Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ultimate Averaged Chart - The BBC Chart Re-Imagined

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

  • Satchmo76
    replied
    I noticed that in 1964-65, Beach Boys singles would always climb into the Top 30, not crash in, but that changes in 1966, when they are top act in the country on total points (according to Chartwatch) so they probably start to get a pre-release buzz and then finally their first No. 1, with one of the most groundbreaking records ever made, following one of the best albums ever made.
    Last edited by Satchmo76; Sun January 29, 2023, 11:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • Germanicus
    replied
    Originally posted by Satchmo76 View Post
    Does anyone know the longest gap between a record's debut in the unranked positions below the Top 30 and its entry into the Top 30? I noticed above that there were quite a few that were "sleepers" for quite a while before cracking the 30.
    Louis Armstrong – What a Wonderful World

    This much-covered track took a while to establish itself as a favourite, spending 11 weeks inside the Top 40 before
    hitting the top in 1968.

    https://www.officialcharts.com/chart...-climb__21928/

    Most respectfully

    Germanicus

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo76
    replied
    Does anyone know the longest gap between a record's debut in the unranked positions below the Top 30 and its entry into the Top 30? I noticed above that there were quite a few that were "sleepers" for quite a while before cracking the 30.

    Leave a comment:


  • RokinRobinOfLocksley
    replied
    Good catch Brian !!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Originally posted by Splodj View Post
    Looking at the 12-Aug-61 chart it does seem odd that Shirley had disappeared from RM, and maybe something we should have noticed at the time. However number 7 does seem a rather high position for her when looking at the other charts. I would have expected RM to place her at about number 12. The following week there is a consensus around the 6ish position, so I can't help thinking RM might have made another mistake in their recalculation.
    I have now re-calculated the UAC to take account of the Record Mirror error and have now replaced them on here. For those of you who want to see the changes you will find the replaced charts on Page 69.

    The UAC now places Shirley Bassey at #13 overall as opposed to record Mirror's #7 Splodj so the averaging process aligns it in a much more realistic position which you correctly referred to. Evidence again that averaging is for that era a much better method for producing a valid and representative chart.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Looking at the 12-Aug-61 chart it does seem odd that Shirley had disappeared from RM, and maybe something we should have noticed at the time. However number 7 does seem a rather high position for her when looking at the other charts. I would have expected RM to place her at about number 12. The following week there is a consensus around the 6ish position, so I can't help thinking RM might have made another mistake in their recalculation.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    IMPORTANT FOR SINGLES CHART COLLECTORS !

    By the way on the subject of errors I came across this while working on the album chart in the Record Mirror issue for 19th August on the chart page regarding their singles chart for 12th August.

    The Record Mirror posted the following.

    ' Last week we dropped a big 'clanger' by omitting Shirley's latest hit from the charts. Together with our apologies we now print the corrected chart '

    So the corrected chart for 12th August 1961 places Shirley's Reach For The Stars / Climb Every Mountain at #7 up from #18 the previous week pushing all the other previous chart positions down one place starting with Del Shannon's Runaway which was #7 but is the new # 8.
    Pat Boone's Moody River is now #19 but there are two at #20 on the amended chart Clarence 'Frogman' Henry's But I Do, and The Fireballs' Quite A Party.

    This means Tony Jasper's books are wrong as he doesn't have the corrected chart, so is the Record Mirror Singles Chart posted here on UKMIX, so is my chart for this week on the UAC and probably many other publications of the original Record Mirror charts.

    I intend to revisit the UAC today and make this important amendment to the chart for 12th August 1961to reflect accuracy given this newly discovered information.

    Brian

    Leave a comment:


  • Germanicus
    replied
    Originally posted by kingofskiffle View Post
    I do think that we have to be a little careful as I do not think we can say that the person making the book copied what MrTibbs had done. I think the mistakes in the book - not present in MrTubbs work - and the differences (lack of RR chart for example) mean that he will have used different sources. When going through the Ultimate chart at the start it became clear to me that the Tony Jasper book (for example) had errors and some of those are present in the book, so that could be a source. A significant number of the chart scans are freely available on the internet, and on forums - with mistakes - and so without strong evidence I think we have to be careful over suggesting he copied. Like many things, the idea could have been arrived at independently.... or it is a complete copy. Evidence is always needed to make accusations.

    Various libel laws and copyright laws come into my mind that might be best for UKMix to steer away from - so the above is very definitely said with my Moderator hat on. I would hope that the author has tried his best to be error free, and I would hope that he is unhappy that his book does contain errors. I know MrTibbs is unhappy when error is spotted in things he posts here - the difference with a forum post is that it can be edited and corrected quite easily. A book, not so much.

