Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Official ... Book Series

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

  • #61
    There is now an article about these books on OCC website

    https://www.officialcharts.com/chart...-books__26295/

    Comment


    • #62
      How have I only just noticed this now?! This is excellent news! I've been hoping for a long time for there to be updates to the Virgin Hit Singles Book and the Virgin Top 40 Charts Book, so this is exactly what I need! I will definitely be ordering the books covering the 10s period, and the Singles Chart Book covering the 90s (my favourite era!) And possibly more too - oh wow, I'm going to be spoiled for choice with all the books for each decade and deciding which ones to buy!

      I'm the kind of person who prefers to have hard copy, physical books that I can refer to whenever, so this is great! So thank you to the OCC and Graham Betts for collaborating on this exciting new project!

      Comment


      • #63
        Update

        Are there any updates as to when the next book will be coming out. I’m eagerly waiting lol

        Originally posted by Hotspurman View Post
        The original intention was to have the first three books released in December 2018, but that slipped by owing to problems uploading the manuscripts to Amazon. That has now been resolved, obviously, so I'm hoping that we will get back on track and have the two sixties books (one covering all the charts - singles, albums and EPs - and another for hits) available either late May or very early June. The plan is to release the final four books covering the 2010s (that's one each for singles, albums, compilation charts/hits and hits) released in March 2020.

        Depending on how much time I have available, I'll post on here any important news and updates, but obviously these books take an age to lay out and check.

        Comment


        • #64
          As they say - watch this space - currently working on the two sixties books (one covering all three chart formats - singles, albums and EPs and another on hits). I hope they will be released in the next couple of weeks.

          Comment


          • #65
            ^
            sounds good!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by jasonsindy View Post
              Are there any updates as to when the next book will be coming out. I’m eagerly waiting lol
              Any plans for digital copies of these books?

              Being 2019 and all

              Thanks

              Comment


              • #67
                I'm afraid not - Kindle doesn't recognise tables, which is how all of the books (hits and charts) are laid out. I looked at the e-books Joel Whitburn had advertised and they were purely the pdf files, which again doesn't translate too well to e-reader.

                The main point to these books is that even though we are in the digital age, some people (me especially!) like to have a print copy to flick through - these are not necessarily books you turn to page one and read all the way through; you switch from one section to another, following particular records or particular artists. Look how long it takes to load up the OCC website!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Apple Books has a Joel Whitburn book of Top 40 Hits on it and if you look at how that has been done you will see why these simply won't work on that platform.
                  http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
                  Now including NME, Record Mirror and Melody Maker from the UK and some Billboard charts

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by kingofskiffle View Post
                    Apple Books has a Joel Whitburn book of Top 40 Hits on it and if you look at how that has been done you will see why these simply won't work on that platform.
                    i have that book and I have no troubles using it.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Hotspurman View Post
                      I'm afraid not - Kindle doesn't recognise tables, which is how all of the books (hits and charts) are laid out. I looked at the e-books Joel Whitburn had advertised and they were purely the pdf files, which again doesn't translate too well to e-reader.

                      The main point to these books is that even though we are in the digital age, some people (me especially!) like to have a print copy to flick through - these are not necessarily books you turn to page one and read all the way through; you switch from one section to another, following particular records or particular artists. Look how long it takes to load up the OCC website!
                      That’s extremely disappointing.

                      Digital doesn’t mean kindle. Digital means some form of electronic copy.

                      I love books. I’ve got a whole dresser full of chart books I can no longer read. We all get older and we all need eventually technology to help us read.

                      It’s not always about convenience, or the perfect way to read something or l ay it out, sometimes it’s about accessibility.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by kingofskiffle View Post
                        Apple Books has a Joel Whitburn book of Top 40 Hits on it and if you look at how that has been done you will see why these simply won't work on that platform.
                        The more I think about it, the more I am surprised at your response.

                        How are your digital sales vs your print sales? Yes I realize you have done only one print book and price is probably a factor, but still. It’s rhetorical, I’m not asking you to reveal proprietary sales info

                        Besides, as a digital file, a mobi, epub or PDF, these file formats are the PERFECT method of accessing these type of data books. As mentioned, you don’t sit and read the book. You flip through it looking for a song or artist. With digital searching you don’t need to worry if the editor used THE or not on an artist and it it was filed under The or not. Looking for a song in the print book but forgot that the song starts eith a phrase in brackets and can’t find it. Not a problem in a digital book.

