Blogger.com: Real Life And Real Charts

Moderators: trebor, nympho, kingofskiffle

 

Postby Blondini » Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:29 am

DO NOT READ THIS THREAD. YOU WILL ONLY GET ANNOYED.

Some of you may have seen a user on here and on James Masterton's Chart Commentary mentioning a "real" UK chart that supposedly represents actual sales as opposed to the Official Chart that is "hyped/ fixed". Graham76man is the user. Well, he's started publishing this chart on a blog - he claims this week that The Saturdays are #1 and were only #3 officially due to "what iTunes wanted to have top".

Now, people on Yahoo's Masterton page have been ignoring him for months but i'm curious. The disclaimer on his blog is very foggy in clear detail as to what the source and foundation of his claim is. Is it really as easy to hype/ fix records in the download age as it was with physicals?

Should we disregard all official charts since 1952 - as he thinks we should? Are we being spoonfed a giant lie every single week?

Graham's blog

The intention is to publish weekly the UK Top 100 Singles. As soon as I can figure out how to transfer the information from Pressworks DTP to this blog site.
These charts are based on ALL sales of records in the UK. The Real Chart has no connection with the music industry or any of the charts of the Official Charts Company, nor of any chart used on TV or Radio Stations. It is not connected in any way to Real Radio etc.
However it is 100% accurate unlike the above.
I do not control the charts. I only report them to you. I have been granted the sole rights to publish these charts on this blog. However mistakes such as spelling etc are entirely my fault, and not the fault of well they like to be called the "compilers".
I have full charts from 1990 and charts from other years, which I hope to post at some stage. I also have the first ever UK sales chart, which dates from January 1948, but more on this and the charts in future updates.
In the meantime you can listen to the top 40 on We7 by clicking the link above. I update them every Sunday before 4pm.
Posted by graham.appleyard at 09:19
Last edited by Blondini on Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 55088
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby LostAvenger » Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:38 am

It sounds like this was made by a pressed Saturdays fan if you ask me. :lol:

The whole presentation feels too "Kathy Bates in 'Misery' style". :o
User avatar
LostAvenger
Legend
 
Posts: 25826
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004
Location: Long Island City/Queensbridge, New York

Postby zeus555 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:32 am

It would help if Graham explained where the
'Sales Data' comes from, for 'his' Charts.

Knowing that would reveal how 'Real' they really
are!

Zeus555
zeus555
Superstar
 
Posts: 5464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005

Postby Thriller » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:00 pm

Don't believe it until he can prove his source.
User avatar
Thriller
Moderator
 
Posts: 73779
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003
Location: UK

Postby irishguy28 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:09 pm

This is clearly some fan who's compiling his own chart. If the OCC can't even cover the entire singles market, then why would some random blogger have access to 100% accurate sales data for this week, let alone stretching back to 1948?

I'd prefer if these spurious charts were ignored, because interesting as they may be as oddities, they are not the chart of record, and one chart is really enough.
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Robbie » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:38 pm

irishguy28 wrote:This is clearly some fan who's compiling his own chart. If the OCC can't even cover the entire singles market, then why would some random blogger have access to 100% accurate sales data for this week, let alone stretching back to 1948?

I'd prefer if these spurious charts were ignored, because interesting as they may be as oddities, they are not the chart of record, and one chart is really enough.
I agree.

If the poster has information that can disprove the official charts (a highly unlikely scenario) then he should explain a bit more what it is he has and how he has this info.

No chart from the 50s to the mid 90s was 100% accurate but since the mid 90s the CIN/OCC chart is as accurate as a chart could ever be.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby BoroButch » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:46 pm

Very interesting...

But even if it is true, it's still not the Official Chart.
User avatar
BoroButch
Manager
 
Posts: 2262
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004
Location: Strawberry Fields, forever.

Postby BoroButch » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:07 pm

Reading the "What is The Real Chart?" part. :roll:

So If I recorded a single onto a cassette and sold it to someone, 'The Compilers' would somehow know this and include it in their sales. :o
User avatar
BoroButch
Manager
 
Posts: 2262
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004
Location: Strawberry Fields, forever.

