Announcement

**Robbie** · Mon July 10, 2017, 15:10

More of an observation but I'm not sure how much Record Retailer ever intended to have the most accurate chart in the 1960s. I'd need to check back to Alan Smith's article on the history of the 1960s charts but from what I can recall Record Retailer was simply aimed at independent retailers and as a result had a much smaller chart panel with the chart panel consisting of those smaller independent retailers.

I'm assuming that as the 1960s progressed Record Retailer began to take more seriously the whole chart compilation process and this led to the establishment of an official chart in February 1969 in conjunction with the BBC. I believe that both NME and Melody Maker refused to have anything to do with an official chart simply of the grounds of cost.

It's an interesting post Robin and is well researched. I understand that the most "official", for want of a better word, chart of the 1960s was the NME chart simply because it was more widely circulated, both in terms of how many copies of NME were sold each week and how many media publications the chart was published in. Also didn't the NME compile a chart for Radio Luxembourg for much of the 1960s? Though of course the BBC averaged chart was widely publicised too, especially as it was featured on Pick Of The Pops and also once Top Of The Pops began to be broadcast in January 1964. I'm not an expert on the Melody Maker chart but it never seems to have attracted as much publicity as the NME and BBC charts and the charts that appeared in other publications always seemed to have been sidelined to a larger extent. Indeed until I first accessed the internet back in 1998 I doubt I had ever seen a Disc etc singles chart.

**Graham76man** · Mon July 10, 2017, 23:40

The Melody Maker chart in the 60's was considered a more important chart. Much higher than Record Retailer. It also used more shops than Retailer and was a top 50, compared with the 30 of NME.
I think you could only see the BBC chart on TOTP.
Pick of the Pops used it, but even then the records were not played in order. The BBC Chart was never printed in any publication, for example, that I know of.

The four Music Echo top 100's for 1964 can be found on my blog site.
http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/2...00-charts.html
Scroll to the bottom of the page!

**RokinRobinOfLocksley** · Tue August 8, 2017, 20:31

1ST 60s TIME PERIOD, MAR 1960 TO MAR 1962, 5 CHARTS: NME, RM, MM, DISC, RR

Continuing along, I mentioned in my first post that I had broken up the full 9 year pre-BMRB 60s chart period into 3 separate periods, when there were respectively 5, 4, and then 3 major independent charts, so I could run a separate statistics analysis on each period, just for the heck of it to see if anything different was going on from the overall 9 year period. So here�s the stats on the records that reached the Top 10 from March 1960 to March 1962 across the 5 charts.

There were 209 records that peaked in the Top 10 on these 5 charts during this 2 year period. There were 139 occurrences when a record peak on 1 chart was a standalone outlier (farthest distance) from that record�s avg peak across all the charts. Here�s the breakdown, the fewer the better:

Chart (2 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . RM . . . . . MM . . . . . Disc . . . . . . RR
Total # of outliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . 56
# outliers lower peak than avg . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . 18
# outliers higher peak than avg . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . 38
avg pos dist, peak to avg pk . . . . . . . 2.18 . . . . . . 2.36 . . . . 2.22 . . . . 2.28 . . . . . . 2.21

There were 71 occurrences when a record peak on 1 chart was a standalone inlier (closest distance) to that record�s avg peak across all the charts. Here�s that breakdown, the more the better:

Chart (2 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . RM . . . . . MM . . . . . Disc . . . . . . RR
# of inliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . 14
Avg chart pos dist from peak avg. . . 0.23 . . . . . 0.39 . . . . 0.39 . . . . . . 0.33 . . . . 0.34

Here are some stats for all 209 records across this 2 year period:

Chart (2 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . RM . . . . . MM . . . . . Disc . . . . . . RR
# recs, peak lower than avg pk. . . . . . 77 . . . . . . 87 . . . . . . 112 . . . . . .73 . . . . . . 57
# recs, peak higher than avg pk . . . . . 89 . . . . . . 77 . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . .89 . . . . . 107
# recs, at avg peak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . . . . . . 45 . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . .47 . . . . . . 45
avg pos dist, peak to avg pk . . . . . . . 0.86 . . . . . 0.82 . . . . . 0.79 . . . . 0.87 . . . . .1.06

Breaking down the chart position distance �peak to avg peak� into ranges, you get this:

Chart (2 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . RM . . . . . MM . . . . . Disc . . . . . RR
# recs w/pos dist 0 to <1 . . . . . . . . . . 133 . . . . . 140 . . . . . 140 . . . . . . 135 . . . . .116
1 to <2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . 43 . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . 52
2 to <3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . 24
3 to <4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . .11
4 to <5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . 4
5 to <6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 1
6 to <7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 1
Sum 1 to <7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 . . . . . . . 69 . . . . . . 69 . . . . . . . 74 . . . . . 93
total # of records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 . . . . . .209 . . . . . 209 . . . . . . 209 . . . . 209

Summary: Comparing all 5 charts across this 2 year period:

--RM and MM have the fewest/best outliers at 18
--RR has the most/worst outliers at 56, 3 times as many as RM/MM
--MM has the most/best inliers at 19
--NME and Disc have the fewest/worst inliers at 12
--MM has the lowest/best avg dist (peak to avg peak) across all records at 0.79
--RR has the highest/worst avg dist (peak to avg peak) across all records at 1.06
--RM & MM have the most/best records 140 within 0 to <1 chart positions of the avg peak
--RR has the fewest/worst records 116 within 0 to <1 chart positions of the avg peak

Conclusion:

For this first 2 year period of the 60s Record Retailer chart, Melody Maker is the closest chart to the average peak across all 209 Top 10 records, with Record Mirror a surprising 2nd place. NME and Disc are neck and neck, essentially tied for 3rd. Record Retailer is in 5th/last place. Noting that MM was sampling weekly the most record shops of this time period at 110, as opposed to Record Retailer sampling the fewest at 30. Looks like a correlation there�

------------------------------------------------------

And now onto the 2nd time period, March 1962 to Aug 1967, when there were 4 remaining major charts after Record Mirror dropped out and started carrying Record Retailer�

**RokinRobinOfLocksley** · Tue August 8, 2017, 20:46

Originally posted by Robbie

More of an observation but I'm not sure how much Record Retailer ever intended to have the most accurate chart in the 1960s. I'd need to check back to Alan Smith's article on the history of the 1960s charts but from what I can recall Record Retailer was simply aimed at independent retailers and as a result had a much smaller chart panel with the chart panel consisting of those smaller independent retailers.

I'm assuming that as the 1960s progressed Record Retailer began to take more seriously the whole chart compilation process and this led to the establishment of an official chart in February 1969 in conjunction with the BBC. I believe that both NME and Melody Maker refused to have anything to do with an official chart simply of the grounds of cost.

It's an interesting post Robin and is well researched. I understand that the most "official", for want of a better word, chart of the 1960s was the NME chart simply because it was more widely circulated, both in terms of how many copies of NME were sold each week and how many media publications the chart was published in. Also didn't the NME compile a chart for Radio Luxembourg for much of the 1960s? Though of course the BBC averaged chart was widely publicised too, especially as it was featured on Pick Of The Pops and also once Top Of The Pops began to be broadcast in January 1964. I'm not an expert on the Melody Maker chart but it never seems to have attracted as much publicity as the NME and BBC charts and the charts that appeared in other publications always seemed to have been sidelined to a larger extent. Indeed until I first accessed the internet back in 1998 I doubt I had ever seen a Disc etc singles chart.

My exercise here is not to criticize the Record Retailer chart for their accuracy, or lack thereof. They were what they were, and good to have around, the more the merrier as they say, each chart providing a similar but slightly different service from another perspective. I'm actually grateful they had 50 chart positions when the other charts did not.

I guess you could say I'm investigating whether the criticism of the Official Charts in choosing Record Retailer to represent the UK 60s is justified from a statistical analysis, in addition to Alan Smith's excellent research. I just wanted to see how the numbers fell out...

**RokinRobinOfLocksley** · Sat August 12, 2017, 14:14

SECOND 60s TIME PERIOD, Mar 1962 TO Aug 1967, 4 Charts: NME, MM, DISC, RR

Continuing along into the 2nd 60s time period, after Record Mirror ceased its chart and started carrying Record Retailer, leaving 4 major independent charts.

There were 601 records that peaked in the Top 10 on these 4 charts during this 5 year + 5 month period. There were 320 occurrences when a record peak on 1 chart was a standalone outlier (farthest distance) from that record�s avg peak across all the charts. Here�s the breakdown, the fewer the better:

Chart (5+ years). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . Disc . . . . . . RR
Total # of outliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 . . . . . . . 64 . . . . . . 62 . . . . . . 111
# outliers lower peak than avg . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . . 50
# outliers higher peak than avg. . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . 40 . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . . 61
avg pos dist, peak to avg pk. . . . . . . . . 1.65 . . . . . 1.64 . . . . . 1.59 . . . . . 1.71

There were 123 occurrences when a record peak on 1 chart was a standalone inlier (closest distance) to that record�s avg peak across all the charts. Here�s that breakdown, the more the better:

Chart (5+ years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . Disc . . . . . . RR
# of inliers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 . . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . . 17
Avg chart pos dist from peak avg. . . . 0.53 . . . . . 0.31 . . . . 0.29 . . . . . . 0.43

Here are some stats for all 601 records across this 5 year + period:

Chart (5+ years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . . . Disc . . . . . . RR
# recs, peak lower than avg pk. . . . . . 256 . . . . . . 180 . . . . . . . 210 . . . . . .186
# recs, peak higher than avg pk . . . . . 165 . . . . . . 245 . . . . . . . 208 . . . . . .244
# recs, at avg peak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 . . . . . . 176 . . . . . . . 183 . . . . . .171
avg pos dist, peak to avg pk . . . . . . . . 0.63 . . . . . .0.61. . . . . . . 0.57 . . . . . 0.71

Breaking down the chart position distance �peak to avg peak� into ranges, you get this:

Chart (5+ years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . Disc . . . . . RR
# recs w/pos dist 0 to <1 . . . . . . . . . . 456 . . . . . 457 . . . . . 471 . . . . . . 429
1 to <2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . 99 . . . . . . 92 . . . . . . .116
2 to <3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . .37
3 to <4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . .15
4 to <5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 2
5 to <6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 0
6 to <7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 1
15 to <16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 1
Sum 1 to <16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 . . . . . .144 . . . . . 130 . . . . . . 172
total # of records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 . . . . . .601 . . . . . 601 . . . . . . 601

SUMMARY: Comparing all 4 charts across this 5+ year period:

--Disc and MM have the fewest/best outliers at 62 & 64
--RR has the most/worst outliers at 111, 1.75 times as many as Disc/MM
--Disc has the most/best inliers at 42
--RR has the fewest/worst inliers at 17
--Disc has the lowest/best avg dist (peak to avg peak) across all records at 0.57
--RR has the highest/worst avg dist (peak to avg peak) across all records at 0.71
--Disc has the most/best records 471 within 0 to <1 chart positions of the avg peak
--RR has the fewest/worst records 429 within 0 to <1 chart positions of the avg peak

CONCLUSION:

For this second, 5+ year period of the 60s Record Retailer chart, Disc is the closest chart to the average peak across all 601 Top 10 records, followed extremely closely by MM and NME. You could say it�s a 3-way horse race decided by a nose and a head. Record Retailer is in uncontested 4th/last place.

