Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

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

  • MrTibbs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    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.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    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!
    Last edited by Splodj; Sat April 17, 2021, 14:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robbie
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied


    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham76man
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    Originally posted by Splodj View Post
    "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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • setg1
    replied
    Originally posted by brian05 View Post
    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.
    Originally posted by kingofskiffle View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    "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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kingofskiffle
    replied
    Originally posted by brian05 View Post
    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.....

    Leave a comment:


  • brian05
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • setg1
    replied
    Originally posted by brian05 View Post
    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"...

    Leave a comment:


  • brian05
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • kingofskiffle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard M White
    replied
    Interesting the smallest sample (RR) and the biggest sample (MM) had Please Please Me at no 2

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopTwenty
    replied
    Originally posted by Robbie View Post
    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 2 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X