Postby MFR » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:42 pm

I agree that as Graham76man is now a UKMix member, it would be preferable for him to explain his thinking in more detail.

We know that the charts were less accurate in the past compared with the DUS era from 1997, both positionally and in their sales estimates, but I would like to know how he can know what the precise differences are, in sales terms, between the official chart and what he sees as a reality we were denied, and are apparently still being denied.
MFR
Personal Assistant
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009
Location: Sussex

Postby Graham76man » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:33 am

Where do I start? :x
First of all as you can see from my posts I am intrested in the charts. Which is more than I can say about James Masterton :lol:
No seriously why does anyone from this site read his bit when he called UKMIX an obscure forum?
That aside, I started the blog to get the information out there. All I can say is the information comes from the source mentioned on the blog.
I didn't join UKMIX to mention the Real Chart or to promote it or slagg off the OCC. As I have on the Masterton chart info site. You have to bear in mind that is a free disscussion site where anything can be posted and few rules apply, very different from this site. Nor do I intend to post things like I do on there either. For one thing I imagine it would result in a ban, or other abuse of the nature seen on Masterton's Yahoo page (not least by the man himself).
I was of course waiting for the penny to drop (in that members would mention the blog and make the connection to me) so as to make it clear my standing on this subject.
So here it is!
First I'm a nutcase :roll: :lol: Or that's what Masterton and his crew think.
Or I have picked up on what the Music Industry is!
And that is at the end of the day a profit based industry that will stop at nothing to make money.
So the OCC chart is correct from 1 to 100? Well yes it is!
But at the bottom of it's page it says compiled for the Music Industry. So for the Music Industry it's correct as they want it or can get it. And as I said they are profit based...
That's why I think the two charts are different.
For example as I posted on that Yahoo today, the Real Chart counts sales as low as 1p (even indirectly) so there's no profit in that! (No I don't know how they do it either, perhaps they read minds for all I know). But I can tell you while I have been getting the charts direct from them since 1990, I noted odd things that convinced me they are on the level. Such as the removal of 45's from the stores one week. Result a sudden sales drop (also seen on the OCC chart same week) and which I didn't see till after Sunday's chart nor found out the reason till Record Mirror came out! Then the fact downloads were appearing in the chart, before the OCC started to register them in full, plus the fact I didn't know that the records where only a download, till switchover! And bang a record enters the OCC 40 that had been on the Real Chart several weeks.
OK enough! I hope that clears it up somewhat. If you want things answering further you can post to my blog, which might be better than posting Graham's says this on UKMIX. Of course I will attemp to answer to the best of my knowledge. :o
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby jio » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:45 am

No it doesn't clear up anything. You are basically saying that you are providing charts compiled by some 'source' but you have no idea of their methodology whatsoever. You go on accusing the OCC of being a fraud and the only proof you suggest for this is that they weren't including the downloads earlier (newsflash: they weren't claiming they were including them before they actually did include them). The only point I would agree with you is that Mr. Masterton can be annoying at times but that has nothing to do with the validity of the charts he is commenting on and neither does the small vendetta you seem to have with him. Finally the words 'Compiled for the music industry' do not mean that they change the data because they have no benefit whatsoever in changing those data. Their money come from sales so if a single sells nothing, there is no money for them regardless of where it stands in the charts. You might claim that a false higher position influences people's opinions, well radio airplay influences much more and the industry has already access there so I don't see why would they manipulate further.
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby Blondini » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:50 am

I will agree that James Masterton is quite dismissive and arrogant lately - his dismissal of Pet Shop Boys fans and chart campaigns is a bit tiresome. I usually only look there to see what (wrong) chart facts he brings up before everyone corrects him! :lol:
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 55088
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby Blondini » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:09 am

I know you said go to your blog and ask, but one thing i noticed over the charts of the last few weeks you published - the top 75 is fairly close to the official chart, but below that there are all kinds of random entries by bands that sold diddly squat officially.