During this time period 1962 to 1967, MM sampled from 100 to 250 record shops, NME 100 to 200, Disc 50 to 100, RR 30 to 85, per Alan Smith�s excellent charts history article.

**RokinRobinOfLocksley** · Sat August 12, 2017, 14:32

THIRD 60s TIME PERIOD, Aug 1967 to Feb 1969, 3 Charts: NME, MM, RR

Continuing along into the 3rd and final 60s time period, after Disc ceased its chart and started carrying Melody Maker, leaving 3 major independent charts.

There were 159 records that peaked in the Top 10 on these 3 charts during this 1.5 year period. There were 97 occurrences when a record peak on 1 chart was a standalone outlier (farthest distance) from that record�s avg peak across all the charts. Here�s the breakdown, the fewer the better:

Chart (1.5 years). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . RR
Total # of outliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . 45
# outliers lower peak than avg . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . 20
# outliers higher peak than avg. . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . 25
avg pos dist, peak to avg pk . . . . . . . . . 1.19 . . . . . 0.86 . . . . . 1.34

There were 37 occurrences when a record peak on 1 chart was a standalone inlier (closest distance) to that record�s avg peak across all the charts. Here�s that breakdown, the more the better:

Chart (1.5 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . RR
# of inliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . 7
Avg chart pos dist from peak avg. . . . 0.40 . . . . . .0.28 . . . . 0.14

Here are some stats for all 159 records across this 1.5 year period:

Chart (1.5 years). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . . RR
# recs, peak lower than avg pk . . . . . . 66 . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . .52
# recs, peak higher than avg pk. . . . . . 45 . . . . . . . 58 . . . . . . .59
# recs, at avg peak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . 54 . . . . . . .48
avg pos dist, peak to avg pk . . . . . . . . 0.56 . . . . . 0.49 . . . . . 0.66

Breaking down the chart position distance �peak to avg peak� into ranges, you get this:

Chart (1.5 years). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NME . . . . . MM . . . . . RR
# recs w/pos dist 0 to <1 . . . . . . . . . . 123 . . . . . . 131 . . . . . 118
1 to <2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . 32
2 to <3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 5
3 to <4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 3
4 to <5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0
5 to <6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 0
6 to <7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0
7 to <8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 1
Sum 1 to <8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . .28 . . . . . . 41
total # of records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 . . . . . .159 . . . . . 159

SUMMARY: Comparing all 3 charts across this 1.5 year period:

--MM has the fewest/best outliers at 24
--RR has the most/worst outliers at 45, 1.88 times as many as MM
--MM has the most/best inliers at 20
--RR has the fewest/worst inliers at 7
--MM has the lowest/best avg dist (peak to avg peak) across all records at 0.49
--RR has the highest/worst avg dist (peak to avg peak) across all records at 0.66
--MM has the most/best records 131 within 0 to <1 chart positions of the avg peak
--RR has the fewest/worst records 118 within 0 to <1 chart positions of the avg peak

CONCLUSION:

For this third, 1.5 year period of the 60s Record Retailer chart, Melody Maker is the closest chart to the average peak across all 159 Top 10 records, NME is the middle man, and Record Retailer is yet again in last place.

During this time period, MM sampled from 250 to 280 record shops, NME 200, RR up to 85, per Alan Smith�s excellent charts history article.

**Robbie** · Sat August 12, 2017, 14:41

I do wonder why both NME and MM refused to come on board when the forerunner of the BPI (plus the BBC and Record Retailer) decided to launch an official chart in February 1969. The reason both publications gave was neither could afford to contribute funds towards the chart. As both publications were surveying more retailers than the BMRB did I would have thought it would have saved both publications money. And it would have made the BMRB chart more accurate than it was in its early days plus it would have guaranteed more retailers provided sales returns.

**RokinRobinOfLocksley** · Sat August 12, 2017, 14:58

OVERALL 60s TIME PERIOD, Mar 1960 to Feb 1969, All Charts: Conclusions

Based on which chart was closest to the average peaks of the 969 Top 10 records across the 5 major independent charts, during the Record Retailer era from March 1960 up to the beginning of the BMRB era in Feb 1969, this is what I found:

--for the first 2 years, Melody Maker was the most representative chart, Record Retailer the least representative
--for the next 5 years + 5 months, Disc was the most representative chart, followed very very closely by Melody Maker and then NME, Record Retailer the least
--for the next 1.5 years, Melody Maker was the most representative, Record Retailer the least
--for the overall 9 year period, Melody Maker was the most representative, Record Retailer the least

Or to put it another way:

--Melody Maker had the fewest (best) outlier peak positions for periods 1, 3, and overall, and 2nd fewest for period 2 (Disc had the fewest for period 2), at 18, 64, 24, and total 106. (excepting RM at 2 years and Disc at 7 years in the overall 9 year period)
--While Record Retailer had the most (worst) outlier peak positions for periods 1, 2, 3, and overall, at 56, 111, 45, and total 212. Essentially twice as many as Melody Maker in every time period.

To put some practical descriptions on the numbers:

--If every chart were relatively equal, you would expect each chart to have roughly the same number of peak position outliers, that is, approximately the same number of records that would be the furthest away from their average position. Well, you would expect that for NME, MM, and RR, as they ran the full 9 years. You�d expect less for RM and Disc as they ran for only 2 and 7 years respectively.

--Melody Maker had 106 of the 969 Top 10 records (10.9%) that were the furthest away from their average peak position across all charts, at an average distance of 1.56 chart positions.

--However, Record Retailer had 212 Top 10 records (21.9%) that were the furthest away from their average peak position across all charts, at an average distance of 1.76 chart positions.

--Let me restate that. For Record Retailer, 212 records (21.9%) of the 969 Top 10 records from Mar 1960 to Feb 1969 were standalone outliers, and these records peaked at an average distance of 1.76 chart positions away from the average chart peak. That�s 1 in 5 Top 10 records, at 1.76 chart positions away from the average peak.

--Versus Melody Maker, where half that number, 106 records (10.9%), were standalone outliers, at an average distance of 1.56 chart positions away from the average chart peak. 1 in 10.

--For all 969 records, Melody Maker peak positions were on average 0.63 chart positions away from the average peak.

--Versus Record Retailer, where peak positions were on average 0.78 chart positions away from the average peak.

--Melody Maker had 728 records (75.1%) that were between 0 and <1 chart positions away from the average peak (best), while Record Retailer had 663 records (68.4%) within this distance (worst), or 65 fewer.

--Melody Maker had 169 records (17.4%) that were between 1 and <2 chart positions away from the average peak (best), while Record Retailer had 200 records (20.6%) within this distance (worst), or 31 more.

--Of the 20 worst outliers, Melody Maker had only 1 of those records, at a distance of 5.8 chart positions away from the average peak. Record Retailer, however, had 7, which ranged at a distance from 4.2 to 15.0 chart positions away from the average peak, the average of those 7 records being 6.78 chart positions away.

It is interesting to note that over time, as each chart started sampling more and more record shops, the average �peak to average peak� chart position distance decreased, for all charts, as we would expect it to:

--The NME �peak to average peak� chart position distance went from 0.86 to 0.63 to 0.56, overall 0.66.

--Record Mirror only 1 period at 0.82.

--Melody Maker went from 0.79 to 0.61 to 0.49, overall 0.63.

--Disc at 2 periods 0.87 to 0.57, overall 0.65.

--Record Retailer went from 1.06 to 0.71 to 0.66, overall 0.78.

So as time went on, the different charts started agreeing more closely with each other.

Like I said above in post 1, all 5 charts generally tracked together fairly well during the 60s. The records towards the top of 1 chart were usually at the top of all charts, just in a slightly different order. The big hits are the big hits.

The problem comes into play when someone in an article, TV show, or contest, starts claiming how many #1 records such-and-such an artist achieved, and they go quoting from the least representative chart, which was not �official� during the time period in question.

For the 60s, Melody Maker is the most representative of the 5 charts, in that its record peaks were closest to the average peaks across all charts of the 969 Top 10 records. Record Retailer is the least representative, its record peaks were the furthest away from the average peaks. Coincidentally, MM sampled 3.5 times more record shops than RR.

So there is a double whammy here. Not only is Record Retailer the least representative chart of the 60s because it sampled the fewest number of record shops (per Alan Smith�s excellent research), it�s also the least representative because its record peaks on average were the furthest away from the average record peaks across all charts. Of course, both go hand in hand.

I am not faulting Record Retailer. They were a good chart, they did what they had set out to do. They sampled different record shops than the other 4 charts, and produced a chart with a constant 50 positions. Which represented about 13% of the total sampled record shops across the 9 years (MM about 44%, NME about 27%, Disc about 13%, RM about 3%). Whether you can believe the true accuracy of those RR lower chart positions over certain time periods is another matter, but at least having those extra chart positions is better than not having them at all.

However, I do fault the Official Charts Co for choosing Record Retailer to represent the 60s. They obviously did not have Alan Smith�s data when they made their decision to claim RR as �official� decades after the fact, but they�ve had it now for over 12 years, and they should do the right thing and choose a better chart to represent the 60s.

There are many better alternatives to using RR for the 60s, I know of 15. They could use the most representative individual chart MM for the higher positions, and fill in the lower positions from the other charts to get to 50 positions. Another solution would be to use the BBC average charts for the higher chart positions, and RR for the lower, that way there is continuity between pre- and post-Feb 1969 in terms of BBC and RR.

Either would be better than continuing to use RR, and perpetuating the lie that RR �is now acknowledged to be the historical chart of the 60s.� RR may be the �official� 60s chart of the Official Charts Co, but it was never the �official� chart of the UK. No governing board declared this honor, no national vote was taken. They just proclaimed it themselves without doing any research into the matter, simply following along the Guinness books lead.

In closing, don�t believe the decades after the fact, self proclaimed lie, instead believe the truth.

If only someone would publish an NME/RM/MM/Disc chart book for the 50s & 60s to counteract the �official� charts book�

So that�s it. Have at it, agreements or rants, ha�

**kingofskiffle** · Sun August 13, 2017, 21:02

Originally posted by RokinRobinOfLocksley

If only someone would publish an NME/RM/MM/Disc chart book for the 50s & 60s to counteract the �official� charts book�

So that�s it. Have at it, agreements or rants, ha�

I have already done the RM book and the Disc book. NME and MM coming soon, hopefully before the year's end. See the link in my signature.

Excellent analysis though

Really thorough and well thought through.

**asm** · Thu August 9, 2018, 08:21

The Only thing I would disagree on is the idea of choosing just one chart to represent sixties. Any `one` chart will misrepresent the truth of the times which was THERE WERE COMPETING CHARTS! No single one was premier. To only go by M.Maker (though the best of the bunch I agree) is still not representing the truth of the times! In the 50s & 60s (And I would argue to mid 70s) there were more than just one chart referred to. It was how it was- To state otherwise will take one down same erroneous path the early Guinness hit singles compilers blundered into. Alan.

**Gambo** · Thu August 9, 2018, 12:11

Quite - which makes Lonnie's work on pulling-together a reference that includes all the major charts from that period all-the-more worthwhile. Whilst it would be marvellous to have one stand-out and more-reliable tabulation of hits from the era, and it is tempting to pick one for simplicity's sake, one does not exist, and choosing just one of the four/five well-known options available at the time will only ever be partial in its representation and overlook what were sometimes just as relevant or more-thorough equivalent listings which could be just as valid in reflecting what was most-likely selling well each week. This means in order to compile a fairer reference book of chart performance for the pre-1969 period, that must reflect data from all the major charts of repute so that readers can compare and contrast the possible pictures of each disc's success.

