Updated "CHART HISTORY"

Moderators: trebor, kingofskiffle, nympho

 

Postby Robbie » Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:48 am

andrej wrote:Personaly i don't think that Alan and Dave was the one person. In one of his posts, Alan said:
asm wrote:I have posted the full Top M.Maker 50s gleaned from "Music Businness Weekly" to Lonnie recently! The Colindale Library had some missing from Feb/March 71. But with help from Disc and M.Echo's brief run of the Top 50s (13 March to 24 April 71) Lonnie has all but two of the MM Top 50s Sept 69 to May 71. I posted a Lot of MM Charts circa 1970 to 77 to Davetaylor. Maybe Dave can post them here!
I've been in correspondence with both. And i have sense they were different persons.
Last time i wrote to Alan i received an answer: "Hello! I'm answering Alan's mail while he's ill. Unfortunately Alan will be indisposed for some time! Charlotte." It was in February 2013.
Last time i received a message from Dave was February 2014. Dave was an executive producer of Richard Todd's Retro Chart Countdown shows on Atlantic Oldies 2NG, but retired in the end of 2014. He was replaced by Mike Robinson, from whom i received a mail in May 2014, in which he noted "I'm now the fella in charge of Richard Todd's radio shows and the charts etc, since Dave Taylor retired back home to Australia to look after his old father and is not currently hooked up to internet access."
Thanks for the reply andrej.

Fingers crossed that Alan is in better health these days.

Interesting news about Dave Taylor. I had heard a mention of him going to Australia at some point last year from a forum member at this board. Do you mean he retired as executive producer of the Retro Chart Countdown at the end of 2013 (and not 2014?). There is a poster at BuzzJack called MikeR who last summer (2014) started posting the same 1970s and 1980s end of year best sellers charts (some from Record Business) that Dave had posted here at ukmix. I sent a PM to this MikeR and asked if he was Mike Robinson but while he never confirmed he was he never denied he wasn't either. His posting style was exactly the same as Dave Taylor. He also started lurking and then posting at BuzzJack at the same time that Dave Taylor was said to have died and this happens to be the very same time that Alan also vanished from here (hence one of the reasons I was asking if Dave and Alan may have been the same person). I asked this MikeR about the charts he was posting and he said Dave Taylor had been posting his (MikeR's) old charts without his permission. He also said he and Dave had never met and all communication they ever had was via email. MikeR had previously posted at BuzzJack a few years earlier, had completely vanished and then suddenly reappeared when rumours were going around that Dave had died. When he previously had posted at BuzzJack I don't think Dave had yet signed up but there was another poster called trevs who posted again in the exact same style as Dave Taylor and therefore MikeR. When trevs vanished MikeR and then Dave Taylor both signed up. When other posters started contacting MikeR last year at BuzzJack by PM about Dave he promptly stopped posting again though he still lurks there - his profile shows he was last online yesterday. Added to that, over at Haven another poster called BrianHankin who - guess what, had a similar posting style to trevs and Dave Taylor and who claimed to know both - also vanished from the forum never to be seen again at the same time Dave and Alan disappeared from here (and when MikeR turned up once again at BuzzJack).

I still have the PM conversations I had with MikeR last year at Buzzjack, to be honest the PMs say a lot without saying a great deal (if that makes any sense!).

Basically I'm totally at a loss as to who is who, who was who and who knew who! That said, Alan's posts were nothing like Dave / trevs / Mike R / brianhankin (this is getting like a soap opera!) so I can only assume Alan's disappearance from here at the same time other posters disappeared from ukmix, Haven and BuzzJack was an unfortunate coincidence. It's just strange how all of them were said to have a severe health problem which contributed to them stopping posting at their respective boards.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby rubcale » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:42 pm

There has been a lot of speculation as to whether some of the posters mentioned were the same person.

Initially I had no reason to suspect they were but now who knows? - I had contact with a couple of them and was told several things which I accepte at face value.

Whatever I can only hope he/they are still alive and in good health.

Dave Taylor's work on Record Business and MRIB appears well researched and meticulous and is of great value in comparison to BMRB/Gallup.

In particular though the year end charts he posted for the 60s on Popscene with much sales data is extremely valuable as there is little other information for this period. Word is that he did have certain contacts in the business.

All very strange though.
rubcale
Groupie
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011
Location: northern ireland

Postby andrej » Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:11 pm

Sounds like a thrilling detective story with good portion of conspiracy theory :D Though i wish it would be true. At least it leaves us a chance that someone is still with us...
Interestingly, last few months when i communicated with Dave, i was sending him the scan copies of Record Business charts. And by May 2014 i still "owed" him a batch of April 1980 to September 81 Charts, that i promised him before.
When Mike Robinson contacted me, he wrote the following: "I believe that Dave mentioned that you were completing the aquisation of many old charts from the music press. I know you often exchanged charts with each other.
We wondered if you carried on with this, if you could send them to my address? I was told that Dave was short of Record Business Magazine from April 1980 to September 81, then you both had the complete run."

I think Dave retired from Atlantic Oldies 2NG at the end of 2013.
I'm looking for "TOP POPS/MUSIC NOW" and "MERSEYBEAT / MUSIC ECHO" Charts to complete my 60's singles charts collection.
andrej
Manager
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

Postby rubcale » Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:20 pm

Topicel wrote:Hi Rubcale and Gambo - hope you are both well?

I can assure you that you should have every confidence in the UK charts, individually and as a whole, from the 60s and beyond. I have read many comments to the contrary and simply smiled to myself, so I'm glad that two seasoned chart and sales analysis watchers have concluded that consistency probably equals accuracy. Although, as you have observed tongue-in-cheek Gambo, the opposite could feasibly be true also...!

Off topic a little, but what did you guys think about those Radio 2 broadcast lists inspired by the meeting of Elvis and the Beatles, especially the former? Now whatever our stance on chart accuracy in those bygone days, someone at the OCC reckons they can make them 'talk' enough to come up with Top 50 rankings, especially when you consider number ones are practically impossible to assess.