Do you have explanations as to why Gabby Young and Other Animals and The Last Republic charted? Two acts barely any of us will have heard of at all.
Then there's "Rumer and Denials - Slow". Now, we know of Rumer - Slow (currently Radio 2 playlisted and big on iTunes pre-orders) but what's this?

Lauren Pritchard made the top 100 even though she only grazed the iTunes top 600. Why?
I like her so i'm pleased to see this, but how can i be sure it's to be trusted?

Then you have Feeder and The Cribs doing far better on your chart - it looks like you've shoehorned in acts that you like below the top 50! There's also a Status Quo song that had a Facebook campaign behind it - that i didn't even know about and i follow the iTunes top 1000! Yet it crept in to your top 100.
Are "the industry" attempting to quash the Quo? :lol:


What's the methodology of compilation? It seems to be anti-iTunes bias and weighted in favour of physical releases/ other download sites.

Was God Save The Queen #1 on The Real Chart? :wink:
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 55088
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby LostAvenger » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:17 am

I would like to see how a chart like this would have looked between 2004-2006 as I felt that the singles chart was most inaccurate then (from not fully allowing downloads into the chart, to removing songs after they've charted for 52 weeks in the top 200, then only allowing digital-only tracks to chart a week before their physical release, to removing songs off the chart just because their physical single was deleted. :roll: ).
User avatar
LostAvenger
Legend
 
Posts: 25826
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004
Location: Long Island City/Queensbridge, New York

Postby irishguy28 » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:47 am

I wasn't aware that ANYONE still read James Masterton's ramblings. I've certainly never seen anything of his posted on here lately - but if you search for his name, you'll find some threads cataloguing his errors, which haven't been updated in years so I assumed everyone else with a brain had stopped reading him, too!

But I'm sorry Graham, I have no idea what you were trying to say a few posts above.

As you said, the chart is predominantly an industry tool, and an important "shop window" for the industry. While the average person on the street may assume that it is and always was intended as a straightforward bestsellers list, the industry never misrepresented the fact that there were exclusion rules, qualification rules, etc, which were there to both preserve the integrity of the chart (ie by eliminating suspicious sales patterns that could be an attempt to inflate a certain record's position) and to help in developing new talent (removing older lingering titles from the chart to allow room - and hence publicity - for newer acts/songs). We could debate all day and all night whether these were good or bad ideas, and it's clear that, as LostAvenger pointed out, the period 2004~2006 was perhaps a low point in that the published chart at that time had departed further from the real sales situation than it ever had before.

But that's no longer the case. The UK chart can credibly lay claim to being the most accurate chart in the world. Now, whether you disagree with the OCC excluding bulk sales (and thereby meant that your "Real" Top 100 would both welcome, and reward, organised attempts to buy a chart position) or not, or whether you think that iTunes is somehow "hyping" the chart (again, this to me seems an incredibly spurious claim. The exact sales figures are widely reported, and if iTunes wished to inflate sales for certain titles, it would further have to pay the record label and artist in question for these phantom sales out of its own pocket), and whether you think that a physical single should have the same value/weight/count as multiple downloads (I don't know if that's a point you were trying to make or not), it still doesn't explain where or how you arrive at your figures.
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Graham76man » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:33 pm