**kingofskiffle** · Thu August 9, 2018, 18:11

Re: UK 60s: Top 10 Record Peaks, Stats Analysis, 5 Major Cha

Thank you for the kind words.

I agree with the points here and I don't like just one being picked as the definitive chart when they all had different stores reporting to them. Up until 1969 each chart was compiled by a points system. What that meant was that each record shop would supply a Top 10 (or larger) of their best sellers in the previous week. The chart compilers would assign maybe 10 points for a 1, 9 for a 2, 8 for a 3 etc. The points where added and the chart was the result.

So I had an idea for a book. If you take each chart and get the correct sample size, then it's possible to create a chart which ranks each existing publications chart by sample size and then combines accordingly.

A number 1 usually sells more than the number 20, which sells more than the number 50 by a sizeable amount. So, 100 points for a number 1, 40 for a 20, etc.... You then take the number of stores sampled, such as 30 for Record Retailer in 1962 and combine with the points so that the number 20 has a sales index of 12. Do this for all the charts, and then combine. The results are interesting and utilise each chart to create a more definitive one.

Definitely guess work. Definitely not official. But educated guesswork.

This makes the Top 30 for 10 March 1962 look like this.

Pos - Artist - Title
1 - Elvis Presley - Rock-A-Hula Baby / Can't Help Falling in Love
2 - Kenny Ball and His Jazzmen - March Of The Siamese Children
3 - Cliff Richard and the Shadows - The Young Ones
4 - Chubby Checker - Let's Twist Again
5 - Karl Denver - Wimoweh
6 - The Shadows - Wonderful Land
7 - Helen Shapiro - Tell Me What He Said
8 - Eden Kane - Forget Me Not
9 - The Everly Brothers - Cryin' In The Rain
10 - Mr. Acker Bilk with the Leon Young String Chorale - Stranger On The Shore
11 - Leroy Van Dyke - Walk On By
12 - Burl Ives - A Little Bitty Tear
13 - Matt Monro - Softly As I Leave You
14 - Bernard Cribbins - The Hole In The Ground
15 - Dion - The Wanderer
16 - Neil Sedaka - Happy Birthday, Sweet Sixteen
17 - Joey Dee and the Starliters - Peppermint Twist (Part 1)
18 - Pat Boone - I'll See You In My Dreams
19 - Sam Cooke - Twistin' The Night Away
20 - Miki and Griff - A Little Bitty Tear
21 - Johnny Keating - Theme From Z-Cars (Johnny Todd)
22 - Russ Conway - Lesson One
23 - Mr. Acker Bilk and his Paramount Jazz Band - Frankie And Johnny
24 - The Allisons - Lessons In Love
25 - Billy Fury - Letter Full Of Tears
26 - Roy Orbison - Dream Baby
27 - Danny Williams - Jeannie
28 - Karl Denver - Never Goodbye
29 - Ken Dodd - Pianissimo
30 - Buddy Greco - I Ain't Got Nobody

The official chart?

Twk - Artist - Title
1 - Elvis Presley - Rock-A-Hula Baby / Can't Help Falling in Love
2 - Cliff Richard and the Shadows - The Young Ones
3 - Chubby Checker - Let's Twist Again
4 - Karl Denver - Wimoweh
5 - Helen Shapiro - Tell Me What He Said
6 - Kenny Ball and His Jazzmen - March Of The Siamese Children
7 - Eden Kane - Forget Me Not
8 - Leroy Van Dyke - Walk On By
9 - The Shadows - Wonderful Land
10 - The Everly Brothers - Cryin' In The Rain
11 - Burl Ives - A Little Bitty Tear
12 - Matt Monro - Softly As I Leave You
13 - Mr. Acker Bilk with the Leon Young String Chorale - Stranger On The Shore
14 - Neil Sedaka - Happy Birthday, Sweet Sixteen
15 - Billy Fury - I'd Never Find Another You
16 - Miki and Griff - A Little Bitty Tear
17 - Bobby Vee - Run To Him
18 - Bernard Cribbins - The Hole In The Ground
19 - Danny Williams - Jeannie
20 - Dion - The Wanderer
21 - Shirley Bassey - Tonight
22 - Ken Dodd - Pianissimo
23 - Russ Conway - Lesson One
24 - Johnny Keating - Theme From Z-Cars (Johnny Todd)
25 - Lonnie Donegan - The Comancheros
26 - Kenny Ball and His Jazzmen - Midnight In Moscow
27 - Pat Boone - I'll See You In My Dreams
28 - Roy Orbison - Dream Baby
29 - Karl Denver - Never Goodbye
30 - Frankie Vaughan - Don't Stop-Twist!

And here it is combined, showing the official position.

Official Pos - Pos - Artist - Title
1 - 1 - Elvis Presley - Rock-A-Hula Baby / Can't Help Falling in Love
6 - 2 - Kenny Ball and His Jazzmen - March Of The Siamese Children
2 - 3 - Cliff Richard and the Shadows - The Young Ones
3 - 4 - Chubby Checker - Let's Twist Again
4 - 5 - Karl Denver - Wimoweh
9 - 6 - The Shadows - Wonderful Land
5 - 7 - Helen Shapiro - Tell Me What He Said
7 - 8 - Eden Kane - Forget Me Not
10 - 9 - The Everly Brothers - Cryin' In The Rain
13 - 10 - Mr. Acker Bilk with the Leon Young String Chorale - Stranger On The Shore
8 - 11 - Leroy Van Dyke - Walk On By
11 - 12 - Burl Ives - A Little Bitty Tear
12 - 13 - Matt Monro - Softly As I Leave You
18 - 14 - Bernard Cribbins - The Hole In The Ground
20 - 15 - Dion - The Wanderer
14 - 16 - Neil Sedaka - Happy Birthday, Sweet Sixteen
40 - 17 - Joey Dee and the Starliters - Peppermint Twist (Part 1)
27 - 18 - Pat Boone - I'll See You In My Dreams
37 - 19 - Sam Cooke - Twistin' The Night Away
16 - 20 - Miki and Griff - A Little Bitty Tear
24 - 21 - Johnny Keating - Theme From Z-Cars (Johnny Todd)
23 - 22 - Russ Conway - Lesson One
NOT 23 - Mr. Acker Bilk and his Paramount Jazz Band - Frankie And Johnny
31 - 24 - The Allisons - Lessons In Love
15 - 25 - Billy Fury - Letter Full Of Tears
28 - 26 - Roy Orbison - Dream Baby
19 - 27 - Danny Williams - Jeannie
29 - 28 - Karl Denver - Never Goodbye
22 - 29 - Ken Dodd - Pianissimo
NOT 30 - Buddy Greco - I Ain't Got Nobody

**shane2167** · Fri August 10, 2018, 05:05

Originally posted by asm

The Only thing I would disagree on is the idea of choosing just one chart to represent sixties. Any `one` chart will misrepresent the truth of the times which was THERE WERE COMPETING CHARTS! No single one was premier. To only go by M.Maker (though the best of the bunch I agree) is still not representing the truth of the times! In the 50s & 60s (And I would argue to mid 70s) there were more than just one chart referred to. It was how it was- To state otherwise will take one down same erroneous path the early Guinness hit singles compilers blundered into. Alan.

Hi Alan,
You mentioned in one of your posts that MM had cut down their sample size to 200 by 1971,and NME had cut down to 100 by 1972(I think) and continued to use these number of shops well into the 1980s until both started using MRIBs charts instead.
However some chart analysts claim both magazines cut down their sample sizes to 100 by the end of 1969, and only 50+ shops by the 1970s now that their was a 'official' chart via RR/MW. Is this true?
As you said MM was still more accurate then BMRBs 1970s charts as its 200 shop sample was still considered bigger then BMRBs less then stated 250 sample size when they were only getting in less then 200 every week.I've compared some 1970s chart runs with all charts available and,like the 1960s charts also showed,MMs charts always come in between other magazines chart runs,thanks to the always higher shop samples from 1960 to mid/late 1970s.The other magazines charts always appeared to work around MMs chart while MM gave its peak position in the middle of the other peak positions.
I strongly agree with your answers then other members chart sample numbers,please advise why they would think this.
Thankyou so much for your valuable research and posts Alan.
Cheers,shane.

**asm** · Fri August 10, 2018, 13:09

Shane! The MM cut their sample to 200 shops and NME theirs to 100 in early 70s! Both were less `singles` orientated by then. Not only my own research confirmed by MM staff Chris Charlesworth and NMe's Fred Derek Johnson- but you can also see this in journalist Michael Cable's book "The Pop Industry Inside Out" from late 70s! MM used panel of 200, NME 100.

Another thing to add to Robins research is that in the 1960s NME took advance orders in their chart sampling (as did `Disc`) But both MM and R.Retailer used only `sales over the counter` for their statistics.

**asm** · Fri August 10, 2018, 13:15

Re: UK 60s: Top 10 Record Peaks, Stats Analysis, 5 Major Cha

Shane! Also- the 200 and 100 stayed that way until 1989. The BMRB had an abysmal rate of percentage returns from its 300 stores. Michael Cable gives an exact figure of just 159 at maximum for April 1976 in his book when the BMRB allowed him to examine their figures. My research was a few years later than Michael's as when I contacted the BMRB for any data- they told me they had destroyed the lot! All I got on phone conversation was they recalled that barely 20 to 30 usable returns could be deemed fit for the charts in first six to eight months of the chart-hence up to five tied positions on No 44 for example! This was only verbally to me though- but I feel it was so.

**asm** · Fri August 10, 2018, 13:22

Re: UK 60s: Top 10 Record Peaks, Stats Analysis, 5 Major Cha

I don't hold that the BMRB chart was any more accurate than its predecessor the RR 1960-69 sample! Take one example from 1970 Free's "All Right Now" This was No 1 for three weeks in both the NME and MM charts. It was also No1 for a full month in the `Music Now` charts which were compiled solely from returns from branches of WH Smiths (M.M had advertising contract with Smiths). The BMRB chart held it at No 2 - I think I would go by the other three!

**Gambo** · Fri August 10, 2018, 15:46

Alan, yet-more interesting, if sadly only-ever-to-be-anecdotal, evidence of how limited things really were behind even the official BMRB/RR charts well into the 1970s. It's disheartening, but we cannot ignore the reality, however inconvenient for chart lovers who'd prefer to assume it was all plain sailing once the BMRB took over in '69.

Also Lonnie your composite '60s chart methodology is an interesting one; I've not had time to examine it in any depth but it seems rather-more scientific in its approach that then BBC's averaging-out of differing chart positions by points, as you're for the first time factoring-in the varying sample sizes, which is the crucial aspect conveniently overlooked and underplayed by those presenting the "artificial chart" view of the period filtered through the OCC (arguably their current 2010s charts are more artificial than official, but that's another debate!). Would this method have resulted in fewer tied positions than the Beeb's method? I'm thinking it should?

