cost of book production is cheaper. And we have seen the Record Mirror charts published by Colin Driscoll two years ago. So these early charts are not going to vanish and be forgotten. Someone will give fresh life to them, perhaps with new incites into them.
By the way has anyone actually contacted the NME to see what they did with their archives? You never know they might have the original shop sales or some of them!

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

FYI, on the Record World chart, "Something/Come Together" was #1 for 2 weeks, then it flipped sides for the next 3 weeks at #1.

Joel Whitburn's Billboard Record Research books give "Something" a #3, it's peak before both record sides were combined. Prior to it hitting #1 as the b-side to "Come Together", it had been climbing up the charts while "Come Together" had been dropping down. Then boom, Billboard combines them together at #1.

But here's the problem: Joel only credits "Come Together" at #1, but would it have been #1 on its own without combining it with "Something"? In other words, both sides contributed to the single hitting #1, you can't give all the credit to just "Come Together". Joel should not have 'interpreted' the data for us, just give us the data as Billboard charted it. Give us the facts Jack, put your opinions in a note.

So in this case, I'm OK with "Something" being on the '1' CD, however as setg1 points out above, EMI didn't even follow their own rules for '1' regarding #1 b-sides.

[MrTibbs]

Lonnie is right though. We can pontificate for ever but historically it doesn't matter. Apart from those of us still able to remember which charts were the most influential at the time history has been re-written and the modern world accepts what they have been brainwashed to believe. In a few years time even our arguments will be history and RR will stand unchallenged as the supreme chart. There will come a time nobody will have heard of the existence of any other charts. Take a look around, how many of them are commercially available even now.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

"For the purposes of this database, we are following the most unanimously agreed lineage. Chart historians have long since agreed the NME published the pre-eminent singles chart from launch in November 1952 until February 1960, when the Record Retailer took over as the chart of choice. As far as albums are concerned the Record Mirror chart was the original (and most widely recognised) rundown, from July 1956 until March 1960, when the Record Retailer took over From this point in 1960, Record Retailer unified the albums and singles charts, remaining the source of choice through until early 1969 when BMRB took over the reins."

The point is this is simply untrue. They can claim that these are the most readily available historic charts, but not that they were pre-eminent at the time or can be regarded as such now by any objective measure.

And the OCC can't even get their own description right about their own choice of album charts! They are using MM charts from Nov 1958-March 1960 which were Top 10 charts, not RM which were Top 5.

[Splodj]

https://books.google.fi/books?id=eSk...page&q&f=false

One thing that caught my eye on that page - 'Pretty Belinda' number one in Sweden!!

[kingofskiffle]

I almost want to add one of those wikipedia tags you sometimes see

"following the most unanimously agreed lineage" [by who?].

[setg1]

But in the sleeve notes for 1 George Martin states,

"This collection of number ones is taken from the most widely circulated charts in the UK (Record Mirror) and the USA (Billboard)."

No other charts were considered.

Which if nothing else explains the missing of Please Please Me.....

But it doesn't explain why one of their Billboard number ones was omitted:

https://books.google.fi/books?id=eSk...page&q&f=false

Not that anyone will really miss "For You Blue" on the compilation, but it is a number one hit by the same criteria as "Something" (Billboard combined the sales and airplay of the more popular and the less popular side, listing them together). That just shows they couldn't even follow the criteria they supposedly used.

RokinRobinOfLocksley A sixth one for the list: "Magical Mystery Tour" was number one in Melody Maker.

[Splodj]

"For the purposes of this database, we are following the most unanimously agreed lineage. Chart historians have long since agreed the NME published the pre-eminent singles chart from launch in November 1952 until February 1960, when the Record Retailer took over as the chart of choice. As far as albums are concerned the Record Mirror chart was the original (and most widely recognised) rundown, from July 1956 until March 1960, when the Record Retailer took over From this point in 1960, Record Retailer unified the albums and singles charts, remaining the source of choice through until early 1969 when BMRB took over the reins."

The point is this is simply untrue. They can claim that these are the most readily available historic charts, but not that they were pre-eminent at the time or can be regarded as such now by any objective measure.

[kingofskiffle]

But in the sleeve notes for 1 George Martin states,

"This collection of number ones is taken from the most widely circulated charts in the UK (Record Mirror) and the USA (Billboard)."

No other charts were considered.

Which if nothing else explains the missing of Please Please Me.....

[brian05]

But in the sleeve notes for 1 George Martin states,

"This collection of number ones is taken from the most widely circulated charts in the UK (Record Mirror) and the USA (Billboard)."

No other charts were considered.

[setg1]

Twist and Shout was only no. 2 in Billboard

But number one on both Cash Box and Music Vendor (later known as Record World). Arguably the second most significant omission on 1 after "Please Please Me". Also an EP chart number one in Record Retailer.