    When Graham Betts produced his series for the OCC I got a little upset as his first volume came out just as I was reaching the 1980's with my own, but he had arrived at that idea quite independently and had been working on it for some significant time so it was clear (to me at least) he had not copied the idea of me - you could argue I copied the idea of him (I did not). I paused my series for a while to not detract from his and was able to offer some small advice to it. My point with that is that ideas can come independently and I do think that the idea for such a book is an excellent one. Somebody should do one - he has - but now I want one without errors. Or should I say with less errors, as they always creep in! And as Robin would say as well, can I also have it with this and that chart and this bit in here and...
    Thank you kingofskiffle for your voice of reason

    I have adjusted some of my comments that I posted.

    Yes it is important [Various libel laws and copyright laws come into my mind that might be best for UKMix to steer away from]

    I do agree. Just supporting MrTibbs I was.

    I believe the fact the MrTibbs work was viewed by...was interesting???

    All good

    Most respectfully

    Germanicus
    Last edited by Germanicus; Mon December 12, 2022, 01:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • kingofskiffle
    replied
    I do think that we have to be a little careful as I do not think we can say that the person making the book copied what MrTibbs had done. I think the mistakes in the book - not present in MrTubbs work - and the differences (lack of RR chart for example) mean that he will have used different sources. When going through the Ultimate chart at the start it became clear to me that the Tony Jasper book (for example) had errors and some of those are present in the book, so that could be a source. A significant number of the chart scans are freely available on the internet, and on forums - with mistakes - and so without strong evidence I think we have to be careful over suggesting he copied. Like many things, the idea could have been arrived at independently.... or it is a complete copy. Evidence is always needed to make accusations.

    Various libel laws and copyright laws come into my mind that might be best for UKMix to steer away from - so the above is very definitely said with my Moderator hat on. I would hope that the author has tried his best to be error free, and I would hope that he is unhappy that his book does contain errors. I know MrTibbs is unhappy when error is spotted in things he posts here - the difference with a forum post is that it can be edited and corrected quite easily. A book, not so much.

    When Graham Betts produced his series for the OCC I got a little upset as his first volume came out just as I was reaching the 1980's with my own, but he had arrived at that idea quite independently and had been working on it for some significant time so it was clear (to me at least) he had not copied the idea of me - you could argue I copied the idea of him (I did not). I paused my series for a while to not detract from his and was able to offer some small advice to it. My point with that is that ideas can come independently and I do think that the idea for such a book is an excellent one. Somebody should do one - he has - but now I want one without errors. Or should I say with less errors, as they always creep in! And as Robin would say as well, can I also have it with this and that chart and this bit in here and...

    Leave a comment:


  • Germanicus
    replied
    Originally posted by MyFriendJack View Post
    Good post, Germanicus. As I remarked elsewhere, David Bull's argument for not including the RR charts is fatuous,
    because for most of the period covered, the RR charts were published every week in Record Mirror.
    Thank you MyFriendJack :-)

    I agree exactly with your sentiments and response.

    Crazy to think, that someone else, was doing exactly what Mr Tibbs [Brian] was doing at the very same time ...in virtually the same format that was being freely posted for all to see..shall we call it coincidental..!!

    .. the fact that Mr Tibbs work was viewed ... well .. I am working on a Beatles
    Chart History, Mr Tibbs [Brian] was the inspiration for that, however I have not set it out the same way.

    Yet I look at Brians work and look at the book in front of me, I can only conclude one thing...

    Most respectfully

    Germanicus
    Last edited by Germanicus; Mon December 12, 2022, 00:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • MyFriendJack
    replied
    Good post, Germanicus. As I remarked elsewhere, David Bull's argument for not including the RR charts is fatuous, because for most of the period covered, the RR charts were published every week in Record Mirror.

    Edit: it's David Hill (auto correct strikes again).
    Last edited by MyFriendJack; Sat January 28, 2023, 08:44. Reason: Typo

    Leave a comment:


  • Germanicus
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post

    Thanks for your thoughts on that Germanicus.

    You are not the only guy to think along these lines. Some other guys here have also agreed and commented to me
    along a similar line of thought. It is certainly possible because of a number of reasons.

    The suspected author of the book visited the thread and therefore the information was readily available to him.
    The timing of the book's issue following roughly the same format of my work displaying the charts side by side for comparison.
    The suspected author advertised his book on the thread.
    When I made a few criticisms of the book I got a whole lot of abuse from him on the thread.

    But I take some comfort from the fact that my well researched chart facts and subsequent corrections I made along
    the way make my chart positions for the music papers as close to 100% accurate as is possible. The rushed out book contains a number of errors so is not as factually correct as my work.

    Thanks again for coming back to me on this.

    Brian
    My respects to you Brian and for taking the time to respond

    I enjoyed reading your response.

    "The suspected author of the book visited the thread and therefore the information was readily available to him." Ouch.. that is disturbing.

    "roughly the same format of my work displaying the charts side by side for comparison". I totally agree with you Brian
    and more so, the fact that the bottom of the chart has those singles, which are not in the BBC average, yet were still charting on the other notable charts.

    "The suspected author advertised his book on the thread". Wow, now that is a kicker, I will look at those posts.

    "When I made a few criticisms of the book I got a whole lot of abuse from him on the thread".
    I am sorry to hear that, because from what I can see, as a labor of love and I would imagine, a long and not very easy process, you posted your research for the benefit of all for FREE.

    As you state "my chart positions for the music papers as close to 100% accurate as is possible". Well said Brian and
    there are many serious chart compilers on this forum, who were encouraging and applauding you all through your posts.
    I would say respected what you were doing.

    From my observation, I found it interesting that out of nowhere you began posting your research in a format that I
    had not seen before which was great to see, side by side and then just as you had finished, I wonder what a reasonable person would think?

    Furthermore, the following was posted in relation to the book [just like yours Brian, however you were not writing a
    book at that stage yet could have]

    An interesting comment was the following : -

    Originally posted by RokinRobinOfLocksley View Post
    That's unfortunate, the chart numbers should all be on the left, artist / record on the right, ugh.


    kingofskiffle responded

    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.


    Food for thought Brian

    As for me, I was aware that the UK Charts were based on say the Big 3.. NME, Melody Maker and the Record Retailer Charts [what is now OCC].

    I was not aware of the BBC Charts and Disc Charts, until I read your posts, which were the first posts I started viewing on
    this forum in a serious manner, which then allowed me to expand my horizon. [THANK YOU] I don't think the public were aware of BBC or Disc.. yet here it is in a book .. coincidental??

    Why would someone include Disc charts or BBC Charts [which was in my mind, obscure] yet say that they
    would not include Record Retailer Charts, because that was a trade paper and not well known to the public.. What??

    The whole Chart Controversy is based upon the OCC using the Record Retailer, as it's main source and one of the
    main controversies, amongst many, is that PLEASE, PLEASE ME did not make Number 1, even though it was No. 1
    on all Charts, except in a trade paper, that supposedly, as the author states, the general public was not even aware existed..HUH..

    I could go on, however, again thank you for your time and research.

    My respects to you Brian

    Germanicus
    Last edited by Germanicus; Mon December 12, 2022, 00:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrTibbs
    replied
    Originally posted by Germanicus View Post

    Hello Mr Tibbs

    I purchased this book and just recieved it.

    Apart from not including the Record Retailer Chart, I thought he may have used your Ultimate Averaged Charts?

    The difference in layout is that the BBC Chart has been moved to where the Record Retailer Chart was!!

    Just an observation.

    What were your observations if you don't mind sharing.

    Most respectfully

    Germanicus

    THE POP FANS CHARTS BOOK

    My book was manufactured and printed by Amazon New South Wales Australia :-)

    It was only printed in October 2022, well after you finished your work?

    I am not saying The Book is plagarised, it is very much a strong mirrored image reflection of your work.
    Thanks for your thoughts on that Germanicus.

    You are not the only guy to think along these lines. Some other guys here have also agreed and commented to me along a similar line of thought.
    It is certainly possible because of a number of reasons.

    The suspected author of the book visited the thread and therefore the information was readily available to him.
    The timing of the book's issue following roughly the same format of my work displaying the charts side by side for comparison.
    The suspected author advertised his book on the thread.
    When I made a few criticisms of the book I got a whole lot of abuse from him on the thread.

    But I take some comfort from the fact that my well researched chart facts and subsequent corrections I made along the way make my chart positions for the music papers as close to 100% accurate as is possible. The rushed out book contains a number of errors so is not as factually correct as my work.

    Thanks again for coming back to me on this.

    Brian

    Leave a comment:


  • Germanicus
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post

    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.
    Hello Mr Tibbs

    I purchased it and just recieved it.

    Apart from not including the Record Retailer Chart, I thought I was looking at Ultimate Averaged Charts?

    The difference in layout is that the BBC Chart is where the Record Retailer Chart was!!

    Just an observation.

    What were your observations if you don't mind sharing.