:x So many questions! :x
Let's clear one thing up there's is no grudge against Masterton. When I first told the users of Yahoo site and Masterton, his actions was to slam me down and call me names. I've never done the same to him 8-) Let's get another thing clear, the Yahoo site doesn't have members, anyone can comment and they can have a vaste range of views. But as with anyone on the internet from forums to blogs, they tend to be run or develop small followers, which tend to exclude those views outside the norm, hence my experiance of that site.
Hope that's clear!
From the time of the post it was late at night and to be honest I wasn't expecting to find anything on the site about the blog, as I was answering another post at the time. So I am sorry if some of you were confused.
I'll explain what happens each Sunday first. The compilers (for want of a better name) tell me what has dropped out of last weeks chart. You can see the red ink on old charts on the blog. Say 10 drop out. That means 10 new ones. They then tell me where each one lands. No artist or titles at this point. They then tell me where each of the old chart tracks has landed that week. Then the new hits are placed in. They never tell me the artist and title of each track. I have to build a list from a whatever source I can find. If the artist is not on the list then it will be blank (the new entry space) till I find the correct track. Before I could access the Internet it was a nightmare to find the right tracks.
Once that's done they tell me the sales of each track, which they mostly post in the round figures of thousands.
All the rest is done by me (last week, weeks, high positions and the sales totals). So any mistakes, spellings is my fault on these! Since it takes several hours (on a calculator) to add up the sales figures, I don't get round to do it till midweek.
Why are the sales high? I don't know. The compilers have given me some explantions but to be honest I don't know if I believe them or not.
Other points: the chart isn't bias to I-Tunes, for example the Hoosiers at 15 is where it was all week on I-Tunes and on OCC it's 16! The Real Chart itself sometimes has the I-Tunes top record at number 1 when the OCC doesn't!
On the Yahoo site I have said that I-Tunes has an American bias to it, just compare the USA charts it does with the UK ones. But I think this is connected with those who download from it, perhaps some site or other has the USA chart? Other then that I don't have no explanation for it and wasn't in any way connected to the Real Chart. It was just me talking about charts in general.
Your right too it's not to different from the OCC chart, higher up and the reason for this is because records have regular buyers. So on the Real Chart this week everything from 44 to 10 sold 40K, the difference between each being in 100's. Only 9 to one being odd figures!
The lower section falls off quick, generally in drops of 10K sections - till 65 (this week) when 19K takes over dropping 1K till 100 which is the only one at 15K (last week that started at 88!) The reason I assume this is that I-Tunes had so many dupilcates of the 100 that it let the lower section of sales in from other sites. And all because the public are often too idol to put/type into a search engine! But that's just my theory.
"You go on accusing the OCC of being a fraud and the only proof you suggest for this is that they weren't including the downloads earlier (newsflash: they weren't claiming they were including them before they actually did include them)."
I said that the OCC chart was the Industry chart and accurate for being that. "Fruad" is too strong a word. It could be that a record is excluded from their list and nothing to do with money changing hands or the practice of doing so. They excluded the EP for Mark Goodyear's chart show theme, at one time, which I think is funny! It made number 7 in the Real Chart, by the way!
Wrong end of the stick for proving the downloads thing :o It was only proof that what the compilers are telling me is true, plus why it's not me making them up!
On the various records entering selling little, well I don't make up the charts so I can't tell you why a record does. For instance haven't a clue why that French record is at number 40? I leave that to the likes of Masterton for answers to those questions.
"Was God Save The Queen #1 on The Real Chart? "
Yes but not in 1977! Instead it was top on the 2 June 2002. And the NME attemp also resulted in it entering a 2 on the 14 Oct 2007. Will get round to posting full number one list on the blog later.
Phew! :x Can't wait for the questions from this post! :roll:
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby irishguy28 » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:24 pm

I have only one main question: WHO gives you the data?

I think until that is known, few people will take your effort seriously.

And why is it given to you in such an inane format? Why can't they just give it to you in full, rather than feeding you information piecemeal from which you then seemingly have to re-assemble the data?
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Blondini » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:29 pm

Why are you "trusted" with this information if you know nothing of the information contained? We can't "leave it to Masterton" cause it's not his chart.

"That French record" is a popular dance track that has been hanging around for months in iTunes' top 1000 in various versions. It's now Radio One playlisted.