**kingofskiffle** · Fri August 10, 2018, 16:33

Re: UK 60s: Top 10 Record Peaks, Stats Analysis, 5 Major Cha

Thanks Gambo. It should be very scientific as I wanted to try and iron out deficiencies. It does throw up some quite wild moves in a few cases, when a track starts to chart both sides, it rises a lot then falls the next week. One thing I hadn't reapplied is just how skewed it is to separate sides out. The chart run for Lost John / Stewball by Lonnie Donegan is odd anyway, but now it gets to be a number 1 (9 June 56), simply because NME had it as a number 3, Record Mirror a number 2, Melody Maker a number 4 for Lost John and 20 for Stewball, which was enough to push it to the very top. I'm in the process of putting a book together on all this s expect something in the next month or two. Need to keep checking each week as I go to make sure I've credited everything correctly.

**asm** · Sat August 11, 2018, 09:17

If anyone missed it- here's my chart article (Text only version) which I hope will add something to the charts debate

The 50�s & 60�s Charts: A History. By Alan Smith

This article will try to explain the way record charts in the 1950s, and 1960s, were compiled and their importance in the world of popular music. One particular misrepresentation over the years will be tackled in order to set the record straight over something that has been viewed by myself and other chart pundits as the most misleading `statement` in all of chart history.

This `misrepresentation` as I see it, is that which has been fostered by the original compilers of Guinness Book Of Hit Singles; namely that for the period1960-1969 only the chart produced by trade paper Record Retailer should be referred to for all chart statistics of the period as if it were the `official` trade and industry record chart of that era.

This has been something of a distortion, as I see it from the actual truth about which charts really mattered 1960 � 1969 and how artists and fans really saw which records topped the charts. Hopefully all will become clear as the article will show.

History Of The 1950s � 1960s Charts.

Today the official Top 40 charts as used by the BBC for radio and Top of the Pops (until it ceased in 2006) are compiled electronically on computerised tills and relayed to compilers Millward Brown. From 2007 the downloading of songs has been allowed to count as part of the chart process.

These figures, from 4,700 retailers from a pool of 5,600, are processed into a full Top 75 chart used by publications such as Music Week magazine. The Top 40 of this chart is the most referred to and acknowledged as the �Official Chart�.

However when record charts first began in Britain compiling methods were far slower and simpler and for many years there was no real official chart. So, how did charts begin? As with many musical innovations; the idea originated in the United States. The very first charts in the USA were compiled from sheet music sales which were paper sheets of the notated music which people could purchase in order to play at home on the piano and other instruments. The first chart of popularity of these songs was on the radio show Your Lucky Strike Hit Parade, which started on 20 April 1935. Following the lead of sheet music charts, eventually sales of 78 rpm shellac discs came into being, with the task of compilation undertaken by the US music trade paper Billboard published on 20 July 1940.

One important difference between the method of compilation of American disc charts and their British counterparts was that US charts also took note of the amount of radio airplay of songs which would be calculated in their tally. British charts never applied this format, they were sales based only.

The first British sheet music charts only appeared sporadically in the Jazz based music paper Melody Maker. This paper was established in January 1926 as a monthly publication catering mainly to jazz fans. It became a weekly within a year and the first sheet music list appeared under the title Top Tunes in 1935 as part of the Song Sheet page.

It was by no means a regular feature at that time; sometimes disappearing for a few weeks. The first regular weekly chart commenced on 27 July 1946. One surprising feature of many of the early sheet music charts before 1946 was that many of them were only alphabetical lists, not sales based.

The `N.M.E` chart debutes.

By the early 1950s, similar to 1940s America, sales of 78rpm shellac discs started to grow. Shellac was still in short supply limiting the number of releases; hence those early charts were only Top 10 and 12 sizes for a couple of years. New Musical Express evolved from Accordion Times and Musical Express (1946-1948) Then Musical
(2)
Express (1948-1952). The revamped New Musical Express as part of its new outlook began displaying Britain�s first ever Record chart for discs on 15 November 1952. (The papers publishing date was 14 November).The paper�s management contacted a number of record stores and gathered a master list of 53 establishments willing to supply returns. The compiling of the chart was undertaken by advertisement manager Percy Dickins, who took time out from his main duties of gathering advertising for the paper to phone between 15 - 25 record stores each Monday for their sales data.

Dickins would vary the stores contacted week by week in order to use all of the 53 on his list over a period of time. The data gathered from the stores differed from today�s charts in one vital area. Though all record stores kept precise internal sales figures, only a list of their Top 10 selling titles was relayed as a list 1 to 10. It was deemed too time consuming for Dickins to have to tally up precise lists of sales figures. Far more convenient and time saving was the totting up of points per chart placing. For example ten points for a number one, down to one point for tenth place. This set a precedent for all early charts.

Britain�s first chart from the New Musical Express was published on 14 November 1952. It was titled Hit Parade for the first chart. These early charts, though a Top 12 in size, could sometimes be rather larger due to the unusual tied position system. Instead of, for example a joint number 2 then number 4, the paper would go to number 3. This certainly expanded the chart but was soon amended. The immediate success of this list of best selling records led to the papers competitors starting up their own charts.

Rival charts appear.

Within three years a second chart would appear. This came from another popular music paper Record Mirror, which later in the 1950s, became Record And Show Mirror then back to Record Mirror then New Record Mirror in 1961 then eventually back to Record Mirror. On 22 January 1955 Record Mirror displayed a Top 10 chart. This was compiled from postal returns financed by the paper from record stores. Again, these were of Top 10 title listings. Record Mirror figures could be viewed as they published each stores list along with their address on its chart pages. This first chart was based on 24 stores returns. By 1956 Record Mirror was sampling over 60 record stores and as with New Musical Express they would rotate shops used from a larger pool. By 1956 sales of records were eclipsing sheet music, so record charts began to attain more prominence.

Hence the first appearance on 7 April 1956 of Melody Makers� first record charts, as part of its Song Sheet page along side the sheet music charts. The Melody Maker chart was a Top 20 and was based on 19 stores returns, these were gathered by phone. As with Record Mirror, Melody Maker would display a list of shops addresses, but it did not list individual Top 10s. Melody Maker was the first compiler to get returns from Northern Ireland making its sample a true UK sample. Interestingly, the official charts as used by the BBC only sampled Northern Ireland results when Gallup took over the franchise in 1984.

The various compilers did try to verify that their charts were based on true figures. To this end they would send blue forms to all shops on their list, which would be signed by the manager of each store when sending in returns to verify figures were accurate. The next chart to appear was in the pop paper Disc. This paper differed slightly in that in 1959 it instigated, under the auspices of editor Gerald Marks, the awarding of gold and silver discs for records attaining sales of 1 million and 250,000 units respectively. Disc appeared on 1 February 1958 with its first chart, a Top 20 based on 25 phoned returns.

The last major chart came from the trade magazine Record Retailer. The paper was produced in August 1959 by the pooled resources of the members of the Independent Record Retailers Association, a body of record stores not aligned to any record company. The paper was at first a monthly issue, but in March 1960 it changed to the weekly format with its first weekly issue dated 10 March 1960. From this date it displayed its first chart rundown. This chart differed from its predecessors in the popular papers in that it was a larger Top 50. Managing editor Roy Parker and Secretary Ann Smith undertook the task of phoning record shops for their lists of best sellers each Monday for Tuesday compilation, by staff member, Jeremy Wilder.

Though a Top 50, it was still only based on the surprisingly low figure of 30 phone calls for a chart that size from a pool of 50. Compiling a Top 50 on so few returns meant that tied positions would litter the chart. To abolish

(3)
such incidents a system of comparing the rate of sales change from the previous week was utilised. It was necessary for a large chart based on such an inadequately low number of returns.

In January 1963 Record Retailers chart was audited by the firm of Chantrey, Button & Co, its chief auditor Mr Nigel Mundy. These audits weren�t infallible though as it turned out, due to organised attempts to `hype` records into the charts in the 1960s. Getting records unfairly into the charts was profitable if an artist could go on to bigger success. It probably started in the 1950s, and certainly was around in the 1960s. None of the 1950s, charts were taken too seriously by the music industry or the general media. They were looked on as fun guides to that section of the entertainment industry with both Record Mirror and Melody Maker printing addresses of their suppliers at that time. This is something that would have been unthinkable by the mid 1960s.

By 1957 the new 45rpm 7� single disc made from less brittle vinyl was now succeeding the 12� shellac records, thus leading to higher production and sales figures by the early 1960s. Another barometer of sales that went hand in hand with the new 7� discs was jukebox plays now that the new format could be used on jukeboxes. Melody Maker published a Jukebox top twenty chart between 1957 and 1960 and a top 10 to September 8 1962. This chart (the top 20 one certainly!) was based on returns from 2,000 Jukeboxes across the country.

An interesting facet of record sales in the late 1950s to early 60s was shops owned by certain record companies only selling that companies wares and no others! The most common throughout the nation were HMV and PYE shops, closely followed by DECCA. These stores only sold records produced or distributed by their parent label. With the high sales boost in sales due to the Beatles / Merseybeat boom, such shops had to start selling records by other labels, else risk losing many sales. An example would be PYE shops having to sell Beatles and other EMI records by 1964; otherwise they would be committing commercial suicide.

The New Musical Express was seen as the premier chart of the 1950s, and by 1956 its compiling was handed over to a team from one of the opinion poll organisations and expanded to approximately 50 to 60 returns from a pool of about 80 and still completed by phone calling. The NME chart was taken up for publication in many regional newspapers; it was also used by Radio Luxembourg. Overseas, the NME chart was published in the important US trade magazine Billboard in the papers World Charts section. In the UK in the 1950s, the Record Mirror chart was taken up by many national newspapers. The paper claimed in 1958 that the majority of national and regional papers were displaying its charts. The Record Mirror postal returned sampling was as large as NMEs, phoning system; in fact it was probably larger in some weeks as it often ranged to more than 60 returns in the late 1950s.

Meanwhile, Melody Maker in the 1950s was still focusing primarily on jazz and regarded its pop chart service as a sideline and hence did not put many resources into this new innovation. Melody Makers size of sample ranged from as low as 17 in 1957 shop returns up to a more respectable 33 in 1959. Even by 1960 it barely got much above 40, but that was soon to change radically. Disc did not gather more than 40 returns at any point during the 1950s. The day that most compilers set aside for their chart compiling was a Monday. New Musical Express, Melody Maker and Disc would phone their list of shops each Monday and then start compiling their charts. Record Mirror, when running its own chart, also compiled it on Mondays. The Record Retailer, when it began its chart in March 1960 phoned for returns on a Monday but did not compile the chart until Tuesday. Most papers were published on either Thursday or Friday (N.M.E & Melody Maker Fridays, Disc, Record Mirror & Record Retailer, Thursdays).

`Pick of the Pops` chart.

The country�s national broadcaster the BBC recognised the commerciality of popular music and on 4 October 1955, on its Light Programme, began broadcasting Pick Of The Pops. At first this was a random choice of popular songs of the day; but soon a method of having a continuous Top 20 chart was conceived. From March 1958 the BBC would calculate a Top 20 by using NME, Melody Maker, Disc and Record Mirror charts. They would give number 1 position 20 points; number 2 position 19 points and so on down to one point for number 20. This amalgamated chart would then be transmitted each week. This method produced some tied positions in the chart. Occasionally even a joint number one. However, this rundown did a lot to bring pop music and the concept of charts into focus for the general public. The BBC - Pick Of The Pops chart was often the final arbiter when confused fans were not sure what was the number 1 record due to the music and trade papers having differing chart toppers on some weeks.
(4)
The American trade paper Cash Box also used the combined method to produce a British chart alongside some sampling as well, to add to its figures.

