I prefer them presented in the order they were on the chart they are reprinting.Robbie wrote:I've purchased both the 1950s and Record Mirror chart books and think both are excellent. Both are very well laid out, very detailed and both are very informative. The only reservation I have (there always has to be one!) is in the layout in the way the Record Mirror charts are presented, and this one is very much down to personal preference. I prefer to see the numbering of each chart laid out in a "this week", "last week" "weeks on chart" order as opposed to the reverse numbering order that has been used. However many chart books have adopted the order that the charts are presented in the RM Chart Book, including the Guinness Book Of Top 40 Charts book I have from the 1990s. It's only a minor thing though and it doesn't in itself detract from the excellence of the book.
I'm updating the Record Mirror book to include Peak, Weeks and Total Hits for the Artist at the right of their name. This is the best way to answer your query. I could include another column easily enough showing the total weeks for the entry only on the initial run but then it becomes messy. I remember well the issues over the first Virgin Book Of British Hit Singles and don't want anything like that!Gambo wrote:I am inclined to agree that a total week figure is useful, but if for any reason that isn't workable, it's far more important that the individual re-entries policy be maintained, as although it can be a fiddle to tally-up all the weeks oneself, better that than just having the total only and no indication of when those weeks actually were beyond the initial entry week.
I am more and more included to include only the Top 100 and it won't be as bad as you may think. Either way I'll do some tests and look at the layout. I think it's helped by the policy of removing entries and staring out entries so RE became not so big a thing until downloads. The worst is Albums where a 12 week chart run can be 11 re-entries....To follow this approach with albums in particular is no mean feat and will extend the works considerably, but it would be a next-to-unique resource once completed. It'll become more challenging in the latter stages - 2010s too if the Top 100 is adhered-to, as owing to trickle-selling on download and the long tapering tail of streaming popularity, numerous tracks now yo-yo up and down the chart, including above and below that threshold, so the no of re-entries to the top ton will be manifold in some cases. But if you adopt the 200, that would be less of an issue.
I know exactly what you mean. By adopting publication date I can be consistent across the various charts in the 50's and 60's. and I agree about including 2nd Jan....I bought the introductory 1950s volume and it is superb. There's nothing substantive I'd change really if it were me compiling this. I have a few minor comments, but they're nothing to get in a twist about in the scheme of this whole project - 1) I'm vaguely missing the nationality/nationalities of the acts listed as per the chart tomes of old; 2) it'd be useful for consistency's sake if the Saturday ending the week in which the chart was published be used rather than the elected magazine issue date (we know the first NME chart was based on sales reported from stores Monday 3rd - Saturday 8th November 1952 which gives a 'chart use' week-ending date of Saturday 15th November rather than Friday 14th); 3) as we customarily recognise the 'use' rather 'survey' week for the UK charts, in order for the full decade to be properly-covered, shouldn't we consider the final full survey week of that period to be included as part of that, even if the use week-ending date is into the next decade (e.g. the final survey week of the 1950s if we take that to be 1950 to '59 was Monday 21st to Saturday 26th December 1959, which resulted in the chart used week-ending Saturday 2nd January 1960 - or Friday 1st if one sticks to the NME issue date - so to my mind that chart should be part of the 1950s not '60s era - sorry this is really geeky stuff and too late anyway as you've settled on the use W/E date as the means of determining which decade a chart falls into, but still something worth considering if only to see if other geeky people agree ).
Thank you so much for your kind words. I am hopeful of finishing at least singles by the end of 2019. I've nearly finished the 1960's book in terms of data preparation and then I just need to verify the breakers from the original scans.Otherwise, bloody marvellous and roll-on the end of the decade (which I am taking as December 2020!) as by then we'll have complete KOS collections of unique chart reference books.
Cheers Lonnie! As I said, the presentation of the charts is pretty much a matter of personal preference - and I'd forgotten that Top 40 charts had the weeks on chart to the right of the page. For some reason I'd thought they also had put the W.O.C. to the left. But yes, it makes for easier reading to put the current chart position as the last column. I think I just prefer them in the order I mentioned as that was how I saw them when I first bought Record Mirror back in early 1974! By the end of the same year Record Mirror had dropped the weeks on chart column and it didn't return until 1981.kingofskiffle wrote:It's interesting as different magazines had different ways of producing the charts. NME, Record Mirror and Disc went for
Lwk Twk Title Artist (Label)
Although Disc sorted in columns while NME and Record Mirror used two lines and placed the label and artist to the right as one line.
Melody Maker changed how they displayed from initially
Twk Lwk Title Artist Label
to the way of the others.
It's difficult to present the charts in the right way as nobody will be completely happy. I wanted to issue them in a way which was consistent but also allowed ease of reading. Placing the Twk right next to the title allows for a very easy way of seeing he current position.