Feel free to comment on the relevant thread(s) if you prefer.

Topicel
Good to see you "lurking", Topicel and hopefully in good health.

I have lttle knowledge of any sales figures for the 60s. Presumably the information came from the record comanies - if it did come from Alan Jones the likelihood is that he would have got it from the same source. Quite simply there was no record of cross-counter sales for most of that decade. Most of the figures which appeared in the music press are nearly always shipments so it's anybody's guess whether the record companies have supplied gross or net figures.

I sorta work on the theory that the OCC is right until proven wrong but your confidence does get shaken. They need to sort out 1994/96. All records have to measured by the same method - whichever you decide. You can't have some by one method others by another - and there are significant differences.

Many seem to think they know better than the OCC but then they have access to data which we know nothing about - it always "amuses" me how fans of a particular act come up with "stonewall" reasons giving a higher sales!

But then look at their top selling Abba singles list - everyone agrees it is unquestionably way off in many respects, both over and under estimates.

It would very much appear that you can get differing info depending on who at the organisation compiles a list at a particuar time - for example Ross & Richie's Endless Love didn't appear in the Motown top 30 in 2008 which would indicate sales of under 320k but a short time later was the #20 best selling duet of all time. You could understand how they might miss sales (forget to add in downloads, ignore a record selling into the next year, not adding in sales when the same record was released at a later date under a different group name - Baby Love Supremes 1964 but Ross & The Supremes in the 70s - etc) but it's harder to understand an overestimate and in the case of this record the lower figure seems the more probable. Examples like this unfortunately occur often.

They really need someone at the helm with a tight rein to give supervision but probably finance is the problem.

The one thing we can be sure of is that post-1996 and download figures are pretty near 100% accurate. If we had access to the download figures I think we would be amazed at the numbers many records are shifting without troubling the charts, many of them unexpected.

The Beatles and Elvis lists are a bit of fun and probably not that inaccurate even at the bottom.
rubcale
Groupie
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011
Location: northern ireland

Postby zeus555 » Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:04 pm

Rubcale - Regarding ABBA, the UK Singles that The OCC under-estimated were SOS, Money, Money, Money
& One Of Us.

SOS was the 48th Best Seller of 1975, which is high for a No.6 Hit. It sold 230,000 to 240,000 to be there.
The OCC gave it 170,000 Sales a few Years ago - including Downloads & it had 30,000 of them by May 2011!

They gave 'Money, Money, Money' 310,000 Sales, when it was one of ABBA's 10 UK Gold Disk Singles,
& in the 1970's that was for 500,000. I've been told, (people in the UK Music Industry), that it sold almost
500,000, with about 460,000 to 480,000 UK Sales. Basically, 310,000 is just for 1976 - The OCC did not add
In its 1977 Sales. It was still in the Top 5 at the start of 1977. (It had sold 25,000 in Downloads by May 2011).

One Of Us was given 405,000 Sales by The OCC. Missing out the Sales of the final Week of 1981, which had
a 1982 W/E Chart Date. It sold over 90,000 during that missing Week. (One Of Us sold 19,000 in Downloads
by May 2011, so that is on over 500,000 UK Sales). I assume that every other Single that was in the UK Charts
in the final Week of 1981 also lost a Week's Sales. I'm, told that BMRB did calculate the Sales for that Week,
but they were never added to each Hits Total's due to the usual mess of the Christmas Chart being repeated
due to the Christmas Holiday's. They usually added in those Sales, but forgot in 1981. Apparently, the ABBA
Single rose from 3 to 2 in the unpublished Chart, but it remained at No.3, due to the Christmas Chart being
repeated. It outsold the No.2 Hit, (Cliff's Daddy's Home), by about 2,000 copies in the missing Sales Week.

Zeus555
Last edited by zeus555 on Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
zeus555
Superstar
 
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005

Postby rubcale » Sun Sep 06, 2015 4:31 pm

Thanks Zeus.

That's interesting and easily explains the underestimation of sales for those records. Unfortuntely, it highlights some shoddy work on the part of the OCC. You would think it would be basic to realise a record charting at Christmas would have sales carrying on into the following year.

What is harder to explain is the overestimation of Angeleyes/Voulez Vous. It had roughly the same panel sales as Does Your Mother Know - they weren't too far apart in the year end chart and had been hits early in the year and both have similar download sales yet at just under 500k AA/VV is around 100k ahead of DYMK.

Unless of course Mother should be near the 500k but all the information known suggests that the lower figure is the correct one.
rubcale
Groupie
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011
Location: northern ireland

Postby Gambo » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:40 am

Topicel - apologies; I hadn't seen your message until just now. Sadly, I don't really have much new to add that Rubcale hasn't already pointed-out, or indeed that many of us haven't laid out on various occasions on earlier threads, whenever the OCC present us with some new chart that's claimed as being "accurate" or "definitive".

I wasn't aware of the Beatles and Presley all-time countdowns until you mentioned them and so have rather hurriedly been appraising myself via the OCC site. Whilst I don't know enough detail to pick definite holes in their findings, as ever, on a general level one must scrutinise these charts with caution. Whilst one would love to believe that such rankings are essentially accurate, at least in terms of positioning, one has too much experience of inconsistencies and errors to maintain such faith. Even with more recent sales tallies, there seem to be some tall tales told by the OCC, so, coupled with what we already know about how limited accurate sales data was prior to 1969, it seems almost improbable that anyone - even the official guardians of the UK charts - could retrospectively come up with such detailed tabulations in 2015.

I'd like a bit more on the methodology; some explanatory footnotes on compilation might at least set it in context and raise awareness of how approximate these listings are. But then I suppose they don't want their status as "official" charts to be compromised by admitting that some of the content is effectively estimations and educated guesswork. I assume that similar to the first 'all-time' chart compiled in 2002, they made use of various contemporaneous sources of varying consistency and quality, and worked up mathematical algorithms to help extrapolate the data and weave it into something vaguely approaching an arguably-feasible ranking? I'm not knocking that, as I imagine that's all that can now be done. But we do need to be very wary about the figures and positions such methodlogy arrives at, and never accept them too blithely just because they're presented as such by OCC.