Into the 1960s.

The NME also kept enlarging its sample as the 1960s took hold. At this time, it reverted to using its own staff members for phone duties; this entailed four to five employees each phoning 20 to 25 shops for a sample of 80 to 100 retailers in the early part of this decade circa 1960-63. Disc did not have the resources that NME enjoyed, so its sample rose to the lesser figure of approximately 50 who were phoned during this period; its main compiler was Fred Zebadee.

Record Mirror was still receiving postal returns varying between 40 and 60 plus postal returns circa 1960-61 but it was badly hit by the increase in postal charges from April 1961. Melody Maker was able to absorb these costs with its higher circulation and the massive resources of its publisher IPC. Record Mirror however had to start cutting back on costs. From 18 March 1961 the paper no longer printed the lists or addresses from stores, (Melody Maker had ceased this practice on 30 July 1960). To add to Record Mirrors problems many national newspapers started to use the Melody Maker charts in the early 1960s. On 24 March 1962, Record Mirror finally abandoned compiling its own lists. Instead, from that date onward it began publishing the Record Retailer Top 50.

By 1963 both New Musical Express and Melody Maker were sampling over 100 stores with Disc sampling about 60 to 70. Only Record Retailer had kept to the same sized sample of 30 phoned. It was during 1963 that the rise of the Beatles sparked off a Mersey beat-led, sales boom. Pop music and the charts were very much in the public eye by the mid 1960s.

Pirate Radio

The advent of the pirate radio stations in early 1964 when Radio Caroline hit the air over the Easter 1964 holidays also helped to give pop music a high public profile. Some of these stations used `airplay` statistics for their charts. Radio Caroline from July 1964 used the Melody Maker Top 50 for its popular listings. Others such as Radio London would make up their charts from new releases, amount of airplay and even on many occasions, on the whim of the station managers choice of record placing.

Sadly, some pirate radio stations accepted bribes for extra airplay and high chart placing for certain records. No pirate radio station ever undertook sampling via shop returns hence the brevity of this chapter.

Larger samples, and expanding charts.

By the end of the 1950s, record sales were on the increase, passing the 55 million production figure (excluding Long Players) by 1960. To reflect this New Musical Express expanded its size of published chart. The NME Top 12 became a Top 20 on 2 October 1954. It expanded to a 25 listing to catch the Christmas sales on 31 December 1955 and reverted back to the 20 format the following week. It then expanded to a Top 30 on 14 April 1956 staying at this size up until 14 May 1983 when it enlarged to a Top 50. Record Mirror expanded from a Top 10 to Top 20 on 8 October 1955. Melody Maker and Disc stayed unchanged in published size in this period. Throughout the 1950s it was the New Musical Express and Record Mirror charts that were based on the largest samples with the latter compiler largest most weeks as they ranged up to over 60 shops sampled quite a few times. The Melody Maker and Disc samples ranged at around 20 to 35 for the former and between 30 and 40 the latter.

The first big change to the size and method of compiling a chart occurred on 30 July 1960. This took place at the Melody Maker. The paper changed from phoning its list of record stores, to combining with the phoned, significant number of postal returns. This was rather closer to the system that Record Mirror was using. A far larger pool of compliant stores was contacted and from these a rotated sample of about 110 stores returns was posted and phoned in each week. So, from a figure of 38 samples on 23 July 1960 the Melody Maker chart of 110
(5)
returns from the following week onward became, at that point, the largest sample in operation. The paper displayed the fact that it sampled over 100 shops above each weekly chart. In its 9th February 1963 edition; when replying to criticisms of its chart by newspaper the `Daily Express` the Melody Maker stated that it was receiving data from 245 shops across the nation and that the chart was regularly scrutinised by auditors from Middlesex County Council.

Melody Maker compiled its charts by 1964, with a team of staff who compiled the figures from sacks of mail using, in today�s terms, an old fashioned calculating machine. Editorial staff, Jack Hutton and Ray Coleman also helped compile the charts. On Monday 30 November 1964 the Daily Mirror sent reporter Patrick Doncaster to the Melody Maker offices to report on the way their chart was compiled. Assistant editor Ray Coleman fetched the first sack of postal returns from GPO headquarters by St Pauls to work from (in those days there was Sunday post). Roy Burchill, Alf Martin, Mike Benson, Jeff Stars assisted by editor Jack Hutton and Ray Coleman would produce lists from each of the 147 postal returns of the best sellers allotting 40 points for number 1, 39 points for number 2 and so on. Another 40 shops that could not get their postal returns in on time were phoned for their list of best selling titles, giving a total of shops providing returns to the Melody Maker for that week of 187.

Secretaries Linda Leighton and Sandra Coleman now joined Burchell and Martin, using four mechanical calculators to collate the final Melody Maker Top 50 singles chart for that week. Also witnessing their work was guest Ringo Starr who was told the good news that the Beatles new release �I Feel Fine� was straight in at number 1 on the Melody Maker chart. By 1966-67 Melody Maker was compiling its top 50 from approximately 250 -280 sample returns.

New Musical Express, by this time, had reached around 150 phoned, now with a staff of six, led by its chief chart compiler Fiona Foulgar. Sometimes extra staff members were available to help with phoning duties which meant on some weeks the NME could sample up to 200 stores in the 1964-67 era, which ran it a good second in size to the Melody Maker sample.

Disc Weekly in its sampling managed to get up to 80 to 100 returns by phone. Record Retailer, realising that its phoned sample of 30 was far too low for the period, contacted both EMI and Decca�s distribution chains for a list of stores. Working from a master list of 100, the Retailer changed to postal returns commencing at the start of 1964 with 75 to 85 returns, rotated in the list. Staff member Jeremy Wilder spent all of Tuesday each week compiling the Top 50 from these returns. This increase still left the Record Retailer in fourth place for sample size of major charts and woefully short, still for compiling a Top 50 chart. This size of sample (75-80) stayed about the same until the new B.M.R.B chart replaced it in February 1969.

Both Melody Maker and Disc increased the sizes of their published charts when record sales vastly increased in the early 60s. Melody Maker expanded from Top 20 to 30 on 14 April 1962 and soon followed this on 15 September 1962 by increasing again to a Top 50. Disc increased from a Top 20 to 30 on 6 October 1962 and increased to a Top 50 on 23 April 1966 when incorporating the failing pop magazine Music Echo into its title, becoming Disc And Music Echo. From this date (23 April 1966) Disc acquired its first LP chart. The B.B.C Pick Of The Pops chart increased to a Top 30 in April 1962.

`Pop Weekly` and `Merseybeat/Music Echo`

The big beat boom sparked off lots of short lived pop papers. Many, like Midland Beat from Birmingham, were regional. Two of the more prominent papers, which ran along with the premier magazines, were Mersey Beat (later titled Music Echo) and Pop Weekly. Mersey Beat started in Liverpool in July 1961 as a bi-weekly publication primarily concerned with reporting on the regional music scene and popular local artists.

By 1963 it became nationally distributed, buoyed by the tremendous boom generated by the regions biggest sensation, the Beatles. The paper had started publishing a Top 20 in 1962, though also bi-weekly, it is impossible to correlate it to other charts of the time. Only from 24 April 1964 did Merseybeat become a weekly chart. Significantly, by 3 December of that year when Beatles manager Brian Epstein bought a major shareholding in the publication, Mersey Beat began publishing the nation�s first Top 100. Though Epstein injected some funding the paper still did not equal the financial resources of either NME or Melody Maker so it is unlikely that this chart was based on more than 50 to 80 returns at best.
(6)
By 6 March 1965, with signs of a slowdown in Beat music, the paper changed its title to Music Echo in order to carry a wider spectrum of music, but still carried on with its Top 100 chart, plus the countries first Top 50 LP rundown from May 1965. In 1966 sales were slipping badly and the singles chart returned to a Top 50. Music Echo ceased publication on 16 April 1966 and on the following week it was absorbed into Disc becoming Disc And Music Echo.

Pop Weekly, formerly Top 10 Monthly, became a weekly issue from 1 September 1962. It was smaller in its dimensions than the other magazines, at about A5 size. It was edited by Albert Hand who ran the Elvis Presley fan club. The paper ran a Top 30 chart as well as �write in� polls for artists. Pop Weekly�s chart was compiled by averaging out the charts of New Musical Express, Melody Maker, Disc and Record Retailer in similar mode to the BBC method. However Pop Weekly also received advance sales figures from record companies and sampled around 20 to 30 stores to get its chart. The Pop Weekly chart ran to 6 November 1965 when it reduced to a Top 10. Finally on 27 November the last sales chart appeared and until the paper�s demise on 12 February 1966 a Popularity Top 20 of reader�s favourite songs was displayed. Affected by the slowdown in the market on 12 February 1966 Pop Weekly published its last issue. It was then merged with sister paper Pop Shop becoming Pop Shop Monthly.

Enter `Guinness Hit Singles`

The variety of charts in the mid 1960s did cause confusion as to what records were number 1 when the charts differed. By and large, people accepted that this was the way things were, usually going by what was top of the BBC Pick Of The Pops charts. There has been much controversy over the years as to what was the �best� chart for this purpose. When the Guinness Book Of British Hit Singles was first published in 1977 it made what is deemed by many chart fans a catastrophic decision in selecting the Record Retailer chart for the purposes of recording 1960s chart statistics.

The new book�s authors, Tim Rice, Jonathan Rice, Paul Gambaccini and Mike Read started logically by choosing the New Musical Express chart from 14 November 1952 up to 10 March 1960. However, in a decision that would be questioned by many pop `pundits` over the intervening years they then changed to the debuting Record Retailer chart and retrospectively gave it a vastly inflated prominence it now enjoys. This decision was largely down to the longevity of Record Retailer�s run as a Top 50. It was the biggest outside of the Merseybeat / Music Echo Top 100, and longest running rundown of the decade. It was also due to the Record Retailer abandoning its own sampling (which was seen as inadequate) and coming on board the proposed set up for a new `official` chart.

The Record Retailer chart had never come close to being accepted as the �most prominent chart� throughout the 1960s for the following reasons.

Shortcomings Of The Record Retailer Chart.

When considering the size of chart sample Record Retailer fares very badly indeed in comparison with its major competitors. From March 1960 to December 1963 the very low (For a top 50 chart) figure of just 30 stores were phoned for sales figures. In that period both NME and Melody Maker were sampling over 100, and Disc was certainly over 50. By 1964 Record Retailer was getting regular postal returns from approximately 75 to 85 dealers, which left it a little way short of Discs, size of sample. It still trailed a long way behind NMEs, 150 to 200, and Melody Makers, 200 plus around 1965 �67.

The Record Retailer, published as a magazine only for the benefit of its members, was not on commercial sale to the general public at the time. It could be accessed via public libraries and those record shops which in supplying returns would display the chart on the wall of their stores. Many other record shops not supplying returns to any compiler also displayed this chart, while others displayed the NME or Melody Maker rundowns. However, from March 24th 1962 the Retailer chart was published in the commercially available Record Mirror. Charts would also be audited with the NME regulated by the paper�s accountant Ted Hull.