                        There are far too many advantages to list for digital for these books. I will leave it though with the fact that size isn’t an issue. No longer needing to mske the print smaller and smaller in print versions as the years and decades of history pile up and attempting to leave the book unwieldy and bindable. A good example is that NME chart book recently discussed.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          ^
                          Perhaps there's a misunderstanding about the meaning of digital versions? I'm guessing Hotspurman is thinking you meant along the lines of a kindle book version whereas you mean a PDF version?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            ^ I think I may have misunderstood and I do suspect their is confusion.

                            I've sold one print book. More than happy to provide sales of the digital books - the most for one book is 12 copies.

                            What I meant was - Kindle does not allow for the data in the right way - and it is most important that the books are done in the right way, otherwise the data becomes distorted and sales don't happen. Kindle means that tables become images and that then means a zoom in - the Joel Whitburn 40 book is just that - a zoom in when viewed on my iPad/iphone because its images.
                            http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
                            Now including NME, Record Mirror and Melody Maker from the UK and some Billboard charts

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Robbie View Post
                              ^
                              Perhaps there's a misunderstanding about the meaning of digital versions? I'm guessing Hotspurman is thinking you meant along the lines of a kindle book version whereas you mean a PDF version?
                              I mean anything that isn’t print. Some form of computer file, take computer to mean phone, tablet etc., thst one can use 2019 technology to “read” the book.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by kingofskiffle View Post
                                ^ I think I may have misunderstood and I do suspect their is confusion.

                                I've sold one print book. More than happy to provide sales of the digital books - the most for one book is 12 copies.

                                What I meant was - Kindle does not allow for the data in the right way - and it is most important that the books are done in the right way, otherwise the data becomes distorted and sales don't happen. Kindle means that tables become images and that then means a zoom in - the Joel Whitburn 40 book is just that - a zoom in when viewed on my iPad/iphone because its images.

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  Apologies, I can’t figure out for the life of me how to use the edit feature on this updated site. Can’t find the quoted text to edit,

                                  Anyway, in response to the Whitburn book, I don’t understand the issues. I can search the text on my iPad. I can increase or decrease the font size. It works just like any other book on the iPad.

                                  I didn’t mean to derail the thread. Sorry.

                                  Comment


                                  • #77
                                    No worries. It is a valid point about digital versions and the associated issues, so discussing other works and how they overcome - or don't - the issues is valid. Equally, everybody has a perspective. Joel Whitburn always talks about how the ebooks are very poor sellers, but that the print is a high seller. I suspect that if an ebook version of these books had bene produced the same would be true. I'd have bought the paper copy because I do like that - but equally, I find the search option of ebooks an amazingly useful tool.

                                    Also - you don't know what the OCC/Graham will decide in 5 years. Commercial advice is what most companies rely on to decide how to sell a product and there hasn't been an official chart book produced digitally, other than Joel Whitburn who probably has put of anybody from doing digital with his sales figures. In 5 years that could be completely the other way round and suddenly the chart book buying public embrace digital sales.

                                    As it is, these books are print on demand, as (as I think Graham has said) because we haven't had chart books for about 10 years and the OCC would (I imagine) - as any good business would - want to ensure that sales have without much in the way of negative outlay. Bottom line and all that.

                                    In terms of editing posts you should see a button at the bottom of your specific post which reads EDIT POST. This is next to REPLY and another REPLY WITH QUOTE. All of these are bottom right of each specific post. Hope that helps.
                                    http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
                                    Now including NME, Record Mirror and Melody Maker from the UK and some Billboard charts

                                    Comment


                                    • #78
                                      I suspect that the print versions sell better because chart eatching in general is an older audience. Most music fans are interested in their artists, rather than the charts as a whole. Especially it seems for younger music fans - which is natural as it takes years to build up a broad chart knowledge, if at all interested.

                                      Comment


                                      • #79
                                        One option of course, is to mske my own PDF. To make a good copy though of most of these chart books requires ripping the book apart and doing each page. I find myself reluctant to do that with my three decade Whitburn book collection, and other chart books. It just seems “wrong” lol.

                                        Comment


                                        • #80
                                          I have all three of the Eighties books and expected the Sixties to be available by now. Anyone got any idea of when these will actually be available as I was expecting them to be published around June ?

                                          Comment


                                          • #81
                                            Maybe the OCC/Graham Betts are working on revising the OCC description/time line to better reflect actual historical truth, ha, as opposed to the false rewritten history as currently posted on the OCC website, where it says this relating to the 60s:
                                            https://www.officialcharts.com/who-we-are/sixties/

                                            The history of the Official Charts: the Sixties
                                            The Beatles begin to rule, Engelbert scores a million twice in a year and the charts become "Official" for the first time.