Unfortunately, we all know that the majority of more casual chart watchers and music lovers will do just that. Why wouldn't they, given that they know little of the limitations of chart compilation in earlier decades and (like us) want to believe such charts are definitive? I suppose it may actually matter very little, assuming that we will likely never have a more conclusive picture of pre-1970s sales (or indeed of pre-mid 1990s data), and so whatever the OCC concoct will end up being the best stab, with a pre-determined seal of approval as the official mouthpiece of the British charts both current and historical.

Would I prefer such charts weren't published on grounds that they're likely to be partially inaccurate? No. I still think it's better to have SOME notion of what MIGHT have been the case, provided the research on which the rankings are based on is as contemporary, objective, complete and otherwise sound as possible. And where that isn't the case or is questionable, but there was no choice but to rely on that source, that should be explained to readers, somewhere.
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:33 pm

Alan Smith was alive and (hopefully) well as of May 23, 2015, when I last heard from him.

I last received an email from Trevs on June 28, 2015.

Unfortunately last heard from Dave Taylor on March 5, 2013.

In my emails to them over the years, I frequently mentioned each other to them, they have all been helpful to me in my various UK chart queries. I seriously believe they are 3 separate individuals, ha.
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby Robbie » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:15 pm

RokinRobinOfLocksley wrote:Alan Smith was alive and (hopefully) well as of May 23, 2015, when I last heard from him.

I last received an email from Trevs on June 28, 2015.

Unfortunately last heard from Dave Taylor on March 5, 2013.

In my emails to them over the years, I frequently mentioned each other to them, they have all been helpful to me in my various UK chart queries. I seriously believe they are 3 separate individuals, ha.
Thanks for the info. Good to hear that you've recently been in touch with Alan.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Mon May 02, 2016 10:19 pm

Numbers, numbers, egads!!

For my own amusement, I thought I’d run some statistics on the UK #1 records from March 1960 to Feb 1969, for the 5 major UK charts, = from the start of Record Retailer up to the start of the BMRB chart (NME, RM ending 1962, MM, Disc ending 1967, and RR). Just to see what was going on, what the comparisons might look like. [Note: The Move’s “Blackberry Way” was the last RR #1 before the start of the BMRB, achieving #1 a week later on NME and MM. For the numbers below, I’m counting it as being #1 on all 3 charts within the pre-BMRB period]. Here’s what I found:

--There were 203 #1 records during this time across all 5 charts
--136 were unanimous #1’s on all charts of the day, 67%
--another 20 made #1 on all but 1 chart, 10%
--another 3 made #1 on a majority of the charts, 1%
--34 made #1 on only 1 chart, 17%
--another 10 made #1 on half or a minority of the charts, 5%

Then breaking these stats down by chart:
--NME had 166 #1’s over 8.9 years
--RM had 32 #1’s over 2 years
--MM had 163 #1’s over 8.9 years
--Disc had 141 #1’s over 7.4 years
--RR had 169 #1’s over 8.9 years

Unanimous #1’s on all charts of the day:
--NME had 136
--RM had 26 (2 years)
--MM had 136
--Disc had 114 (7.4 years)
--RR had 136

Other majority #1’s on each chart:
--NME had 19
--RM had 5 (2 years)
--MM had 16
--Disc had 13 (7.4 years)
--RR had 16

#1’s on only 1 chart:
--NME had 7
--RM had 0 (2 years)
--MM had 7
--Disc had 9 (7.4 years)
--RR had 11

Non-#1’s that were #1 on all other charts of the day:
--NME had 2
--RM had 1 (2 years)
--MM had 6
--Disc had 5 (7.4 years)
--RR had 6

To put words to the numbers, in terms of #1’s anyway, one can say that all 5 charts were somewhat relatively (highly?) correlated, as 136 records (67%) achieved #1 on ALL the charts of the day, and another 23 (11%) achieved #1 on a majority of the charts. Or, a total of 159 (78%) of the 203 reached #1 on a majority of the charts.

In looking at the major disagreements among the 5 charts, 34 records (17%) got to #1 on only 1 chart. And 20 records (10%) got to #1 on all the charts except for 1.

Summing the last 2 stats above for each chart, the #1’s on only 1 chart + the non-#1’s that reached #1 on all the other charts, you get this:

NME = 7 + 2 = 9 outliers across 8.9 years
RM = 0 + 1 = 1 outlier across 2 years
MM = 7 + 6 = 13 outliers across 8.9 years
Disc = 9 + 5 = 14 outliers across 7.4 years
RR = 11 + 6 = 17 outliers across 8.9 years

If one can “extrapolate a relative variance” [ :) ] from the above, then:

--RM looks really good at only 1 outlier, though 2 years is not a fair sample across these 8.9 years. To compare RM, you’d need to go back and compare the years 1956 to 1962 across all charts [which I did by the way, and RM indeed looks to be the least volatile of the bunch, too bad they stopped producing their own charts in 1962]
--followed by NME at 9 outliers
--then MM at 13 outliers
--then Disc at 14 outliers [adjusting the 7.4 year to 8.9 years, Disc still comes in 4th place]
--lastly RR at 17 outliers

So I guess this is more fuel to the fire that Record Retailer is not the best choice to represent 60’s UK chart history. They sampled the fewest number of total sampled record shops across the 60s (11 to 16%), and had the highest number of outlier #1’s. Having almost twice as many outlier #1’s as NME.

Most interesting…

Here’s a list of the exclusive #1’s of each chart, and the non-#1’s of each chart that reached #1 on all the other charts, 1960-1969, nice and tidy…

#1 only in NME 1960-1969:

Elvis Presley - Wild In The Country, 1 wk
Chubby Checker - Let’s Twist Again, 2 wks
The Yardbirds - For Your Love, 1 wk
Everly Brothers - The Price of Love, 1 wk
Len Barry - 1-2-3, 1 wk
The Hollies - I Can’t Let Go, 2 wks
Tom Jones - Help Yourself, 2 wks

Not #1 in NME but #1 in all the other charts of the day:

Elvis Presley - Rock-A-Hula Baby / Can’t Help Falling In Love, 3-4 wks (no doubt due to NME splitting the A & B sides into 2 separate positions)
Walker Brothers - Make It Easy On Yourself, 1 wk

#1 only in Record Mirror 1960-1962:

none

Not #1 in Record Mirror but #1 in all the other charts of the day:

Anthony Newley - Do You Mind, 1 wk

#1 only in Melody Maker 1960-1969:

Elvis Presley - A Mess of Blues / The Girl of My Best Friend, 1 wk
The Who - I’m A Boy, 2 wks
The Beatles - Penny Lane / Strawberry Fields Forever, 3 wks
The Monkees - Alternate Title, 1 wk
The Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour EP, 1 wk
Tom Jones - Delilah, 2 wks
Herb Alpert - This Guy’s In Love With You, 1 wk

Not #1 in Melody Maker but #1 in all the other charts of the day:

Frank Ifield - The Wayward Wind, 1-3 wks
The Rolling Stones - Little Red Rooster, 1-2 wks
The Kinks - Sunny Afternoon, 2 wks
The Beatles - Lady Madonna, 2 wks
Cliff Richard - Congratulations, 1-2 wks
The Bee Gees - I’ve Gotta Get A Message To You, 1 wk

#1 only in Disc 1960-1967:

Connie Francis - Mama / Robot Man, 2 wks
Cliff Richard - A Girl Like You, 1 wk
Pat Boone - Speedy Gonzales, 2 wks
Swinging Blue Jeans - Hippy Hippy Shake, 1 wk
Dave Clark Five - Bits and Pieces, 1 wk
The Seekers - A World Of Our Own, 1 wk
The Troggs - Wild Thing, 1 wk
The Seekers - Morningtown Ride, 1 wk
Harry Secombe - This Is My Song, 1 wk

Not #1 in Disc but #1 in all the other charts of the day:

Temperance Seven - You’re Driving Me Crazy, 1-2 wks
Mike Sarne with Wendy Richard - Come Outside, 1-2 wks
The Kinks - You Really Got Me, 1-2 wks
Cliff Richard - The Minute You’re Gone, 1 wk
The Rolling Stones - Paint It Black, 1 wk

#1 only in Record Retailer 1960-1969:

Eddie Cochran - Three Steps To Heaven, 2 wks
Johnny Kidd & The Pirates - Shakin’ All Over, 1 wk
Floyd Cramer - On The Rebound, 1 wk
Shirley Bassey - Reach For The Stars / Climb Every Mountain, 1 wk
Elvis Presley - You’re The Devil In Disguise, 1 wk
The Bachelors - Diane, 1 wk
Roger Miller - King of the Road, 1 wk
Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick, & Tich - The Legend of Xanadu, 1 wk
Des O’Connor - I Pretend, 1 wk
Crazy World of Arthur Brown - Fire, 1 wk
The Beach Boys - Do It Again, 1 wk

Not #1 in Record Retailer but #1 in all the other charts of the day:

Acker Bilk - Stranger on the Shore, 1-2 wks
Joe Brown - A Picture of You, 1 wk
The Beatles - Please Please Me, 2 wks
Billy J. Kramer & The Dakotas - Do You Want To Know A Secret, 1-2 wks
The Rolling Stones - 19th Nervous Breakdown, 3 wks
Barry Ryan - Eloise, 1-2 wks

Fascinating stuff. A big thank you to Alan Smith for all his incredible research !!

Hmmm… I wonder what the 70s would look like in a similar comparison…
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby Graham76man » Tue May 10, 2016 11:56 pm

You can't judge chart(s) on it's number one records. If 67% of the charts had the same number ones, it could mean that 67% of them had the wrong number one each week, due to them all using the same set of shops to supply information. During the 60's not one of the charts actually had information from one of the biggest names Woolworth's. After 1965 that was using the same records as every other shop. If it's total braches had a number one record that was different to the 67% then you can bet that the number one was wrong. It would be like compiling a sales chart today, without including iTunes!

I don't doubt that some of the main number ones were correct. Since they were probably selling vast numbers. But it's the records that tend to spend one or two weeks at the top you have to watch out for. They were clearly not selling huge amounts. That's when differences in sales level kick in. And records in most charts lower than the recorded number one, have actually sold more, even ignoring the Woolworth effect.
What you really need to do is look at the whole chart. Taking into account record release days and how high they get in the chart. At that time records were released Friday, but charts should have run Monday to Saturday (no shops opened Sunday). So a brand new release should only get two days of sales. So with the exception of really big names acts, records should start low in the chart and shoot up it. However the new release information is not that good for the period in question, historical speaking. But I have recently been looking at the January 1965 charts and I think they are generally a bit fast, compared with new release information that I have. I think the worst offender would be the NME chart, which is probably regarded as the most accurate of the charts at that time.
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Sat May 28, 2016 8:42 pm

I forgot to mention above, I was not comparing the #1 records on all charts each week, but whether they achieved #1 on any chart for any week.

Thanks for your input Graham, some good info there.

I had asked Alan Smith a few questions about record shops, and he replied back that based on his research, (1) record shops only reported their weekly charts back to one music paper, and (2) all music papers sampled a mix of large, medium, and small record shops, to get a more balanced cross sectional sample.

It’s a given that no 50s / 60s chart can be considered truly historically accurate without Woolworths, and without actual weekly sales, thus we’re left to ponder which of the available charts gives us the best guess of history. That’s all we’ve got until something better is discovered.

Certainly Record Retailer differed from the other charts due to gathering & compiling of data on different days of the week (i.e. 1 less day to include new debut records), and the low number of record shops sampled. Both points could have contributed to the low number of records debuting at #1 on Record Retailer vs. the other charts. Plus, NME and Disc accepted advance order sales in compiling their weekly charts whereas Record Retailer and Melody Maker did not. [Acknowledging again Alan Smith's excellent research!]