The Record Retailer chart suffered many volatile chart movements due to its paucity of sample. Quite often records would shoot up from the 40s to the edge of the Top 10, only to collapse back down again the following week. Many charts between 1960 and 1963 were littered with very strange chart movements that were not
(7)
reflected in other papers, charts. In July 1967, due to the change in publication at the start of the month from Thursday to a Wednesday, hardly any returns got in on time precipitating hurried phone calls to dealers. This disruption very much affected the Top 50 until things settled down by the end of July when all dealers were familiar with the change of day.

Record Retailers chart; unlike Record Mirror�s 1950s lists, was never used by national or regional newspapers. It was only included for the BBC Pick Of The Pops compiled chart from 31 March 1962 when it was utilised by Record Mirror from 24 March 1962. Even then it was not on a regular basis due to late arrival at the BBC on some weeks and Derek Chinnery�s decision to omit it on the first week of chart entry for Beatles singles.

By 1966 the Retailer chart was more established within the trade and sections of the industry (Due to the takeover by US trade paper Billboard who pumped finance into the paper). The chart also supplanted that of the New Musical Express from October 1966 in the US Billboard trade paper, but it never succeeded in becoming the full UK record industry chart. Record Retailer was set up by independent record shops, not aligned to the record companies and had no funding from the record companies, only from surplus subscription funds to the Record Retailer itself. The paper was a very small affair in its early years with nowhere near the vast resources of the NME or Melody Maker.

It is an unfortunate testament to chart history that what was by many criteria appeared to be the least accurate and least authoritative of the major charts compiled in the 1960s, should have had the `honour` to be chosen for the Guinness Hit Singles books. This most unfortunate state of affairs sadly has rather affected chart history and contradicted the true recollections of artists and fans of who was number 1 at certain dates and why no Beatles singles entered at number one until the Record Retailer chart was abandoned in February 1969. (Get Back entered at number 1 in the new BRMB `Official` chart ). There is also the strange absence of the vast majority of E.P (Extended Play) discs missing in all Guinness listings because the Record Retailer ran a separate E.P chart from March 1960 to December 1967. The Guinness franchise never got the copy write to publish these �so, in essence, successful E.Ps such as Beatles `Twist and Shout`; a top five place on all other charts, has no `official` chart placing.

The Case of `Please Please Me`, and `19th Nervous Breakdown`.

No two better examples of the way chart history has been altered by Record Retailers choice by the Guinness Book Of Hit Singles, are `Please Please Me`, by the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones `19th Nervous Breakdown`.

In late February 1963 the Beatles were performing before their faithful Liverpool fans at the Cavern. Local DJ Bob Wooler interrupted between songs with a telegram from Brian Epstein who had just been told by the New Musical Express that the group�s `Please Please Me` single had hit number 1 on the NME chart. It was joint top with Frank Ifield�s `The Wayward Wind` on the week ending 23rd February 1963. It was sole number 1 the following week of 2 March 1963. There were some celebrations of the groups first chart topper by those fans happy for the group to be accepted nationwide, though other fans realised they would be losing their idols to national fame.

Not only was the record top of the NME chart, but it had also hit top spot on the Disc charts. The week of March 2 1963 saw `Please Please Me` heading the NME, Disc, Pop Weekly and Melody Maker charts. It was two weeks top on all. It also headed the BBCs, compilation Pick Of The Pops chart for three weeks, the final week joint top with Cliff Richard�s `Summer Holiday`. Only on the Record Retailer chart did `Please Please Me` fail to reach top position. But no one was worried, the Retailer chart was of such little merit to artists and fans then it hardly mattered at all the record only making second position on the RR listing. It was the NME, Melody Maker and Pick Of The Pops charts that counted back then. For the group and George Martin (their record producer) to have this achievement taken away by compilers of a book over a decade later is an injustice that cries out for redress.

Similarly, the Rolling Stones `19th Nervous Breakdown` suffered this `re writing` of music history. `19th Nervous Breakdown` hit number 1 for the last two weeks of February and the first week of March 1966 on the NME, Melody Maker and Disc charts. It topped the Music Echo chart for one week too. More important was the record not only topping the Pick Of The Pops charts for those three weeks, but being played as the nation�s number 1 record on the BBC Top Of The Pops music programme which had commenced on BBC1 on 1st January 1964.
(8)
Again, this achievement is supposed to have never happened because the Record Retailer chart dictates that it is only a number 2 hit. As with `Please Please Me� a true number 1 record that the major charts and the BBC fully accepted as chart toppers has to be denied for the sake of Guinness Hit Singles adherence to the one chart (Record Retailer) that was so out of step with every other listing.

The `New Musical Express` Chart.

Inside the entertainment industry, particularly for artists and management, it was the New Musical Express charts that were scanned to see if their songs had made the chart. In many ways the NME chart was the most highly regarded of the 1960s. It was already in use by Radio Luxembourg plus some print coverage in the Daily Mail, Evening Standard, Evening News and regional papers in Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Glasgow, and Birmingham. In terms of music paper sales, more people than all the other music papers combined read NME charts. At its peak
for two years from 1964 to 1966 its circulation was at just under 300,000. Only the Melody Maker chart was seen as a competitor for influence in this arena.

The New Musical Express chart did have some aspects that set it apart from most of its competitors. Firstly, for many years, the paper�s charts would list `B` sides to some popular records by well known artists such as Elvis Presley or Cliff Richard. This would be due to the title being asked for in shops returning to NME. Particularly affected were Double `A` sides where sales could be split quite evenly per title, thus sometimes affecting peak positions in NMEs, chart. The most notable instance was Elvis Presley�s `Rocka, Hula Baby / Can�t Help Falling in Love`. This was a number 1 in all other charts for at least a month but in NME due to the split sales when both titles entered the chart, neither made the top, only making number 2 and number 3, respectively. Because fans asked for �The New Beatles Record� when the singles were released none of the Beatles double �A �sides were split by the paper, but many others were, the last known examples being the Rolling Stones `Let�s Spend the Night Together / Ruby Tuesday` in February 1967 and Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazelwood with `You Only Live Twice-Jackson` in July 1967.

What was not unique to the NME chart, one that it shared with both Disc, Pop Weekly, Music Echo and the BBC Pick Of The Pops charts was the inclusion of LPs in the singles charts. Disc And Music Echo ceased this practice when commencing running LP charts, but the NME singles chart continued including LPs even when it started an LP chart on 1 June 1962. The NME carried on up to late 1968, with the Beatles eponymous titled double album entering the singles lists in December 1968. It is not known exactly when the NME ended the practice, but obviously with the boom in LP sales by the early 1970s it had to cease; otherwise more LPs than singles would have been in the chart.

`Hyping` The Charts.

`Hype` was the word preferred by chart commentators and those indulging in it, to describe the various methods of cheating regarding getting records into the charts by unfair means. Now that pop music was seen to be big business, a lot of chart hyping began in earnest. It wasn�t purely a feature of the 1960s; the process had affected some records in 1950s, charts. One ex-Pye records employee Dave McAleer was pretty certain that Josh McRae�s `Talkin� Army Blues had been unfairly assisted into some charts, in one of the earliest suspected cases of `chart hyping`.

Three main methods were employed with the ablest architects of hype being pop managers Andrew Oldham and Don Arden. They would hire teams of young girls to visit by taxi as many `chart shops` as possible, buying as many copies of the particular record desired to enter the charts. Teams of shoppers were hired to buy a particular record at what were deemed to be chart return stores. This systematic process is well documented in Johnny Rogan�s extremely well researched book Starmakers And Svengalis and also explained in detail in Simon Napier-Bell�s Black Vinyl, White Powder.

(9)
A second method employed by Tony Calder, an associate of Oldham�s, was to bribe a member of staff of one of the chart shops to list a record with false sales. This method once actually listed a record in the charts before the actual record had been pressed!

A third `ploy` was to get a friendly member of one of the music paper chart compiling team to give false points to a particular title. The worst alleged example of this was when a member of the New Musical Express staff was allegedly involved in the manipulations affecting their chart. Even though the NME chart was still a Top 30, the lower placements were still affected on a couple of occasions.

The `Melody Maker` Chart.

The Melody Maker had, by the mid-1960s, a chart based on more returns from dealers (close to 250 circa 1966-67) than any of its competitors. By then it had gained publication in many national newspapers, such as the Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Herald (later to become the `Sun`) Daily Sketch, News of the World, the Sunday Mirror and The People. It was also published in a number of regional newspapers, though not as many as the `New Musical Express`. Pirate radio station Radio Caroline as stated earlier also ran the Melody Maker charts from July 1964 onwards. The Melody Maker chart service was also used extensively in overseas newspapers, particularly those in the United States of America.

The copyright from these publications enabled Melody Maker to put a lot of finance into its chart processing, resulting that through the 1960s from July 30th 1960 the chart was based on a bigger amount of shop returns than its competitors. When the M.M sample was joined by that of Disc from 19th August 1967, the combined sample came close to 300 returns! Though the B.M.R.B chart from February 15th 1969 was theoretically the largest sample, at 300 returns: in practise it was nowhere as large due to problems getting returns in on time; so that even into the mid-late 70s even when it reduced its returns to 200 from May 1971, the Melody Maker chart was `still` based on the largest sample.

Along with the NME chart, the Melody Maker listing was extremely influential in the 1960s and the focus for chart hyping. The Melody Maker record charts received as much, if not more, media coverage than main competitor New Musical Express throughout the middle and late 1960s. The Record Retailer chart may not have been so targeted, (though it is arguable that attempts were made at getting unfairly in its listings) but only because the Retailer chart was of very minimum importance to chart `hypers` in comparison to getting a `hit` in the NME or Melody Maker charts.

How chart shops were discovered by those wishing to hype records is not known for certain, but it was obviously not that difficult. What did not help things though was one music paper, namely the Melody Maker inadvertently disclosing details of what were certainly some of its chart shops on three occasions.

Firstly, on 21st November 1964 the paper replied to media confusion over the Rolling Stones record �Little Red Rooster� which had leaped in at No 1 on the New Musical Express chart, but was only in at No 21 on Melody Makers. The MM stated that its charts were based only on `sales across the counter` and not `advance order` figures as in the case of the NME chart. In explaining this, the paper disclosed details on record shop sales in various parts of the country. Just over a year later on 11th December 1965 the Melody Maker headline was the Beatles `Day Tripper` / `We Can Work It Out` new release only entering the paper�s Top 50 chart at number 3. A livid Brian Epstein complained about this. The paper then again produced sales quotes from shop managers at locations across the country. The exact addresses were not disclosed, but certainly enough location details were given that any determined chart hyper could use to deduce what were likely Melody Maker chart return shops.

If this were not bad enough Melody Maker yet again later repeated such disclosures on 15th October 1966 when reporting the lower than expected sales on the Rolling Stones, `Have You Seen Your Mother Baby: Standing In The Shadows`. Many more shop locations were disclosed compounding the earlier errors.

So rife was the problem that an `expose` of record chart fixing was ran by the Daily Mail newspaper in January 1967. It highlighted how the Melody Maker chart had been targeted but that the paper was doing all it could to address the problem. Quickly following this, an ITV documentary also concerning the `fixing` of record charts
(10)
was aired in early 1967. In one scene Melody Maker Editor Jack Hutton explained to the reporter how the chart staff tried to look out for unusual record sales and carefully scrutinised the returns concerning new entries to its chart. Ironically one record mentioned in the documentary was the debut Jimi Hendrix single, `Hey Joe` which had just been `aided` into the Melody Maker chart.