                                            1960 – after a period of competitive charts from various music papers all vying for pre-eminence, the UK trade title Record Retailer’s (later to be renamed ‘Music Week’) singles and albums charts are recognised as the “official” charts to the majority of the UK record industry – these run to Top 50 and Top 20 respectively and are compiled in-house at Record Retailer from a panel of 30 shops.

                                            Sorry to keep harping on this, but as we chart nuts know, this language is totally false, as refuted by Alan Smith et al. No one in 1960 knew Record Retailer even existed outside of the 30 record shops that banded together to publish the weekly music paper, which was not sold in record shops, you had to subscribe to it to get their charts. In 1962 they gained a little more visibility when their charts were published in Record Mirror, and were included in the BBC average chart calculation when they arrived in time. Even more visibility in 1966 when Billboard in the US infused them with cash. But they were never the most prominent chart, never the majority industry chart, of the 60s during the 60s.

                                            Record Retailer got more recognition after the fact in the 70s when 4 different chart book series (including Guinness) used their data to represent the 60s (though most starting with 1962), but these books did not proclaim them as 'official' for the 60s, they just listed which charts they were using. The Official Charts Co did not recognize them as 'official' for the 60s until after 2001. One could say that going forward after Feb 1969 that Record Retailer eventually became generally recognized as the 'industry' chart sometime in the mid to late 70s, but this was for the chart going forward, not going backwards.

                                            There was no 'official' chart of the 60s during the 60s, not until Feb 1969, no matter what anyone says. Record Retailer sampled the fewest record shops, was the least accurate, disagreed the most often with the other charts, and was the least followed. It's one thing for the OCC to state why they are using Record Retailer as their chart for the 60s, it's another thing to make up false history to justify their decision. Just tell it like it is/was. I hope Graham Betts and the OCC do the right thing and write up the historical truth this time, as the truth will set you free!

                                            As I frequently say (especially regarding The Beatles "Please Please Me"), those of us who lived thru the 60s know the chart truth; those who didn't get their info from revised history chart books.

                                            Nonetheless, these will be great books, and I will buy them all !!

                                            Comment


                                            • #82
                                              So, had the 'New Musical Express Charts' or 'Melody Maker' Charts been used, for the 1960's,
                                              then The Beatles 'Please Please Me' would give them 18 UK No.1 Singles and not 17.

                                              Less well known, is the fact that '19 Nervous Breakdown' by the Rolling Stones, (1966), was also
                                              No.1 in 'New Musical Express' and 'Melody Maker', but No.2 in 'Record Retailer'. So, they would
                                              have 9 UK No.1 Singles and not 8 No.1's, had one of those other Charts been used.

                                              If the 'New Musical Express' Charts had been used in the 1970's and 1980's, then ABBA would
                                              have had 11 UK No.1 Singles, as 'Chiquitita', (1979), and 'One Of Us', (1981), were No.1 in that
                                              Chart.

                                              Blondie would have had 7 UK No.1 Singles - not 6 - as 'Denis', (1978), was No.1 in both 'New Musical
                                              Express' and 'Melody Maker', but No.2 in the 'Official' BMRB Chart.

                                              In 1981, Ultravox reached No.2 in BMRB, with 'Vienna'. It was a No.1 Hit in both 'New Musical Express'
                                              and 'Melody Maker'. So, they missed out on their only UK No.1 Single, because the BMRB Charts were
                                              the 'Official' Charts of that time...


                                              Zeus555

                                              Comment


                                              • #83
                                                I agree wholeheartedly with the above also being a child of the sixties. I bought both NME and Melody Maker every week and studied their charts voraciously. But at the time, knowing nothing of chart compilation the chart I knew best was the one compiled and used by the BBC for Pick Of The Pops and Top Of The Pops. I believed, then, this was the most important chart.

                                                It was only years later that I learned from Dave Taylor that the BBC chart itself was error ridden as Derek Chinnery actually gave the music paper charts to his young daughter to add up without any apparent checking and these were then used as factual for the shows. There are many examples of miscalculations in these. Furthermore the BBC kept changing the rules on how to handle ties and what criteria should be used to work out a number 1. The goal posts just kept being moved.

                                                This was an opportunity missed. The basic concept of combining the music paper to obtain an average was sound. This ironed out differences and extremes. Just a pity a more robust system wasn't employed to do this task. Also shame on the BBC who are now rewriting history by denying the existence of their own chart and now bow cap in hand to The Official Charts Company airbrushing the past out.

                                                All that said, if I was asked , and it's purely a personal choice, which chart of the sixties could be considered the most accurate of the time I would go for the Melody Maker for the following reasons. They used by far the biggest sample of shops in compiling their singles chart, they also polled Northern Ireland, no other chart of that period did. They did not not include advanced orders like the NME and Disc did, and it was just singles and EP's allowed not albums.