But since I have too much extra time on my hands, I like to ponder the 50s / 60s charts. Which is the best for historical purposes? Or, which is the best over a particular partial time period? Or, how could a new composite chart be constructed to better reflect history? I’ve got 10 or so multiple ideas floating around in my head, one day I’ll post them [he threatened], ha…

I'll volunteer one idea now. I have read a speculation that perhaps one reason the Official Charts Co chose Record Retailer to reflect the 60s is because they may have wanted to maintain a continuity backwards from Feb 1969. I’m not sure that’s a good reason, but a better approach would have been to use the BBC charts for the top chart positions, and fill out the bottom positions with Record Retailer. That would have given both more consensus and continuity…
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby Graham76man » Sun May 29, 2016 1:05 am

We know precisely why the OCC charts used the Record Retailer chart. It was entirely down to Mike Read, Jo and Tim Rice and Paul Gambaccini, when they published the very first British Hit Singles Book in 1977. At that time the BMRB chart was only a top 50, so in order to have the biggest chart, and continue the top 50 back in time, it had to be the Record Retailer chart. Though Melody Maker did run a top 50 for a time, it was cut back around 1967 to a top thirty, due to a hyping scandal. The NME was a top thirty, plus may have been tricky for the to use, in terms of copyright. In a later edition they had to defend the choice of R.R. By the time the "official charts" got off the ground, that book was the bible of the industry so it was too late to change it, even if they wanted, which I doubt they would have. Plus the fact that Record Retailer became Music Week, so it was a done deal sort of.
It should also be pointed out that authors of the Hit Singles all worked (or worked) for the BBC, part of the body that funded the charts. Which I think was a factor when the first book was compiled.
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:19 pm

Question for all the chart historians out there:

What year did the Official UK Charts Co / OCC (previously known as the Chart Information Network / CIN) declare its canon of pre-Feb 1969 charts? I.e., that NME would be "official" for the 50s, and Record Retailer would be "official" for the 60s? Of course, the Guinness books came out with their "choice" in the mid-70s, but what year did the CIN/OCC declare it to be their "official" canon?

Cheers n chips...
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby winston68 » Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:49 pm

1977, if I'm not wrong...
winston68
Groupie
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:43 pm

winston68 wrote:1977, if I'm not wrong...
Thanks, but I doubt 1977 is the right year. The first Guinness UK singles chart book was published in 1977, but as far as I've read and researched, they did not declare themselves as being "official". They probably wanted to be seen as "official", and no doubt everyone who bought their books over the years probably assumed them as "official". But their main interest was in getting a book out to the masses for profit. I seriously doubt they did any in depth research in determining which of the 50s and 60s charts were the most accurate and representative, as did our resident chart expert/guru Alan Smith, spending YEARS doing it. I think Alan's first report on this may have appeared in Record Collector magazine in 2005 (at least that's when it was first posted here at UKMix), and he has since revised it several times over the years with new information, most recently in 2014.

BUT the OCC apparently made their own separate declaration sometime later for NME as "official" for the 50s, and Record Retailer as "official" for the 60s.

The caretaker's of the "official" charts have evolved over time since Feb 1969, per Wiki:

(1) 1969-1983: Record Retailer & the BBC; compiled by the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB)

(2) 1983-1990: the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), Music Week (previously Record Retailer), and the BBC; compiled by Gallup

(3) July 1990: the Chart Information Network (CIN) which was formed by Spotlight Publications (publisher of Music Week), in cooperation with the BBC, the British Assoc of Record Dealers (BARD), and in Sept the BPI; still compiled by Gallup

(4) Jan 1991: the CIN became a joint venture between Link House Magazines (formerly Spotlight Publications) and the BPI; still compiled by Gallup, then in Feb 1994 compiled by Millward Brown

(4) Feb 1997: CIN & BARD

(5) July 1998: Music Industry Chart Services (MICS), which was BARD & BPI; in August they changed their name back to CIN

(6) Nov 2001, CIN changed its name to “The Official UK Charts Co” (OCC)

(7) Today, the OCC is operated jointly by BPI & the Entertainment Retailers Assoc (ERA) (formerly BARD), data still compiled by Millward Brown

So, at what point in time did NME/RR get recognized as “official” for the 50s/60s by CIN/OCC? It's looking like sometime between 1990 and 2001...
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby kingofskiffle » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:29 am

I think 1976 is the right date for it to begin to be considered and then more formally by a process of osmosis almost.

The Introduction to the 1977 first edition of British Hit Singles (I picked up a copy on eBay last year) states that they used NME and it's because they where first. The intro then fudges a little and states they used Music Week from 1960 onwards. "The NME are still publishing a singles chart every week (...) and its accuracy should not be questioned; but this volume abandons the NME listings on 10/3/60 when Record Retailer (now Music Week) began publishing a Top 50 every week. ... The Music Week chart is now intact the British Market Research Bureau Chart for it is this august body which compiles the Top 50 each week for both Music Week and the BBC."

My reading of that, open to interpretation, is that is implies that Music Week created the official chart. We know that isn't the case, but read back what I quoted and that could be the meaning behind what they have written.

British Hit Singles sold millions. Each new edition solidified what everybody believed to be the official charts. You read the official books and "From Me To You" was the first Beatles Number One. So it must be true as it was in the book. The official book. Look, Guinness who do the World Records made it so it must be true. And I can see that as being how people must have viewed it, at least among the general public.

I would agree that the official date of acceptance by the industry is probably around November 2001 when the Official Charts Company was born and they started looking at what was official and trying to sort out the chart data they had. But the true date is 1976 when British Hit Singles began and they made the decision, followed by the huge sales of the book and subsequent follow up volumes.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 5974
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Graham76man » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:47 pm

If you check back at your Record Mirror's as I just have, you will see that the Gallup Charts for 1989 certainly have the words "Official National Charts" on the chart page. And I have found the word Official on charts for 1984. Perhaps it was when Gallup took over the charts that they became the "Official" charts.
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:06 pm

kingofskiffle wrote:I think 1976 is the right date for it to begin to be considered and then more formally by a process of osmosis almost.

