The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

[Splodj]

In the Sun's 1964 survey they asked 250 stores to provide actual sales figures and only 70 did, with the rest providing simply an ordered list. This indicates how difficult it would have been to get sales figures. The Sun also showed the chart that resulted from using only the sales figures, and it did not vary much from their overall chart.

[MrTibbs]

I agree with all comments above. Until the mid sixties record charts were seen as a fun part of the business and although much enjoyed and followed nobody paid much attention as to the accuracy of how they were compiled or methodology or took them too seriously. Then things changed and the business became aware of how charts could be used to promote and sell records for them and the era of manipulation and hyping began, which followed through to store manipulation and bribing etc etc and the fun and innocence of the charts was gone. From then till now the charts were hijacked by the industry not to reflect popularity but to market and sell artists and records as a product and make lots of cash for them. The charts are used for that now much as in the same way TV adverts are used to sell a packet of soap powder.

[Graham76man]

Brian you do realise that what you are saying is why the chart compilers would never have used all the shops you base your figures on. In all surveys be it polls or sales you have to have more participants than you actually need. If you require 20 shops to take part to get a reasonably accurate picture of whatever you will end with, you need about 50 to 60 on the books to be certain of getting what you want. As some will only fill in say a quarter of the results or simply send in the top ten of a form for 50 records. Some of the shops might even have stated each record and the amounts sold too. Because some people are like that. If any of the papers got full 50 charts from ALL the number on the books and on time too! Then that would be a miracle. The vast majority would arrive late, covered in tea and coffee stains or worse! And be filled in by what looks like a spider with a pen in each of it's legs! Clearly some of the dealers didn't know the difference between an album and a single. Hence that weird effect. So if the papers were lucky you could a top 50 from 20 dealers. The rest were trash.
The way to ensure a correctly filled out list from a dealer was to offer discounts on advertisements. Certainly by the 60's being a shop that supplied one of the papers could result in discounts from the record companies themselves, especially if the shop would add records that were not actually selling to the return. Of course when the Official Charts entered the scene, being a chart shop was much more profitable than not being one. Especially for those not connected with superstores.

[Graham76man]

Isn't it rather odd the shops were ever asked to provide a list of their best sellers?

To do this accurately a shop would need to record all sales during the week, then go through the info and assemble a chart.

Had the compilers simply asked for a list of sales this would mean less work for the shop and the compilers could have aggregated the individual returns into a more accurate combined chart....

Record shops work on the basis of buying records from record companies and selling them back to the public for say three times the price. So in many ways they needed to know how many records they sold. They also needed to do this for tax purposes too.
I suspect they recorded sales by looking at stock levels and then counting what was left at the end of the week. Some stores were more efficient than others at doing this. It's recorded that Brian Epstein at NEMS even devised a special system so he knew when to order more records. We also know that NEMS took part in the Record Mirror survey. So I bet the return from that store was great. Interestingly enough if other charts used NEMS it would prove that the story that they all used different shops to be false. I certainly believe this to be a lie and that the same shops were supplying the same charts. Only Record Mirror at one time named the dealers, they requested the others to so, but they never did. My bet is that we would have seen several stores sending the same lists to several papers.
Till receipts probably only stated the money and date at this time and were no use in recording individual sales. But did record overall sales of course.

[Metalweb]

Yes, would have been far more practical to determine sales from a weekly stocktake than try to record each sale on an individual basis....

[MrTibbs]

We will never know the exact number of returns each music paper received week on week but we do know the stated sample for each is the figure I use and therefore it is the proportion difference between each chart that is the important factor therefore even if I halved or even quartered the returns I use the outcome would still be the same.