The Melody Maker, which after such disclosures and scrutiny by the media, had to no one�s surprise, almost certainly suffered from chart tampering. Part of the reason was that by having the largest set of returns, it was mathematically more likely a M.M chart shop would be `hit`. As their chart was especially vulnerable in the bottom 20 positions, the paper decided to try and check attempts at manipulating records into this region of the chart.

On 1 April 1967 the paper, in a front-page announcement, declared it knew what was going on and was aware of some of the people involved. It declared that from that date it was cutting its published chart to a Top 30, though it would still compile a 50 in order to check suspicious movements. The Melody Maker Top 50 was later published in the trade paper Music Business Weekly from 20 September 1969 to 27 March 1971. Disc similarly cut down its Top 50 on 1 April 1967 taking its lead from Melody Maker. The bottom twenty positions of the Record Retailer chart were far easier to target due to the extraordinarily low figures needed to get into such a low sampled chart. It possibly had less to fear due to the fact in the 1960s, that Retailers chart was so insignificant in comparison to the New Musical Express and Melody Maker charts.

So, there is a possible argument that the lower sections of Record Retailer and Disc were less at risk of anomalies due to their lesser importance within the pop world, and therefore less interest to chart riggers; but no chart in the mid 1960s was completely safe from such machinations. The NME and Melody Maker were targeted more due to their far higher authority within the industry, thus both charts being carefully scrutinised by their compilers for signs of interference.

Ironically, the ways and means that virtually all major record companies manipulated and marketed record releases in the late 1980s, and early 1990s, left the 1960s, manipulators in comparison, nowhere nearly as effective in mass chart rigging.

Comparing The Charts.

As mentioned, Record Retailer was very much out of step with every other chart of the time in the lack of records that entered its chart straight at number 1. Up to 1969, when Record Retailer stopped compiling its own chart, the paper only registered two records entering straight at the top spot. This was well out of step with all other major charts for that period. The NME achieved 14, Melody Maker 10, Disc 11 and Record Mirror in the 1955 to 1962 period registered five. The Record Retailer chart never registered any Beatles title instantly at number 1, unlike NME, Melody Maker and Disc who respectively placed 8, 8, and 7 of their singles as instant chart toppers. The lesser charts such as Pop Weekly and Music Echo also registered Beatles records as instant chart toppers. Without doubt the Record Retailer chart was very much out of step with many chart placements and completely at odds with all other charts of the period.

There was one difference in how figures were gauged: both NME and Disc would accept advance order figures when compiling their charts, whereas Record Retailer and Melody Maker would only accept actual sales over the counter. However, with Record Retailers chart being compiled on a different day, it is possible this affected their chart in comparison with others. The difference between chart positions based on advance figures and actual sales is clear when taking the Rolling Stones, `Little Red Rooster` into account. In the NME and Disc charts it entered straight at number 1(NME) and 9 (Disc). In Record Retailer and Melody Maker it entered at 24 (Record Retailer) and 21 (Melody Maker).

On television both NME and Melody Maker charts were the charts referred to at this time. Pop TV researcher Keith Badman has revealed that NME chart positions were referred to in the more popular type of programmes such as Ready Steady Go and Thank Your Lucky Stars .The Melody Maker chart was used by the more in depth pop profiles such as news reports that examined the social aspect of the pop boom. NME also had Radio

(11)
Luxembourg using its chart for their Top 20 chart rundown. When Top Of The Pops took to the screens on 1 January 1964 it, like Pick Of The Pops, used the combination of NME, Melody Maker, Disc and Record Retailer
to compile its Top 20. For many people the BBC compilation chart as used by Pick Of The Pops and Top Of The Pops was the chart they referred to.

By 1967 both Melody Maker and Disc were now owned by publishers IPC, who had also bought a controlling interest in the New Musical Express. Both Melody Maker and Disc were based at the same offices in Fleet Street. It was deemed unnecessary to have the expense of compiling two charts; so Disc cut their compiling to 30 to 50 phone calls which main compiler Fred Zebedee would combine with Melody Makers, 200 plus postal sample to make a combined chart of approximately 250-280 postal and phoned returns. New Musical Express however, still compiled its own charts, even though it was part of the I.P.C set up by 1967. (It was based in different offices which meant it was far more removed from Melody Maker and Disc).

`Top Pops/Music Now`.

There was yet another chart to come on the scene. This was from a paper that began life titled Top Pops. It was set up by MP Woodrow Wilson and edited by author Colin Bostock-Smith. It debuted in May 1967. At first the magazine appeared only every three to four weeks. It formed an arrangement with WH Smith & Son. In exchange for advertising space, the firm would supply a national chart based on sales returns from branches across the country. The first chart appeared in issue 23 dated 25 May 1968. Two issues later date 22 June 1968 both paper and chart became weekly. WH Smith no longer keep records of how many stores were used but Colin Bostock-Smith who compiled the chart confirmed the sample was only about a dozen branches of WH Smith stores. He received by post each store�s Top 30 selling records on Monday and Tuesday and would also use the points system to gauge each records place. Top Pops changed its title to Music Now on 21 March 1970, and finally ceased in March 1971. In its chart positions it tended to be closer to New Musical Express and Melody Maker than Record Retailer-BMRB.

For the main bulk of the 1960s even though the NME, Melody Maker and Pick Of The Pops charts were by far the most influential and referred to listings; sections of the trade and industry were thinking of setting up what would be seen as a fully `official` chart for all to use. The Record Retailer was the most vociferous in this call for a new chart, possibly due to the fact that its own chart had so little prominence.

Choosing An `Official` Chart.

This situation of no `official` chart being universally accepted was a problem the BBC also wanted to resolve, particularly when, on 31 August 1968, they had three records all sharing the top spot on their compiled Pick / Top Of The Pops listings. The Bee Gees `I�ve Gotta Get A Message To You`, the Beach Boys `Do It Again` and Herb Alpert�s `This Guys In Love With You` all had to be played as the joint number.1 on Top Of The Pops.

This situation was seen as untenable by Derek Chinnery and Denys Jones who compiled the BBC charts, so a series of meetings were set up by the BBC, those retailers and record companies that made up the Gramophone Record Retailers Association and Billboard Publications who were owner of Record Retailer. These were attended by such luminaries as Derek Chinnery from the BBC, Graeme Andrews (Record Retailer) and Peter Meneer of the British Market Research Bureau. Details of a new chart operation evolved. Maurice Kinn, now the chairman at the New Musical Express and Jack Hutton who was the editor of Melody Maker were both invited to come into the scheme. They declined this invitation as they were happy enough with their own charts.

The BMRB had first been asked to investigate chart anomalies back in 1966 following a Sunday Times `expose` which concerned a version of The Sound of Music LP. This was out on the EMI Music For Pleasure label; but in spite of what EMI insisted were robust sales it had not registered in the three main LP charts of 1966 (NME, Melody Maker & Record Retailer) The BMRB were asked to look into the matter.

(12)
A solution to the chart difficulties was close at hand. At a cost of approximately �52,000 the opinion poll organisation British Market Research Bureau would contact a rolling panel of 250 major record stores plus phone calls to a further 50 shops. The prime 250 would change each week with shops entering from a pool of 50 reserves. This was similar to the `rolling pools` of the music papers. Shops were randomly chosen from any of Britain�s 6,000 plus record retailers. The shops supplying figures would enter point of sales figures into diary�s which would then be posted at close of sales on Saturday to arrive on Monday mornings, (there was still Sunday post then) at the BMRB offices. Each diary�s total would be translated to punch card data which would then be fed to a computer which would calculate the Top 50 positions. The chart would be sent to the BBC to arrive on Tuesday morning ready for broadcasting on the early afternoon chart show. Commencing on 15 February 1969 the new BMRB chart was broadcast on BBC�s Top Of The Pops with a Top 30 which was also used by Radio 1. It was also carried by Record Mirror and Record Retailer who published the full Top 50 positions; and from 10th October 1970 in the new music paper Sounds that also published the Top 30 positions.

This system was called `Bars` by the BMRB meaning �British Analysis of Record Sales�. The chart did find difficulty in getting aired in the newspaper chains, as these were still very happy with NME and Melody Maker charts. By and large though, the new chart was seen as the official national chart and accepted by the industry. It is this acceptance that ironically was to be one of its drawbacks.

The problem of having the new BMRB chart announced as an official listing, sadly concentrated the practice of getting records into the new chart by any means possible, including dishonest methods. The list of chart shops was supposed to be secret but, as Melody Maker had discovered to its cost, determined operators managed to uncover their locations. Record companies in order to plug their records put BBC Radio 1 disc jockeys under much pressure. Not helping matters was a feature in the `Radio One` book published in early 1969 where details of how the new chart was regulated were disclosed. It is very possible that too much information was given in the feature which might help unscrupulous `chart hypers` to circumvent the `policing` methods of the new chart. Certainly, some of this lobbying applied to Producers and Disc Jockeys at Radio One could be perceived as not quite one 100 per-cent above board. Over the years more and more stories, some greatly exaggerated, ran in the newspapers about the chart being rigged. The side effect of this concentration on the new chart rather ironically benefited the NME and Melody Maker charts making them now far less targeted and affected by chart hype.

When the BMRB chart became established by the early 1970s, both New Musical Express and Melody Maker cut back their chart samples to 100 for NME and 200 for Melody Maker. Both papers were aiming now at the `serious` rock market audience of the early 1970s and were less concerned with the singles charts or as `teeny bop` orientated as they had been in the 1960s.

Problems with the B.M.R.B Chart.

Though supposed to be thoroughly efficient, the BMRB chart was having difficulty getting its diaries in on time and filled out correctly. Melody Maker had little trouble with postal returns as they had built up a loyal retinue of chart shops, but for the BMRB chart the early returns barely got past 20 per cent of the 300 supposed returns. Many of the early BMRB charts from February to July 1969 suffered many tied positions with up to five records sharing one position in one instance. This is something which should have been a virtual impossibility on a sales based chart. Also, postal strikes affected this system badly. No album charts could be compiled for February � March 1971 during the national postal strike, and while some phoning was done to get a Top 40 singles chart, it was deemed inadequate for a national chart.

After more postal strikes hit the charts in 1973 the BMRB turned to a more reliable method of gathering data with motor cycle couriers collecting the diaries. Unfortunately this method proved to be quite expensive. According to Michael Cable�s The Pop Industry Inside Out, even by May 1976 only 158 out of a sample of 299 were getting in on time. Despite all of the problems the BMRB chart became the accepted rundown by the mid 1970s.

When Gallup won the franchise in 1983 they brought in computerised tills, which speeded up the returns figures so that Christmas charts could be produced (from 1969 to 1983 the BMRB charts had a two-week break at Christmas). Both NME and Melody Maker stopped doing their own chart listings on 14 May 1988 and started using the rival to BMRB, the Music Research Information Bureau (MRIB) lists. Advanced technology was about
(13)
to create a stable platform for a single official chart accepted by the vast majority of retailers, customers and the media.

In Conclusion.

It had taken a long while to get only one chart listing accepted, not only by the music trade and industry, but record buyers and the general listening public. The truth about the situation in the 1960s, was there wasn�t such unanimity on which chart was supreme. The NME and Melody Maker were by far the `big two` and the BBC Pick Of The Pops chart was extremely important. By comparison, Record Retailer and Disc were well behind in influence or importance. It may upset all those pundits who think everything should be in black or white, like so many dubious quiz programmes, but that is the true picture of the 1950s and 1960s record charts. There was no single chart ever accepted as official in that period, which did lead to confusion at times as to what was number 1 when the various charts differed. But that is how things really were.