They didn't even bother to follow the criteria of including all the Record Retailer and Billboard number ones consistently, as the case of the already mentioned "For You Blue" shows – number one on both Billboard and Record World (thanks to being listed together with its A-side) but missed out in Cash Box where they kept listing the sides separately. But they still included "Something" which was only a number two in Cash Box. Undeniably, this makes it much more popular than the Cash Box #71 hit "For You Blue", but neither song would have topped the chart without being combined with the other side of the single. And more controversially, you could also say the same about "Day Tripper" (number one in the UK as a double A-side, but not a top four hit on any of the US charts while "We Can Work It Out" was number one). So that makes a couple of number ones just as debatable as or more so than "Please Please Me"...

[brian05]

They could have included Please please me by chopping off about 4 minutes of Hey Jude.

Twist and Shout was only no. 2 in Billboard, Nowhere man was no. 3 in Billboard, Strawberry Fields was no. 8 in Billboard

[kingofskiffle]

I suspect it’s apathy. Does it matter, in one way, particularly to a record company, 8 years after the final chart that this is being chosen as the definitive chart? I am reading the old music weeks being posted on the American site and reading about the tie at number 1 (or not...) and the only reason they where annoyed was because they coul;dn;t use the tag “number 1 in the UK” at that point as a marketing tool. Would they have cared 8 years later?

Take Please Please Me. in 1963 it either was or was not a number 1. 15 years later does that, to the record company, matter? To us of course it does! But to EMI when the bulk of those sales where done and any now would be on the name Beatles and not “former UK number 1”.

I’d say again in 2001 or so when the chart canon was “officialized” it was decades later and it doesn’t matter - to the record labels.

Maybe I’m being to glass half empty, but that would seem the logical case to me. My current job is a maths tutor for a company specialising in international students. Right now we care about student numbers this year and next year vs last year and the year before. We don’t really care about numbers from 10 years ago - unless we can use that as a competitive advantage or it adds to a big number. Record companies almost certainly work the same. “x sold 2,000,000 copies!” is what they care about, not “x was number 1 on this chart and 2 on this one so can we have this as the official chart”.

I’m happy to be educated otherwise if anybody knows better than me, but the above, to me, seems logical and plausible.

[MrTibbs]

I've long been amazed and perplexed at how little opposition materialised to RR being adopted as the 'official' chart even initially in 1977 by Guinness.. Artists, record companies, music papers, all just seemed to roll over and accept it without question. Given there was no opposition to speak of no wonder the OCC rubber stamped it and adopted it too. Even now I can't understand how easy the whole process was.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

It makes no sense that a record company would credit an artist with FEWER #1 records than what they actually achieved. EMI staff in 2000 probably had few if any employees that were still working there from 1963. So they just pulled out the Guinness book with its revisionism, and a Billboard book for the US, and went with that. They probably ran the track list by Paul, George, Ringo, and John's widow for approval, who may not have even looked at it, or didn't voice any objections. Or if there were objections, EMI would have responded they were going by the 'official' charts, or could only get so many tracks on the CD, they had to leave off some. Case closed.

Never mind that The Beatles had 5 other #1 records on the other major charts in the UK and US that weren't on the '1' CD: Please Please Me, Strawberry Fields Forever, Twist and Shout, Nowhere Man, and b-side For You Blue. EMI could have done the math and left off the least performing #1's. Or made separate '1' CDs for the UK and US. Or made it a 2-CD set and included everything. But why go thru all that trouble when you could just go with the worst UK chart, and the only US chart with a readily accessible chart book series? They were going to produce this '1' CD on a single CD, and the track list (plus or minus a song or two) wouldn't have made any difference in net sales.

So instead of getting "all" the #1's, or the "biggest" #1's, we get "some" of the #1's. Or 27 out of 32 = "84% of the #1's which may not necessarily be the biggest". That would be a great CD title, ha...

But yeah, Paul and Ringo should take a public stand against the 'official' charts. Wouldn't that be kool? And Mick and Keith as well. Check out my 1-star rant review of the '1' CD on Amazon when you get a free minute...

[Richard M White]

Interesting the smallest sample (RR) and the biggest sample (MM) had Please Please Me at no 2

[Splodj]

It has been said that the particularly bad weather on the night Please Please Me was featured on Thank Your Lucky Stars gave it a boost because of the increased audience.

When it made number one EMI hosted a party to celebrate. It occurs to me that latterly EMI could have made a stand against 'official' chart revisionism by including it on the '1' album.

[TopTwenty]

A thought just crossed my mind: the charts being posted at present are from one of the coldest and snowiest winters of the 20th Century. From Christmas 1962 to early March 1963 the UK was quite literally snowed under in the coldest winter since 1740 (though 1947 was snowier). I wonder how high sales were in this period given how severe the weather was for 2½ months?

Two of Cliff’s biggest selling records of the sixties came during the first three months of a snowy, freezing 1963. It seems that some people at least were facing the elements and trudging to the record shops.

[MrTibbs]

and there is your answer .. the battle is easily won, The Beatles easily overtake Frank to capture #1 and music history begins.

Cliff has 4 songs on the NME Top 30 due to split sides.