[MrTibbs]

Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending March 25th 1961

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending March 25th 1961								NME	RM	MM	DISC	RR	Total
Last	This		The Sound Survey				Stores	80	60	110	50	30	Points
Week	Week		The Top 30 Singles Chart				BBC				TOP	30	Scored
2	1	Wooden Heart - Elvis Presley					1	1	1	1	1	1	9900
1	2	Walk Right Back / Ebony Eyes - The Everly Brothers					2	3	2	2	2	2	9490
3	3	Are You Sure - The Allisons					3	2	3	3	4	3	9270
4	4	Theme For A Dream - Cliff Richard					4	4	4	4	3	4	8960
9	5	My Kind Of Girl - Matt Monro					5	5	7	5	6	5	8410
5	6	Will You Love Me Tomorrow - The Shirelles					6	6	5	6	5	6	8360
12	7	Exodus - Ferrante and Teicher					8	7	6	7	8	9	7870
7	8	(Ghost) Riders In The Sky - The Ramrods					8	10	8	10	9	8	7160
6	9	F.B.I. - The Shadows					9	12	10	11	7	7	6900
17	10	And The Heavens Cried - Anthony Newley					10	9	11	9	13	12	6850
11	11	Wheels - The String-A-Longs					12	11	12	12	16	13	6120
10	12	Who Am I / This Is It - Adam Faith					11	16	20	8	12	11	5940
24	13	Lazy River - Bobby Darin					14=	8	9	15	18	23	5810
8	14	Sailor - Petula Clark					14=	17	13	14	10	10	5750
14	15	Samantha - Kenny Ball					13	14	13	13	14	17	5690
13	16	Calendar Girl - Neil Sedaka					16	13	15	17	11	15	5420
19	17	Marry Me - Mike Preston					18	18	16	16	20	14	4650
20	18	Baby Sittin' Boogie - Buzz Clifford					20	24	17	19	19	22	3590
15	19	Are You Lonesome Tonight - Elvis Presley					17	20		18	15	16	3560
21	20	Goodnight Mrs Flintstone - The Piltdown Men					19	15	19			21	2300
NEW	21	Seventy Six Trombones - The King Brothers						22		20		24	2140
16	22	Ja-Da - Johnny and The Hurricanes						23			17	20	1670
18	23	Let's Jump The Broomstick - Brenda Lee						21				18	1190
26	24	Exodus - Semprini						18				27	1160
29	25	Warpaint - The Brook Brothers						30	17				920
NEW	26	Where The Boys Are - Connie Francis						24				26	710
27	27	African Waltz - Johnny Dankworth						27				19	680
22	28	Gather In The Mushrooms / Pepy's Diary - Benny Hill						28				25	420
23	29	Dream Girl - Mark Wynter						26					400
NEW	30	'Til There Was You - Peggy Lee						29					160
		I Count The Tears - The Drifters										28	90
		Pepe - Duane Eddy										29	60
		You're Sixteen - Johnny Burnette										30	30
													0
		The BBC chart made an error this week. It did not list a #7 but listed 2 records at '8 then continued with #9, #10 and so on.											0

[MrTibbs]

The BBC chart made an error this week. It did not list a #7 but listed 2 records at '8 then continued with #9, #10 and so on.

[MrTibbs]

It would seem that Elvis has won then ! He claims the top spot and The Allisons are relegated to a second week at #3. But is their challenge over

[Splodj]

Rather than the BBC making an error, I think another transcription error is more likely - with Exodus's 8 being a typo for 7.

[MrTibbs]

I think that is the case too Splodj. I just wanted to flag it up .

[Splodj]

It is true to that there was a difference between the number of stores used by a compiler and the returns used in a particular week. But Alan Smith was alive to this, and he specified both the higher numbers for the stores and the lower numbers for the samples that Brian correctly uses.

[RokinRobinOfLocksley]

The BBC chart made an error this week. It did not list a #7 but listed 2 records at '8 then continued with #9, #10 and so on.

Just had a thought, Brian. What do you think about adding an extra BBC 'sum of inverse points' column to your ultimate spreadsheet chart? For the charts that the BBC was actually using for the current time period, i.e., where we are in 1961 = NME, MM, Disc. This would allow us to inspect the BBC point totals, and better see if there were other possible BBC errors, or Dave/Trevor file typos. There could be the rare Dave/Trevor math error as well. A BBC 'inverse sum' would expose possible blips of all kinds, offering us the chance to explore and correct the D/T BBC file if need be. (Of course we'd also want to check the found audio files and fan write downs before amending the D/T file.) Just a thought...