Graham76man wrote:
They then tell me where each one lands. No artist or titles at this point. They then tell me where each of the old chart tracks has landed that week. Then the new hits are placed in. They never tell me the artist and title of each track. I have to build a list from a whatever source I can find. If the artist is not on the list then it will be blank (the new entry space) till I find the correct track. Before I could access the Internet it was a nightmare to find the right tracks.
Whatvever source? Midweek charts for top 75, below that - you're guessing? Sorry, but i don't buy how Killing For Company could have three weeks in the top 75 and Feeder actually climbed from 99 to 90 (or whatever it was). Both songs had no promotion at all beyond the initial release, they would peak Week One and vanish. It looks like you're making things up.

The dominance of rock acts below the top 40 and a couple of suspicious "who the heck are they?" entries suggests to me this is just a chart/rock fan presenting his "ideal" version of the chart and trying to give his fave acts some exposure.
Either you or your "compilers" are pulling a fast one.

This is basically Jonathan King's Tip Sheet. I'll keep checking the chart to see who you're "hyping" though. Gabby Young is a good tip. :wink: Does she know she just had a "hit" with a song nobody has heard of? Should somebody tell her?
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 55088
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby Blondini » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:04 pm

^ Then again,

Gabby Young and Other animals are an eccentric 8 piece British pop band, bringing together gypsy, folk, rock and jazz.[1]] Onetaste website describes the music as having "Incredible soaring vocals, heart-breaking lyrics with wild cabaret style to lose yourself in" [2]. The band is fronted by Gabby Young, and supported by the Other Animals using a wide range of instruments, most notably trumpet, trombone piano and clarinet.

One album has been released, originally through minor label Gift of the Gab records. The official web page now states that the success of the album through Gift of the Gab has resulted in a major distribution deal, and that the album will be re-released in September 2010, along with the first single 'We're All In This Together' [3]. The album topped both Amazon UK's folk and rock download charts during the week commencing 27 June 2010 as part of the 'Storm the Charts' campaign [4].

The band has been reviewed positively by many of the UK's major papers, including The Guardian, The Sunday Times and the London Evening Standard. The Guardian named the band in the list "Our anti-tips for 2010: the acts who deserve to be heard" [5] .

The band is spending the summer of 2010 touring major UK festivals, including Glastonbury, where they played to a packed Avalon stage on the Friday afternoon. Festivals planned for later in the summer include Latitude, Secret Garden Party, Bestival and Shambala [6]. On 9 October they embark on a UK tour beginning in Gabby's home town of Bath [7].

Gabby Young is a trained opera singer and is currently dating Stephen Ellis, lead singer of UK band REVERE. [8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabby_Youn ... er_Animals

http://gabbyyoungandotheranimals.com/
^See video blog about the single campaign.
http://stormthecharts.wordpress.com/201 ... iring-why/
^This site was trying to get 40 "indie/alt." tunes into the top 40 in one week! :o :lol:

Another chart campaign i knew nothing about! :o
This song sold nothing on iTunes. Not enough to make the top 300. So at what point in researching your new entries for that week did you come across her? If your compilers give you no info, you must know something about how and why things are selling?
Last edited by Blondini on Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 55088
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby irishguy28 » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:06 pm

And tell us why "7 Seconds" is selling again :wink:
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Graham76man » Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:51 pm

You read to much into things, but often misquote me. I'm not asking anyone to believe in the charts from the compilers. They are what they are!
I doubt if Millward Brown take any interest in who's in the chart, if it's on the radio one playlist or radio two's.
To be frank with you I have not listend to most of the chart record's people have quoted, I'm not a rock fan and in this week's top 100 there's not a single track that I would even deem noteworthy! All you are doing is trying to run me down. This to me is like what it would be like if I had a go at Music Week because they print the OCC chart!
There's no point explaining who the compilers are as you wouldn't belive me anyway. Plus they have told me the feed would stop. In fact they where against the blog and telling those about the Real Chart. "Who think they know everything yet know nothing" There words not mine!
As for my knowledge, it's no greater than anyone on here, but I'm honest.
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby MFR » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:07 pm

OK Graham, I was going to ask you who the compilers are but I won't now.