                                                Yes I am buying the Official Charts Books, because I am a charts addict and I like the layout and detail in these books, not because I believe in their chart choice prior to February 1969. I just hope all decades actually see the light of day as the sixties volumes are already running late.

                                                Comment


                                                • #84
                                                  I think it is important to remember that what labels (record industry) consider official, and what fans consider official - or most important, influential - aren’t necessarily always the same item.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • #85
                                                    MrTibbs, you make a good case for Melody Maker for the 60s. Though Alan Smith says there was no 'official' chart for the 50s/60s, that all charts must be considered, that a record should be credited with the highest peak it achieved on any of the 50s/60s charts; he does allow that if he were forced to choose a chart for the 60s he too would go with Melody Maker. And that's all good with me.

                                                    In case you haven't seen this, in addition to Alan's excellent UK Chart History article, he wrote a separate article on A History of Record Retailer, which goes into much greater detail of RR, including many specific record chart peak comparisons, read this whole thread to find these:

                                                    https://www.ukmix.org/showthread.php...sic+now+charts

                                                    Something else I just learned: Paul Gambaccini is an American! Though he now has dual US/UK citizenship as of 2005 per Wiki. He did not live in the UK during the 60s, not until 1970, so did not experience first hand the UK chart battles of the 60s, ha. I'm glad to know he was not involved with the decision to choose Record Retailer to represent the 60s for the Guinness books, he had no option other than to go along with it. A big Beatles fan himself, it was not his desire to strip "Please Please Me" of its #1 status.

                                                    Fascinating, interesting... Now back to the Official Book Series, buy buy buy !!

                                                    Comment


                                                    • #86
                                                      Thanks for your feedback there Robin. Probably like so many others in the Sixties I had no knowledge of the Record Retailer as a magazine or obviously that it even had a chart. I only became aware of it when it carried the new BMRB chart from February 1969.

                                                      I omitted when supporting the Melody Maker above that another important factor was that it was the Melody Maker's charts that most daily national newspapers carried back in the sixties so these had a huge national awareness to the general public also because of this secondary publication.

                                                      Yes, I intend to buy all the Official Book Series, I'm a chart freak ha. Any idea or info on what's holding up the next volumes now overdue I believe ?

                                                      Comment


                                                      • #87
                                                        The two Sixties books (one covering the singles, albums and EP charts and a second volume of hits) should be out later this week - they are currently under review at KDP, so it should literally be any day now.

                                                        In order to try and get ahead of the game, I've laid out the next four books - the Noughties - which I would hope we will have ready to go by the end of August at the latest. Then next month we should get the three Seventies books, followed by the Nineties and Fifties before Christmas.

                                                        With regards to the charts themselves, I've included a fairly lengthy background story on Record Retailer and how its charts came into being in the sixties chart book - you may not agree with the choice of RR as the predecessor to the Official Charts, and I'm well aware of the limitations of the chart throughout much of the 1960s, but I hope my description is an accurate reflection of the circumstances of the time.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • #88
                                                          Originally posted by Hotspurman View Post
                                                          With regards to the charts themselves, I've included a fairly lengthy background story on Record Retailer and how its charts came into being in the sixties chart book - you may not agree with the choice of RR as the predecessor to the Official Charts, and I'm well aware of the limitations of the chart throughout much of the 1960s, but I hope my description is an accurate reflection of the circumstances of the time.
                                                          Thanks for all your efforts, Graham. I look forward to reading (and critiquing, ha) your background story on Record Retailer in your upcoming 60s chart books. If you haven't already, I suggest you contact Alan Smith and let him review your background story for accuracy. He spent years researching RR and the other 60s charts, talking with the actual chart compilers and other staff personnel, etc., before publishing his first 50s/60s UK charts article in Record Collector magazine in the early 2000s. I'm sure he'd welcome the chance to fact check what you've written. Cheers!

                                                          Comment


                                                          • #89
                                                            Here is an Amazon.co.uk Link to one of the 1960's Chart Books:

                                                            https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/17314855...s=books&sr=1-4


                                                            Zeus555

                                                            Comment


                                                            • #90
                                                              One of the things I wrote but the OCC opted to edit out was the creation of the National Gramophone Record Fortnight, something of a distant forerunner to the current Record Store Day. It was suggested by the Gramophone Record Retailers' Association chairman Walter Woyda (who I later worked with at Pye Records in the late 1970s/early 1980s) in 1963 - the link below is to a Billboard article covering the launch.

                                                              https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0woyda&f=false

                                                              Comment

                                                              Working...
                                                              X