The Introduction to the 1977 first edition of British Hit Singles (I picked up a copy on eBay last year) states that they used NME and it's because they where first. The intro then fudges a little and states they used Music Week from 1960 onwards. "The NME are still publishing a singles chart every week (...) and its accuracy should not be questioned; but this volume abandons the NME listings on 10/3/60 when Record Retailer (now Music Week) began publishing a Top 50 every week. ... The Music Week chart is now intact the British Market Research Bureau Chart for it is this august body which compiles the Top 50 each week for both Music Week and the BBC."

My reading of that, open to interpretation, is that is implies that Music Week created the official chart. We know that isn't the case, but read back what I quoted and that could be the meaning behind what they have written.

British Hit Singles sold millions. Each new edition solidified what everybody believed to be the official charts. You read the official books and "From Me To You" was the first Beatles Number One. So it must be true as it was in the book. The official book. Look, Guinness who do the World Records made it so it must be true. And I can see that as being how people must have viewed it, at least among the general public.

I would agree that the official date of acceptance by the industry is probably around November 2001 when the Official Charts Company was born and they started looking at what was official and trying to sort out the chart data they had. But the true date is 1976 when British Hit Singles began and they made the decision, followed by the huge sales of the book and subsequent follow up volumes.
Thanks KingOfSkiffle, I agree with everything you say. Though what I’m specifically trying to find out is, when were NME & Record Retailer first proclaimed as “official” or “canon” for the 50s & 60s, by the chart owners of what would end up being called “the official charts”? In print, magazine, book, website, whatever. Not when did Brits or “the industry” generally feel or accept that this happened, but rather when was this “declared” by the chart owners?

CIN could have done it in several different years, 1990, 1991, 1997, or 1998. Perhaps the OCC did it when they changed their name from CIN in 2001. Maybe the pre-CIN owners did it when Gallup took over the compiling in 1983. Like you, I don’t believe Guinness ever claimed their choices for the pre-Feb 1969 charts were “official”, they only explained which charts they were using for their books…

There had to have been a specific point in time where this was “officially” declared by the chart owners, that’s what I’m after.

Cheers n crisps!
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:28 pm

Graham76man wrote:If you check back at your Record Mirror's as I just have, you will see that the Gallup Charts for 1989 certainly have the words "Official National Charts" on the chart page. And I have found the word Official on charts for 1984. Perhaps it was when Gallup took over the charts that they became the "Official" charts.
Graham, excellent point! I wasn’t looking for that, but that is also good to know.

So now I have 2 questions:

1--When were NME and Record Retailer first proclaimed as “official” or “canon” for the 50s & 60s, by the chart owners of what would end up being called “the official charts”? (Did it happen before or after the OCC website was created with historical charts?) (Was there a CIN website with historical charts before they changed their name to OCC?)

2--When did the NEW national sales based charts going forward after Feb 1969 (as carried by Record Retailer/Music Week, Record Mirror, and the BBC) first get proclaimed as “official” by their chart owners? Could it have been as Graham points out, when Gallup took over compiling the charts in 1983? Could Record Retailer/Music Week and Record Mirror have also made this declaration right there on their charts in 1969, 1972, or later up to 1983? Need some volunteers to check more charts (which I don’t have…).

I did check Music Week for 6 Aug 1988, and 7 Feb 1981, don’t see any mention of “official” anywhere…

Newsflash: I see the AmericanRadioHistory.com site now has a lot of Record Mirror issues up, 70 issues of the 60s, 35 issues of the early 70s, all issues 1974-1978 and 1980. Kool! I looked up several, no mention of “official” charts anywhere though, maybe Graham is right, it may have started with Gallup in 1983. It would be funny if Record Mirror claimed in print each week that the charts were "official" but Music Week did not:

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Record_Mirror.htm

Cheers n chips!
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby Graham76man » Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:08 pm

Robin I think you should put the Record Mirror archive up as a thread on it's own.
Such a brilliant discovery.
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:23 pm

Graham76man wrote:Robin I think you should put the Record Mirror archive up as a thread on it's own.
Such a brilliant discovery.
Good idea, will do...
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby Gambo » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm

Intriguing question for chart historians. We're all so accustomed to the Guinness effect that rightly or wrongly became the determining factor over time as to which charts pre-1969 should be regarded as retrospectively 'official'. But that was a by-product of the book's authors' 1977 decision that became embedded in subsequent decades owing to the popularity of the series, which for most of us was the sole source of British chart performance prior to substantiation of a good repository of open-source information on the internet.

The first time I recall the 1950s NME and 1960s RR eras being presented very unequivocally as part of the 'official' canon of chart history was in November 2002 when the OCC unveiled its 'all-time' singles chart to commemorate the so-called official chart's 50th anniversary. That was a real push from the OCC that clearly wanted to conveniently present those charts as the official ones of record for that messy pre-1969 pop era. And naturally that's been more embedded by the enhancement of both the OCC website, and the raised public awareness of that body as "the keeper of our charts".

The OCC logo appeared on Martin Roach's book to compliment the 50 years, and I note it also appeared on the rear of the second edition of the (I think superior) 'Complete Book Of The British Charts' in 2004 - it wasn't on the first edition and hadn't appeared on any pre-2000s editions of BHS.

I guess it really depends on when the OCC acquired the actual RR and NME charts - or at least the legal rights to include them alongside their own data and that sourced from BMRB and Gallup for the 1969-'94 period of official charts as broadcast by the BBC. But the surreptitious incorporation of these charts as officially to be recognised as 'official' seems to have kicked-in in the early '00s - around the time the company rebranded from 'Official UK Charts Company' to just the plain old 'Official Charts Company' (October 2001).