To take any one chart in the manner that Guinness Hit Singles did, just distorted the truth of the period. Ideally, it would suit many chart historians to have just one chart to represent the 1960s, but any one chart chosen would have certain number 1 records not believed as true chart toppers. Even the BBC amalgamated Pick Of The Pops chart would have `oddities` in its listings; for example, the Rolling Stones `It�s All Over Now` and `Little Red Rooster` did not make it to the top on the POTP chart, something many pop fans would now find hard to accept. Similarly, Elvis Presley fans would surely be angered at 1963�s `Devil in Disguise` relegation to number 2 on the BBC chart.

The Largest sample (Melody Makers) in the 1960s was barely 5% of shops available, and Record Retailer�s did not even cover 2%. To try to base official figures on such small samples is ludicrous. Today (2013) 90% of record retailing stores can be sampled, giving an accurate (if very boring) chart. No one can represent any single 1960s sample in the same degree of accuracy as Guinness Hit Singles erroneously attempted because the sampling was so small. The 1950s, and 1960s, had a range of competing charts; all based on-relative to today- small samples. I know it may be unpleasant for those who want everything neat and orderly, but that is the fact of that period. To try and enforce just one chart: any chart; taken from that era and put it forward as `official` is to change pop history and give a distorted picture. To have given what I and other chart pundits regard as the weakest of the major 1960s charts Record Retailers such undeserved prominence is what I view as sadly, a misjudgement in chart history. This article has tried to explain why I hold such a view.

Is there a solution? I would venture that in the interests of fairness and holding to the true spirit of the era that all major chart compilers count as equal. If a record reaches No 1 on one of these-in my view it is No 1! I recommend New Musical Express 1952 to 1969, Record Mirror 1955 to 1962, Melody Maker 1956 to 1969, Record Retailer 1960 to 1969 and Disc 1958 to 1967. Any chart placing in these �is official in my opinion. Personally, I still regard N.M.E & M. Maker charts as valid to the close of the 1970s.

CREDITS.

Many thanks are due to those former staff members from the music and trade papers who kindly assisted with factual data for my research. These are Peter Jones and Norman Joplin (ex Record Mirror), Nigel Hunter, Norman Bates, Graeme Andrews, Michael Clare and Jeremy Wilder (ex Record Retailer), Colin Bostock-Smith and Roger St Pierre (ex Top Pops), the late Penny Valentine and David Hughes (ex Disc and Music Echo), Chris Welch, Chris Charlesworth and Richard Williams (ex Melody Maker), Fred Dellar and Derek Johnson (ex New Musical Express) and Karen Walter who was still at NME as at 2005!

Many thanks to Nigel Mundy and Peter Cox (ex Chantry, Button & Co), Derek Chinnery and Jeff Walden of the B.B.C, and to Paul Clifford from the Official Charts Company.

Thanks are also due to author Johnny Rogan for his help in advising me on the formatting of this article. Also, thanks are due to record shop managers such as Max Millwards of Wednesfield, John Hawkes and Mal at `Memory lane Music`, Oldbury, Jim and Morris Hunting of the `Diskery` in Birmingham. These three and others have provided useful data, contacts and insights from the seller�s perspective.
(14)
My gratitude is also proffered to the staff of the British Library branches at Euston and Colindale. Many thanks indeed to Andrew Tipple who is the son of Harry Tipple, the founder of the Record Retailers Association for his documents outlining the setting up of the association. Finally, thanks are due to Graham Appleyard care of UK MIX for his data regarding Jukeboxes and Record Label `only` shops`.

�Alan Smith September 2005. (Revised March 2014)

**asm** · Sat August 11, 2018, 09:18

Re: UK 60s: Top 10 Record Peaks, Stats Analysis, 5 Major Cha

There's my revised article with photos removed (as it'd be far too large for this site!) Please feel free to print out copies for yourselves if deemed necessary.

**shane2167** · Sat August 11, 2018, 10:34

Hi Alan,
Thankyou for the information regarding each magazines chart samples.
Its good to know MM still had the larger sample into the 1970s as every charts comparison I've made for the 60s and 70s always shows MM to always be in the middle of the other magazines chart runs,sometimes peak positions also.
Alan how many copies did a single have to sell in the 1960s to reach the top 50,top 30 etc and how many to make music echo's top 100?
Thanks again for your help,shane.

**RokinRobinOfLocksley** · Sat August 11, 2018, 18:18

KoS, I whole heartedly concur with your idea above on creating a new weekly combo chart for the 50s & 60s, based on a weighting of the number of record shops sampled by each of the 5 major charts. (I think I posted a similar view on Alan Smith�s thread of his huge article on true UK chart history.) Of course, Alan�s data doesn�t include the exact number of record shops sampled per chart per week, only general numbers for different time periods. But that could be good enough to still give good meaningful results. For example, whether NME sampled 200 or 220 shops one week, MM sampled 250 or 270, RR sampled 70 or 90, and Disc sampled 90 or 110, it could be you�d get the same results for the combo chart regardless. No matter what, these charts would still be more representative than using Record Retailer for the 60s.

Alan, thanks again for your huge article on true chart history. It should be taught in every classroom in the UK! And America! And universities! With copies to every DJ and music journalist/editor throughout the land! The planet!

I�ve also been pondering other different ways of creating a better representative chart for the 50s & 60s (as have many of us), as a supplement to the actual charts. Kicking it around for several years in fact. So far, I�ve come up with 6 different methods, and a tie breaker for 3 of them, for a total of 9 ideas.

Very important for me, I would want this new super chart to include every record that appeared on any of the 5 major charts during this time. I became interested in the charts for 2 reasons, to help me remember (1) all the records of my early youth, and (2) what was their relative popularity, which were the big hits and which were the small hits. Thus a new super chart to include all records across all the charts would fulfill my wish. And I would want to include all the BUBBLERS and BREAKERS as well, very important, as I do remember several records from Top of the Pops that did NOT make any of the 5 charts (unbelievable I know).

So here are 6 different ideas (plus tie breakers) for creating a new super chart for the 50s & 60s, hopefully in as few words as possible:

1--Choose the BEST CHART, AS IS, for a given time period, swap out as needed when a better chart arises (the best chart most likely being the one that sampled the most number of record shops)

2--Choose the BEST CHART, THEN ADD ONTO IT the lower chart position records from the other charts, better charts first, worse charts last. Something like, for the early 60s use Melody Maker, then add the records missing from Melody Maker, first from NME, then Record Mirror, then Disc, then Record Retailer, to get a full chart of all records. Plus bubblers/breakers. Swap out as needed when a better chart arises.

3A--Calculate a NEW AVERAGE chart, using all 5, 4, or 3 component charts EQUALLY WEIGHTED against each other. Essentially redoing the BBC chart, which left some charts out when meeting deadlines, and had occasional mistakes. Include all records from every chart, plus bubblers/breakers.

3B--repeat 3A, but break the ties of 2 or more records by comparing the record PEAKS across all charts, i.e., a 1-1-3-4-5 would rank above a 1-2-2-4-5. That is, the 1-1 beats the 1-2.

4--KoS�s idea, do an AVERAGE of the charts but WEIGHTED according to the number of RECORD SHOPS sampled. Ties would be extremely rare to impossible. Include all records from every chart, plus bubblers/breakers.

5A--Calculate a new chart based on the MEDIAN (middle) chart position for each record on all charts. This could be a very useful tool. I�ve seen crazy examples where one radical outlier distorts a record�s average calculation, penalizing a record�s ranking relative to other records close by, but that radical outlier would not affect the calculation of the median value. For example, 4 July 1964, The Animals �House of the Rising Sun� was #1 on 3 charts, #6 on 1 chart; the average = 2.25, the median = 1. Roy Orbison�s �It�s Over� was #2 on 3 charts, #1 on 1 chart; the average = 1.75, the median = 2. So the average gives the #1 to Roy, while the median gives the #1 to The Animals. Which is better/most representative/more true? Should a #1 on 3 charts lose out to a #1 on just 1 chart? Something worth considering. Include all records from every chart, plus bubblers/breakers.

5B--repeat 5A, but break the ties by comparing the record PEAKS across all charts (as in 3B above)

6A--Calculate a new chart based on the MAX PEAK position for each record across all charts. I call this the Alan Smith method. Alan says a record should be credited with its max peak across any of the charts. If a record achieved #1 on any of them, then it is a #1 record. Likewise for a combo weekly chart, rank a record according to its max peak. Yes there will be a lot of ties. A chart could look like 1-1-1-2-2-4-4-5-5-6-8-10, etc., but that is truth. Include all records from every chart, plus bubblers/breakers.

6B--repeat 6A, but break the ties by comparing the record PEAKS across all charts (as in 3B above). You could list the records as 1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-4A-4B-5A-5B-6-8-10, etc. And if you want, add a column beside it of 1 thru 50+.

So that�s the main thing. There are other issues with EPs, LPs, b-sides, how to assign point values to records on the charts, how to assign point values to records missing on one chart but present on others, how to mathematically correctly assign point values to tied records on the component charts. I have thoughts (he threatens)�

But this could be doable. First, get all the records of each chart into a spreadsheet, then crunch out the various methods above. Do a few sample charts first to see how things shake out. If one chart could be done each day, it would only take 850 days, or 2 years and 4 months!

If I find some time, I�ll try to work out samples of all the above ideas for one historical week. Cheers n crisps!

Edit: I'm retracting tie breakers 3C, 5C, and 6C above (first break ties by highest peak, then by # of record shops sampled), as they don't make a lot of sense (after having run them on a test chart). There's essentially no extra benefit to them, and the tie breakers of 3B, 5B, and 6B do just fine without the extra work. Carry on and remain calm...

**asm** · Mon August 13, 2018, 08:55

To try and answer Shane's question. By around 1966 it took-possibly just as few as about 20 to 40 sales-if you were able to target `return` shops to get in RR, Disc and possibly MM top 50s! The MM detected this and cut down publication of their top 50 to a top 30 on April 1 1967 (Disc did same on same date) The MM actually STILL compiled a top 50. This was then run as top 50 in trade paper `Music Business` from Sept 1969 to Feb 71 when it finished. After that- Disc (Who had shared MM chart from 19/8/67) ran full 50 to May 71 when MM reduced size of returns gathered to 200. The MM never published the full 50 in the MM itself after 1/4/67 but it WAS compiled to May 71 seeing publication (as stated) in `Music Business` and `Disc Sept 69-May 71. Sadly, it seems the compiled chart for 8 April 67 to Sept 69 was discarded long ago - I contacted my MM `contacts` to try and trace then in early 2.000s-but no luck! As for the Music Echo top 100 -probably as accurate as a one-eyed dart player I reckon. You could get in bottom of that on about five records `sold` in right shops!!

**Graham76man** · Mon August 13, 2018, 11:35

Though of course some of you guys don't like these charts, but you can compare them and I think you will find some interesting things in them.
https://therealchart.blogspot.com/p/...0s-charts.html

Announcement

UK 60s: Top 10 Record Peaks, Stats Analysis, 5 Major Charts

UK 60s: Top 10 Record Peaks, Stats Analysis, 5 Major Charts

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment