Hi W.B. Please allow me to butt in and offer a clarification or 7, for the many future viewers of this excellent thread-in-waiting. You already know what I'm about to say, and I know it, but most others here won't know it. Most of what I'm throwing out below comes from UK chart expert and guru Alan Smith, who for years in the 1990s went around and interviewed all the people who put together the UK charts for NME, Record Mirror, Melody Maker, Disc, Record Retailer, and the BBC. And some other minor charts as well. Alan published his findings in Record Collector magazine in the early 2000s, and revised his article many times later as he learned and obtained more info. The last revision I'm aware of was done in 2014, and Alan posted it on several websites, including UKMix. The article is really long, but worth the read. You get the true history of the UK charts from the 50s & 60s. If anyone has extra time, read the whole thread, page after page. Here's the link:Updated "CHART HISTORY" - UKMIX Forums
So here are some random tidbits from Alan's research:
1. Record Retailer the music paper was created by independent record shops for the benefit of those shops, those who were not affiliated with any of the major record labels. Originally, and still going on in the late 50s, each record label had their own record shops. For a while, if you wanted a Decca or EMI record, you had to go to a Decca or EMI record shop. Eventually this system was ended, and all record shops carried the same records. But prior to this, there were also some independent non-major label record shops, who sold all records, and they decided to band together and share info with each other, and they set up this Record Retailer music paper in the late 50s. In March 1960, they decided to print up a record chart of what records were selling in their own independent record shops. There were 30 shops reporting their stats to each other by way of this chart.
2. The Record Retailer music paper was not for sale at newsstands, you had to take out a mail order subscription to get a copy. Thus almost no one even knew this music paper or its charts existed, from March 1960 to March 1962. This music paper was not an industry paper, rather it was an anti-industry paper, as it was written for and compiled by the independent record shops who contributed to it. Plus the chart that was created was nothing special, it was assembled the same way as the other charts of the day NME, RM, MM, Disc, based on averaging together the sales rankings of each shop, NOT by adding up the actual numbers of records sold. That's just the way it was done at that time, up until Feb 1969.
3. The unique characteristics of this RR chart were (a) they sampled the fewest number of record shops of all those charts = 30 up thru Dec 1963, up to a max of 85 during 1964 to Feb 1969; (b) because their sample was so low, they had many tied positions, which they broke by instituting a tie-breaker, which looked at the previous week's data, this is mathematical malpractice. A weekly chart should only be based on data from the current sample period, and not by looking at data from the previous sample period; (c) the RR chart disagreed the most with the other charts; (d) it had 11 #1 records that did not reach #1 on any of the other charts; (e) it had 6 records that did not reach #1 that did reach #1 on all the other charts; (f) about the only positive thing you can say about RR is that it had 50 chart positions each week, but what good is that when the number of sampled shops were so low? FYI, Melody Maker, which sampled the most shops of the 60s, at its peak approaching 300, also had 50 chart positions for 5 years during the 60s. Why weren't their larger sample / more accurate charts used as 'official' for the 60s instead?
4. Record Retailer only began to be noticed at some level in March 1962, when Record Mirror abandoned their own charts and instead started carrying Record Retailer. Also at this time, the BBC began including Record Retailer in their averaged chart if it arrived in time for the weekly BBC chart calculations. They had a radio show deadline with Pick of the Pops, and then in Jan 1964 a TV show deadline with Top of the Pops.
5. Record Retailer eventually became a better chart 1964 - Feb 1969, due to increased shop sampling, and one could say eventually became 'more' of an 'industry' chart, perhaps in 1966, when Billboard magazine gave them a huge influx of cash, but they were still a laggard compared to the other charts. And a lot of the industry were still using the other charts as well, mostly NME and Melody Maker. RR's sample size was always the lowest, and they always disagreed the most with the other charts. They were the last place chart, least known, least followed, even though they were carried in Record Mirror, but still RR was not available in newsstands, one had to subscribe. No wonder in Feb 1969 they were chomping at the bit to do away with their own weekly chart and get in on the new methodology with the BMRB, by actually counting records sold, instead of averaging record shop sales rankings.
6. During the 60s, RR was never known as the 'official' chart, there was no such thing. When Guinness starting printing their chart books in 1977, they decided to use RR for their 60s data, but did not proclaim them as 'official', they only said "for the purposes of this book". Then in 2001/2002, what had now come to be known as the Official Charts Co likewise chose RR to be their chart for the 60s. But no deep thought went into this. Alan Smith's article on the charts had not yet been published, and those who were actually working at the OCC in 2001/2002 had no idea about the truth of the 50s & 60s charts, and which were the better or more accurate charts.
7. The OCC has printed ad nauseam in books, articles, websites, that as soon as the clock struck March 1960 that Record Retailer instantly became the 'official' chart of the 60s, the most accepted, the true industry chart. That my friends did not happen, it is factually false. History as rewritten after the fact, most now think that what was in the Guinness books and now on the OCC website and new books are truth, but no, they are only a small portion of the story. The RR charts are good for knowing up to 50 positions when Melody Maker did not have 50 positions each week, but that's about it. NME did publish their own chart books, but unfortunately Melody Maker did not. So the spoils of history go to those who scream the loudest, or who publish books or websites and claim what they choose to claim, regardless of truth and facts. One might argue that we are all free to believe what we want, to choose which chart of the 60s we want, and all that sounds good, but there is factual truth, and rewritten falsehoods.
So with that disclaimer out of the way, enjoy the rest of this excellent W.B. thread. Onward and upwards !! Fish n chips for everyone !!
Jarleboy, Nimby and sonnyrock like this.