Otherwise, I suppose it could have been effected as part of the deal that created OCC's forerunner CIN in July 1990, but media during the '90s - mostly physical of course - didn't seem to reflect this retrospective 'officialdom' when citing older historical chart information.
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby RokinRobinOfLocksley » Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:06 am

OK, I’ve been digging around trying to find out when the pre-Feb 1969 charts were first declared as being “official”, and by whom. Found some very interesting things, including different authors/companies/entities declaring different sets of “official” charts, while some did not declare any but just explained which charts they were using for their books/website. Plus the company that is now the Official Charts Co apparently took their time before declaring what they considered as being “official” before Feb 1969. I looked at various chart book webpages, my own purchased chart books, and the OCC site. A lot of you probably know about most of this stuff already, but I learned quite a few new things.

First, here’s a great resource webpage on UK chart books, with in depth descriptions on 19 books/series, and a huge index at the end. “British Chart Books Classified BDC 2005 Draft Version” by Tobias Zywietz:

http://www.zobbel.de/bdc/BDC1.pdf

So here’s what I’ve discovered so far:

[1] -- the “Rock File” series of books, Vols 1-5, published from 1972 to 1978

Found the following info on the internet. Rock File 1 (1972) used the NME charts 1955-58, Record Mirror 1958-62, and Record Retailer 1962-69. So they differed from the “official” charts by NOT using NME 1952-54, 1959 to March 60, and Record Retailer March 1960 to 1962. I saw no references made to “official” charts on the front covers of Vols 1-4, don’t know if they did so inside the books.

When Rock File 5 came out in 1978, there emblazoned on the front cover it reads: “chart log 1967-1977, British Top Thirty Singles, British Top Ten LPs, based on the official BBC/Music Week chart”. What does this mean? There was no “official” chart 1967 to Feb 1969, is Rock File attempting to proclaim something here? Was something being proclaimed by the book authors Fowler/Fowler/Nugent/Gillett/Frith, or by the BBC/Music Week in granting permission for the authors to use the data?

[2] -- the Tony Jasper books series:

(2-A) “British Record Charts”, 3 editions 1976 to 1979

The 1st edition (1976) cover reads “20 Years of British Record Charts 1955-1975”, the back cover reads “this book gives the charts which are covered round the world by Billboard and broadcast by the BBC”. The 2nd edition (1978) “British Record Charts 1955-1978” cover reads “published in association with Music Week”, the back cover reads “the charts featured are those which are published by the prestigious Music Week magazine, reproduced in Billboard, Record Mirror and Sounds, and broadcast by the BBC since 1969”. The 3rd edition (1979) “British Record Charts 1955-1979” cover reads “published in association with Music Week”, couldn’t find the back cover.

For these 3 editions, just going by internet cover scans, I haven’t found “official” mentioned anywhere, though I haven’t yet found scanned introduction pages. For this 3 edition series and the follow-up 6 edition series, the Zobbel link above states that “The charts are taken, unlike Guinness’ tradition, from one consistent source, Record Mirror, although Record Mirror itself took their charts from Record Retailer and Music Week at a later stage.”

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

(2-B) Tony Jasper “The Top Twenty Book, The Official British Record Charts”, 6 editions 1983 to 1994

The cover for edition 1 (1983) reads “the official British record charts 1955-1982, published in association with Music & Video Week, as used by BBC Radio 1 and Top of the Pops”. Back cover “For the first time in one book the British Singles charts… The charts used are those published by Music & Video Week, reproduced in Billboard, and Record Mirror and broadcast by the BBC on Radio 1 as Britain’s Official Charts and as used for Top of the Pops and all other programmes… For nostalgia, for reference, for surprises, this is the official guide, beware of imitations!”

A lot of misinformation in the above paragraph, absolutely not true for prior to Feb 1969.

The introduction pages read, “Various music chart information has appeared over the years. However, this volume (as opposed to, say, the Guinness Book of Hit Singles) has a consistent ‘take’ from a common copyright source - the Record Mirror. This musical paper has printed the accepted major chart, that of the music industry and the one utilized by the BBC for Radio One and Top of the Pops since 1968 [should be Feb 1969], with the publishing rights resting with Music and Video Week, and radio rights with the BBC. Thus there are some differences in data here and in the Guinness Book as it affects some of the very early years.”

The covers for editions 2 thru 6 (1984-1994) mention pretty much the same thing as edition 1, “the Official British Record Charts”, in association with either Music Week or Music Week & Charts Information Network, with edition 2 also stating “as used by BBC Radio 1 and Top of the Pops”. Haven’t found scanned introduction pages for editions 2 thru 6, but would assume similar to 1.

Here’s the kicker: Record Mirror charts are used for 1955-62, then Record Retailer 1962-69, then BMRB/Gallup/CIN/”official”. No NME charts at all, and no Record Retailer charts 1960-March 1962.

Apparently we have a battle of the “official” charts going on, starting in 1983? So who is proclaiming this Record Mirror set up as “official”? Tony Jasper, Music Week, or Record Mirror? Did Music Week deny its own Record Retailer historical charts for 1960-March 1962? Is Tony battling the Guinness authors? Or is Record Mirror battling Record Retailer/Music Week?

[3] -- Record Hits, The British Top 50 Charts by Clive Solomon

Edition 1 1954-1976 (pub 1977)
Edition 2 1954-1977 (pub 1979)

The first UK chart book I ever bought, saw an ad in Billboard, used it as a springboard to buy-buy-buy all those UK records from my pre-teen years in the 60s in England. No “official” chart proclamations, only mentions the charts being used:

NME 1954-55, Record Mirror 1956 to Mar 1962, Record Retailer/Music Week Mar 1962 to 1976
[edit: have subsequently found occasional 1956-59 data is from NME, occasional 1960 data is from Record Retailer, and 1961 data is a random mix of half Record Mirror / half Record Retailer]

BUT the #1’s in the back are different:

NME 1955-58, Record Mirror 1959 to Mar 1962, Record Retailer/Music Week Mar 1962 to 1975

So a bit schizophrenic there, but I’m thankful for this book…

[4] The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles, 19 editions from 1977 to 2006

I have only 4 Guinness chart books. I poured over them trying to find an indication that they were based on the “official” charts, I could find none. The closest thing was one of the books mentioned the word “definitive”, but that was in reference to the book itself, not the charts they were using. In all books, they simply listed the charts they are using. “For the purposes of this book, the following charts were used.” And that’s it. No “official” anything. I went to the internet and looked up covers for all the other Guinness books, not a one of them had “official” written anywhere on the cover. Did some editions proclaim “officialness” somewhere?