[brian05]

Good to see this one enter.

NEW 30 'Til There Was You - Peggy Lee

Later recorded by a well known group (whose name escapes me).

[Splodj]

Adding a BBC points column (which I have done many times on my own spreadsheet, as you may have gathered from my comments!) shows a load of questionable ties and non-ties. I don't know whether the additional clutter would be justified by what it reveals.

There are three cases identified so far where I think there is overwhelming evidence for a typo ...
(1) was confirmed by the original tape;
(2) was where a tie at number one did not make sense because all the contributory charts had straight ones and straight twos;
(3) having no number 7 and a tie at 8 does not make sense, in addition to the scores for 8 being wide apart.

[MrTibbs]

Where I personally think TUAC succeeds is by doing exactly what it says on the title 'Re Imagining The BBC Chart'

As you guys highlight above again The BBC chart itself was error and tie ridden made more problematic by discovering the typos in the BBC charts from Dave and Trevor and therefore not fit for purpose.

Where TUAC comes into its own is that it takes the original BBC chart and polishes it up removing errors and ties and making it more robust. It keeps by and large the guiding principle of averaging the BBC used but adds another layer to reflect music paper sample size and factor in another level of mathematical data relevant to producing an all embracing chart.

The proof and evidence of where I think it succeeds is in the fact that it does not hugely differ from the BBC findings so stays true to the averaging principle yet delivers a more accurate and error free chart to us all.

With the evidence we currently have to go on from that era it ticks all the boxes as the most thorough chart of the time we have to date.

[Gambo]

Such a shame Brian that your magnum opus will never see the light of day in print. If you did publish it, the OCC would have you clapped in irons! Or worse-still, arrange to have you 'starred-out'....

[MrTibbs]

Such a shame Brian that your magnum opus will never see the light of day in print. If you did publish it, the OCC would have you clapped in irons! Or worse-still, arrange to have you 'starred-out'....

I'd be clapped in irons and thrown in the tower Gambo for committing high treason. How dare I challenge The Official Charts'

[MrTibbs]

Here is the next Ultimate Averaged Chart for Week Ending April 1st 1961

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - Week Ending April 1st 1961								NME	RM	MM	DISC	RR	Total
Last	This		The Sound Survey				Stores	80	60	110	50	30	Points
Week	Week		The Top 30 Singles Chart				BBC				TOP	30	Scored
1	1	Wooden Heart - Elvis Presley					1	1	1	1	1	1	9900
3	2	Are You Sure - The Allisons					2	2	3	2	2	2	9510
2	3	Walk Right Back / Ebony Eyes - The Everly Brothers					3	4	2	3	3	4	9190
4	4	Theme For A Dream - Cliff Richard					4	3	4	4	4	3	9020
5	5	My Kind Of Girl - Matt Monro					5	5	5	5	5	6	8550
6	6	Will You Love Me Tomorrow - The Shirelles					6=	8	8	6	6	5	8000
7	7	Exodus - Ferrante and Teicher					6=	6	7	7	7	8	7970
13	8	Lazy River - Bobby Darin					8=	7	6	9	9	10	7570
10	9	And The Heavens Cried - Anthony Newley					8=	9	8	8	8	7	7540
9	10	F.B.I. - The Shadows					10	10	11	10	12	11	6740
8	11	(Ghost) Riders In The Sky - The Ramrods					11	13	10	11	10	9	6610
15	12	Samantha - Kenny Ball					12	11	17	16	11	13	5630
17	13	Marry Me - Mike Preston					14	16	13	13	15	15	5540
26	14	Where The Boys Are - Connie Francis					15	12	13	14	20	21	5320
16	15	Calendar Girl - Neil Sedaka					17	15	17	18	16	17	4720
11	16	Wheels - The String-A-Longs					13	14		15	13	12	4590
12	17	Who Am I / This Is It - Adam Faith					16	18		12	17	14	4340
14	18	Sailor - Petula Clark					18	28		20	14	16	2750
18	19	Baby Sittin' Boogie - Buzz Clifford					19	16	16			20	2430
20	20	Goodnight Mrs Flintstone - The Piltdown Men						23	19		18	23	2250
23	21	Let's Jump The Broomstick - Brenda Lee					20	29		17		19	2060
27	22	African Waltz - Johnny Dankworth						20	15			26	1990
25	23	Warpaint - The Brook Brothers						21	12				1940
21	24	Seventy Six Trombones - The King Brothers						26		19		24	1930
19	25	Are You Lonesome Tonight - Elvis Presley						26			19	18	1390
NEW	26	You're Driving Me Crazy - The Temperance Seven						18				29	1100
NEW	27	Don't Treat Me Like A Child - Helen Shapiro						21				28	890
22	28	Ja-Da - Johnny and The Hurricanes						24				22	830
24	29	Exodus - Semprini						25				25	660
NEW	30	Gee Whiz It's You - Cliff Richard							20				660
		Dream Girl - Mark Wynter										27	120
		'Til There Was You - Peggy Lee						30					80
		Pepe - Duane Eddy										30	30