But, you make it sound as though the chart compilers tease you with a bizarre ‘skeleton’ of positions without records, as though you are required to solve a puzzle and your solution is hopefully the chart they could have given you straight away.

I must admit I’m totally confused by this, so a few, hopefully basic, questions.

1. Looking at your blog, there are references to 1990. Is that when the Real Chart was first compiled? If not, when did it start?

2. Have you been involved since the Real Chart started? If not, was the feed sent to someone else before you started?

3. Since the Real Chart started you seem to be saying that someone has started going through all previous charts back to 1948 (i.e. before November 1952), converting the original charts to a “real” version (and supplying sales figures whether they existed before or not). Is that the case? How far have the compilers got with this?

Thanks.
MFR
Personal Assistant
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009
Location: Sussex

Postby irishguy28 » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:40 pm

Graham76man wrote:All you are doing is trying to run me down. This to me is like what it would be like if I had a go at Music Week because they print the OCC chart!
I'm sorry if it seems like that, but I'm not trying to run you down. I'm merely asking a simple question. No one queries Music Week because we all know where their data comes from, and how it's compiled. But you have to admit, it's a fairly basic question to ask where your data comes from, and how it is compiled. Try looking at it from my viewpoint - I can't think of any possible source of data that is "more accurate" than the data used by the OCC. Until you answer this question or clarify this point, I don't see how you can realistically expect people to accept your figures as being more accurate than those we get from official channels.

Graham76man wrote:There's no point explaining who the compilers are as you wouldn't belive me anyway. Plus they have told me the feed would stop. In fact they where against the blog and telling those about the Real Chart. "Who think they know everything yet know nothing" There words not mine!
Sounds like the utterance of a certain ex-UKMixer!
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Graham76man » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:10 pm

But, you make it sound as though the chart compilers tease you with a bizarre ‘skeleton’ of positions without records, as though you are required to solve a puzzle and your solution is hopefully the chart they could have given you straight away.

I must admit I’m totally confused by this, so a few, hopefully basic, questions.

1. Looking at your blog, there are references to 1990. Is that when the Real Chart was first compiled? If not, when did it start?

2. Have you been involved since the Real Chart started? If not, was the feed sent to someone else before you started?

3. Since the Real Chart started you seem to be saying that someone has started going through all previous charts back to 1948 (i.e. before November 1952), converting the original charts to a “real” version (and supplying sales figures whether they existed before or not). Is that the case? How far have the compilers got with this?

It has to be this way due to communication problems with them.
I first got in touch with them around the end of 1989. I got the charts from them after that. Having little money for computers they were hand written on paper till I got enough money together for a computer that could handle the large files and I started to DTP them on Pressworks on the 8/10/2006.
Anyone can get in touch with them, but I wouldn't advise it, as it puts a great strain on you. Another reason not to tell anyone more about them (but that's just me saying that).
They started doing the Real Chart (by the way that's what I call it, not them) on the 11/01/48. From what I can gather the chart would have been unstable before then. It was a top 40 and it stayed that way till Jan 1960. Again they say below 41 things were to unstable to extend to 100 till 1960. Six months later I was born to Cathy's Clown being top! I think that says a lot about me! :P

They of course have the full set of charts, so the question should be how far have I got with it? Then consider the farce I have to do to get the charts each Sunday and then to work out what was released each week and you can get perhaps work out the answer. But I do have full 100's for 1983, some holes 1984,82,81, lots of holes 1980, 1978, bit better for 1979. Currently working on 1976 and 1985. Did however manage to get the full list of number ones from 1955 to up to date from them. 1960's and 1940's posted already on blog.
All other charts will be done in time.
They don't tell me who else they speak with so I can't answer if anyone else got the feed before me.
AND they have told me to tell you this: :(
"Irishguy28 we would kill you if you found out who we are." :(
I've no idea what that could mean though, but I can assure you it is not a threat!
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby jio » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:20 pm

That's such bull. Those people (I presume they are non-existent anyway) sound like trading cocaine not compiling charts.
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 13601
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Return to Chart Analysis