[5] “Pop Quiz” BBC TV show

I contacted our incredible chart expert/guru/friend Alan Smith, asked him if he knew when the pre-Feb 1969 charts were first declared as “official”. He remembered the BBC TV show “Pop Quiz”, which first ran from 1981-84. Host was Mike Read, who was also a co-author of the Guinness chart books up thru the 5th edition (1985). Mike asked a question on one of the shows, what was The Beatles 1st #1? The contestant said “Please Please Me”. Mike said no, that was wrong, that “From Me To You” was their 1st “official” #1. Alan says Dave Dee lambasted Mike over this (was it on live TV?), and viewer feedback to Points Of View likewise slated “Pop Quiz” over this. And the game was afoot. Alan further elaborates that in Feb 1969 the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) gave support to the BMRB new national sales based charts, but not all sections of the trade industry did. Many record selling establishments still used the NME and Melody Maker charts/statistics for years up until the mid 1980s. In Alan’s opinion, there is no exact date for the pre-Feb 1969 charts being termed “official” unless you want to accept Mike Read’s opinion, and Alan doesn’t. Thanks Alan! Which brings up the question, since the Guinness books had not declared the charts that they were using were “official”, was Mike Read going by his own personal opinion?

[6] Just to repeat a tidbit from an earlier post above:

It could be that the first declaration of the “official” charts going forward AFTER Feb 1969 was when Gallup took over the compiling in 1983. Record Mirror might have begun claiming their charts were “official” starting then (need more evidence), but at the same time the Record Retailer/Music Week charts may not have claimed their charts as “official” then (need more evidence). (For the young or uninitiated, Record Mirror and Record Retailer/Music week were both carrying the same charts from Feb 1969, as also broadcasted over the BBC.) But still no indication of when pre-Feb 1969 charts were declared as “official”.

[7] The Official UK Charts website

I was poking around this week on the OCC website, but on the Wayback Machine instead. For the uninitiated, the Wayback Machine has saved copies of old websites that are now defunct. You can go back in time and see what a particular website looked like on a specific date, and you can roll thru the dates and see how a site has changed over the years. For the OCC site, it has been saved 1165 times from 2001 to 2018. So I took a look at what was on the earliest OCC site version, and when they started adding stuff.

Here’s a link to the Wayback Machine site: https://archive.org/web/

[Go there, and type in any website you’re looking for. For example, I tried to find the Tiscali ‘by artist’ spreadsheet for charted records across all the UK charts that was once up, it disappeared maybe 2 years ago. I did find it on the Wayback Machine, but it only had the ‘A’ artists. There had been separate tabs for each letter A-Z. Did the other tabs get saved as well, I haven’t found them yet? So there might be other long lost chart websites still on the Wayback Machine. I recall ‘dotmusic’ being a popular site for some of us, and maybe ‘polyhex’. But I digress…]

So, the earliest OCC 2001 website save shows nothing but a posting “website under construction”. So I jumped ahead thru the years, and noted that different things were added slowly, it wasn’t a finished product on a given date. Things that appeared over time included the list of #1 songs, then there was a blurb about the history of the UK charts which seemed to be a copy from the Guinness books; i.e., at first the OCC site was not claiming which charts were “official” pre-Feb 1969, but was just explaining which charts were being used. Then I looked at when the site started carrying historical charts. At first, they only had charts going back about 5 years, then they slowly added more. Eventually they got the charts as far back as the start of Record Retailer March 1960, then “official” icons started appearing. Eventually they got the NME singles charts up and going back to 1952. I can’t tell you yet when the “official” status was declared for the pre-Feb 1969 charts on the OCC website, I’ll keep digging at it, but it looks to me that it’s going to be years after 2001.

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

So in summary, regarding “official” historical charts before Feb 1969, we have:

--the Rock File books (begun 1972) did not claim to be using “official” charts, they simply used NME 1955-58, Record Mirror 1958-62, and Record Retailer 1962-69. But book 5 (1978) seemed to be hinting at something…

--the Tony Jasper books (begun 1976) WERE seemingly declaring “official” historical charts, as early as 1983, BUT their choice was the charts that were carried in Record Mirror = Record Mirror 1955-62 and Record Retailer 1962-69; thus no NME, and no Record Retailer 1960-62. This is NOT in line with what has become the OCC version, NME 1952-60 and Record Retailer 1960-69. So a battle was brewing on 2 different possible set ups…

--the Record Hits books (begun June 1977) did not claim they were using “official” charts, but they had yet another different formula: NME 1954-55, Record Mirror 1956-62, Record Retailer 1962-69…

--the Guinness books (begun Nov 1977) did not declare their source charts as “official”, but rather just included a simple blurb “this is what we’re using for our books”, NME 1952-60 and Record Retailer 1960-69. The osmosis implication may have been that they were “official”, but they never said that, as far as I’ve been able to tell.

--the Official UK Charts website apparently did not declare “official” historical charts for NME 1952-60 and Record Retailer 1960-69 until a few years AFTER 2001 !!!

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

So that’s the deal so far. I’ll keep digging on the OCC site and see what pops up. If anyone has any thoughts, theories, or facts, please post away…
Last edited by RokinRobinOfLocksley on Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RokinRobinOfLocksley
Groupie
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA

Postby fiesta » Sun Jul 15, 2018 11:32 am

Looking at the Record Mirror Archive from the link above, I noticed issue December 29th 1978 it carries the top 50 singles of the year and states at the bottom of the page it is NOT based on sales but a points system for peak position and weeks on chart. So the BMRB year-end charts are not based on sales after all!
fiesta
Roadie
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004

Return to Chart Analysis