    Most respectfully

    Germanicus

    I am not saying The Book is plagarised, it is very much a strong mirrored image reflection of your work.
    Last edited by Germanicus; Mon December 12, 2022, 01:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    Originally posted by Gambo View Post
    One obvious error though - the author states that Guinness chose the NME chart as their chart of record from 1954 to 1962 and then adopted RR until '69. As we all know, it was '52 to '60 and then '60 to '69
    I assumed he was confusing Guinness with Jasper.

    The case he alludes to where NME had a number 1 that was only 21 in MM is of course Little Red Rooster. It seems to me that the 'traditional' explanation for this disparity is correct - that NME were counting advance orders. He quotes the Pop Weekly theory that dealers were rating it artificially high to shift copies. But the only sales survey conducted before 1969 (in The Sun) found that LRR did get to number one the following week.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gambo
    replied
    Interesting read that article from aroundandaround.com. It's good that it shines a more impartial light on the awkward truths and realities of the singles sector, and in particular the fact that any chart lacks enough credibility to be regarded as a singular source of reliable 'truth' - at least during the 1950s and '60s. One obvious error though - the author states that Guinness chose the NME chart as their chart of record from 1954 to 1962 and then adopted RR until '69. As we all know, it was '52 to '60 and then '60 to '69 - strange basic error to have made for an otherwise reasonably-well-researched dive into British chart history. I can't help but notice that they attempted to do a MrTibbs UAC for a few snapshotted weeks in the '60s to demonstrate the differences (and similarities) between the competing music paper charts of the era! I wonder if whoever wrote this has since delved into our forum and seen what is now available in this area?

    Leave a comment:


  • braindeadpj
    replied
    Originally posted by MyFriendJack View Post
    The Music Week article says that Slade had five number ones between Autumn 1971 and Summer 1973. Somehow, the writer has managed to airbrush their biggest bit of all!
    I guess they thought 6 in 2 1/4 years didn't have quite the same ring to it.....!

    Leave a comment:


  • MyFriendJack
    replied
    The Music Week article says that Slade had five number ones between Autumn 1971 and Summer 1973. Somehow, the writer has managed to airbrush their biggest bit of all!

    Leave a comment:


  • Splodj
    replied
    A more jaundiced view of chart history here, conjuring up images of phoning a guy at NME to buy a number 28 ...

    https://aroundandaroundcom.wordpress...ritish-charts/

    Leave a comment:


  • kingofskiffle
    replied
    I think for me this is not so much more re-writing as just 'same old' writing. It was 2002 when the RR charts began to be included as part of official cannon, but in effect they were official since 1977 when Guiness published their first book. Thats the point that the die was cast and while it could have been re-written, as that took off it showed that this is the definite listing. Would American history have been different if Whitburn had chosen Cashbox for his first book? Would Billboard have ended in 1996 and CashBox now be lauded as the 'best' American chart? I am pleased that the article acknowledges the fact that it was the 1970's and chart arcivisem that started to establish a history and narrative.

    It is a wrong, and it could be fixed, but, honestly, I can see little appetite to actually change it in the official world as it's probably all too far away (as they say in the intro). My biggest injustice in the rundown is the absence of Lonnie Donegan... but then you'd expect me to want him present right?

    Thanks for sharing Richard and pleased it's a free article.

    Leave a comment:


  • setg1
    replied
    Originally posted by Richard M White View Post
    Sorry to bump this thread up but more re-writing of 1960s chart history can be found here (no paywall)

    Platinum jubilee: The story of the singles chart decade by decade | Talent | Music Week
    They got one thing right – "Stranger on the Shore" not being an "official" number one is an injustice, but they probably weren't referring to it reaching #1 on four out of five charts.

    Also really random to mention Frank Ifield as a pre-rock 'n' roll artist, as he got his first hit almost four years after Elvis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard M White
    replied
    Sorry to bump this thread up but more re-writing of 1960s chart history can be found here (no paywall)

    Platinum jubilee: The story of the singles chart decade by decade | Talent | Music Week

    Leave a comment:


  • Robbie
    replied
    I picked up my copy of the book this morning and glancing through it, the book seems fine to me. I don't have a problem with the layout though it would have been better to have used bold type to highlight the date of each chart. It's the type of book I've been after for years. I know similar is available on the internet (in this very thread in fact) but I also like to have access to the information in printed book form.

    Leave a comment:


  • kjell
    replied
    I didn’t consider this book. Having kingofskiffle’s chartbooks and MrTibbs’ UAC I didn’t see the point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard M White
    replied
    Originally posted by MrTibbs View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X