[MrTibbs]

Elvis holds on at the top but The Allisons re group and edge back up to #2. The novelty hit of 1961 debuts on the chart, The Temperance Seven with You're Driving Me Crazy probably due to it's crazy 1920's sound with a mix of jazz which was popular at the time.

As mentioned in an earlier post in too comes Cliff's Gee Whiz.

[Splodj]

So 'Gee Whiz' appeared first on the RM chart. No wonder their singles reviewer was miffed!

[Richard M White]

I've recently returned to UKMix having referred to this amazing thread for months. The work gone into this has been outstanding. No I'm not old enough to have been there at the time but I didn't know of the existence of the BBC's own charts until they were played on POTP when Fluff returned to Radio 1. A lot of the concerns I've had about their chart have been fully explained here. I always questioned how you could have a chart with three songs jointly at number 1 when not based on actual over the counter sales? Questions like these (and others) have been answered perfectly. Keep up the amazing work!

[MrTibbs]

Thanks for that Richard. Feedback like yours makes all the work that goes into this project worthwhile.

[Graham76man]

Such a shame Brian that your magnum opus will never see the light of day in print. If you did publish it, the OCC would have you clapped in irons! Or worse-still, arrange to have you 'starred-out'....

I doubt they would be interested to be honest. However the BBC would. I don't know if they would be pleased, but if you were using the BBC name they would have to know that what you are intending to publish. I don't think they would be interested in publishing it, since they have little to say on the old charts they used to do. But you might get a radio interview once it is published to talk about it.
But you could self-publish it via Amazon. There's no copyright issues with any of the material you have submitted on here and it wouldn't be too difficult a task to get the charts laid out in book format. I think the Page Plus software I use would do the job, you can buy a copy of that cheaply. And do it yourself! You would have to decide on the page size you would need and fitting the charts on each page so they were readable, yet not making it too big to increase the cost of the printing of it. But a few tests would reveal that. If you are interested I could do a test of A5 page using one of the charts from here. And if you got stuck with Page Plus you can e-mail me for help too.
I would look into it, if I were you, once all the charts are done. You might even make some money out of it!

[MrTibbs]

I've never considered that to be honest Graham but it is an interesting idea I have to admit.

I think I would only be allowed to publish The Ultimate Averaged Chart though and not the other charts side by side like I do on here.
I wouldn't really even need to mention or even involve the BBC because I'm not using their chart just doing a more robust recalculation of averaging the music paper charts in the same way they did plus my added layer. Obviously my title here 'of the BBC charts reimagined' could not be used.

It's certainly something to consider when I finish but the big question then would be, would there be much demand for such a chart from the fifties and sixties ?