Top 40 Charts for example pushes the week column to the far right and I think that hen gets lost as it's difficult to read across and find the right entry.
I've got an update coming for the Record Mirror book which partially addresses the concern of one person over re-entries. I'll share a screen shot when it's finished. All those who have bought will receive this newer version for free.
If there is a mistake - I fix it.Chartaholic wrote:Got the updated Redord Mirror book!
It's stuff like these updates that make the £10 price tag, well worth it.
Even for us with lousy exchange rates
I'm glad to report the Tiscali site home page links are now working again, all of them EXCEPT the page/spreadsheet for 'every hit between 1949 and 1979 BY ARTIST', which of course is the main thing about this site. But since the page/spreadsheet 'by song' is working, you can copy that to Excel, and then sort it by artist. Except that the sorting by artist goes with the artist's first name, and the songs under each artist would show up not by date but rather alphabetical by title. Of course you could do a double sort by date, but the date formats are in day-month-year instead of year-month-day, so you'd have to do some more monkeying around in Excel to fix all that. Which could be done somehow I'm sure...RokinRobinOfLocksley wrote:P.S. It looks like the Tiscali site is gone. The home page is there, but none of the links to the charts and artists are working, ugh...
Not unemployed. Still working hard. My wife asked me why I spend time with the charts. And after a while, as I explained, she said. "well, you're very detailed. Why don't you make a book and sell it?" And she is right. Why don't I? So I did. I want more people to know about it so spread the word if you like. But I'm still happily employed as a teacher of maths.Gambo wrote:Lonnie just a belated "thank you" for addressing each of my qualms (I'd call them that rather than "criticisms" as they were minor in the scheme of this work) I'd raised earlier in such depth; I wasn't expecting it but it's good to know you understand what I was getting at and can consider working some of that in to future works. My words were kind but genuinely-intended - I don't compliment people unless I believe they truly deserve it and this is one such merited case. Keep it up - I'm just starting to worry that you've been the victim of a job-loss or something, as you suddenly seemed to go from being quite quiet and presumably busy with the day job to being all over a massive project to produce the most detailed and correct UK chart resources we've seen! I do hope that the additional time on your hands was not born of anything unfortunate.
I had intended to do something like that, but it is currently 177 pages. The Record Mirror book is 128 pages including the charts and so I felt that it was to large a volume to do that in. I may well do a volume of the charts at some stage, but I felt that to do them properly would be too large a volume.RokinRobinOfLocksley wrote:KoS, you had previously posted (several times) that your Disc book would include full singles and album charts, but it looks like they aren't included here in this first edition, going by the description and sample pages. Is this correct? And if so, do you plan to eventually include them later in some of your other books? Cheers...
What is the concern/issue with size? 177 pages isn't really that big. It's not even half the size of a current novel.kingofskiffle wrote:I had intended to do something like that, but it is currently 177 pages. The Record Mirror book is 128 pages including the charts and so I felt that it was to large a volume to do that in. I may well do a volume of the charts at some stage, but I felt that to do them properly would be too large a volume.RokinRobinOfLocksley wrote:KoS, you had previously posted (several times) that your Disc book would include full singles and album charts, but it looks like they aren't included here in this first edition, going by the description and sample pages. Is this correct? And if so, do you plan to eventually include them later in some of your other books? Cheers...
My question wasn't meant as an attack. It was pure curiosity.kingofskiffle wrote:I'm still learning what is and is not acceptable in terms of size of book and what people want. Hence the decision. I was quite clear (I hope) o the website advert for what people were buying and it doesn't star on the finished book that they are included.
Oh no, I never thought it was. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't accidentally promised something I didn't give....Chartaholic wrote:My question wasn't meant as an attack. It was pure curiosity.kingofskiffle wrote:I'm still learning what is and is not acceptable in terms of size of book and what people want. Hence the decision. I was quite clear (I hope) o the website advert for what people were buying and it doesn't star on the finished book that they are included.
For me you were clear that it just contained song and album list and various trivia.
Would having the weekly charts make you buy the book? I put something together last night that included them which makes a 269 page book. 7.5MB file though. Dropbox link below.Chartaholic wrote:My question wasn't meant as an attack. It was pure curiosity.kingofskiffle wrote:I'm still learning what is and is not acceptable in terms of size of book and what people want. Hence the decision. I was quite clear (I hope) o the website advert for what people were buying and it doesn't star on the finished book that they are included.
For me you were clear that it just contained song and album list and various trivia.
Actually no - add the points in this way and then sort smallest to largest. I have this information from the compiler of the BBC Chart document supplied (Whose name escapes me right now.....) But I do agree with you as that would be a better method.MyFriendJack wrote:That looks really good! Presumably where you say that 1 point was allocated to the No 1 and 2 points to the No 2, etc, you mean 20 points to the No 1, 19 points to No 2, etc?