This is the start of a series of posts looking at the four missing weeks of UK album charts from the 1960’s. this first edition will look at two missing from 1960 and whether they will ever be located.
Record Retailer April and May 1960
I need to set the scene before showing exactly which album charts are missing from the selection that otherwise provides an unbroken run from 1956 through to today.
The year is 1960 and Record Retailer has just gone weekly, after launching in 1959 as a monthly magazine. They begin, on 10th March, to publish a Top 50 singles chart, a Top 10 albums chart and a Top 10 EP chart, although these quickly expand to 20 places each. However, almost immediately, the magazine misses two weeks of publication almost one after the other. These are 30 April and 14 May and, the 8th and 10th weekly publications respectively.
Avid followers of the charts will find no mention of these missing weeks in any Guinness publication or any later work with two notable exceptions. These are the first Guinness Hit Albums Book from 1980 and the later Complete Books Of British Charts. And yet these weeks are missing as they where never published.
But they were compiled.
7 May and 21 May both feature charts with last week positions included, so these charts must exist. Indeed when the first book to publish the Singles charts was issued in 1991 by Guinness, they included the missing Singles charts as full Top 40’s (The Book only printed Top 40’s). Recently Graham Betts has been publishing the full weekly album charts in his series The Official Charts and he has likewise been unable to locate the full charts for these weeks exactly as printed.
The Singles charts exist. They have been compiled and published by Guinness so the missing 8 positions from 30 April and 10 from 14 May have been printed. Are they accurate? Well, all publications that follow Guinness used the same source – Guinness – so if they got it wrong, then no, but let’s assume they are correct. If Singles exist, why not Albums?
In the introduction to the first albums book, the Guinness authors make it clear that they don’t have those two missing album charts. 6 missing positions from 30 April and 5 from 14 May still remain missing.
Will these ever be found, without guesswork? Unlikely as, in 1980 the team at Guinness would have done their best to locate them and 40 years will only have diminished the chances rather than improved them.
So what charts have been published by Graham Betts then? He has the definitive and now accepted set of charts for this week based on, it must be said, guesswork, but informed guesswork about the nature of the charts and including looking at other album charts such as Melody Maker at help determine the positions.
While the originals are lost, we do indeed have something to help us work out roughly what was selling for those two weeks.
Readers may be interested in buying Graham’s book.
It’s always hard to work out exactly what is the true account, particularly after so many years have elapsed – and thats a statement that is true largely regardless of the field being researched. It’s more true with charts as it is almost always impossible to locate the original data sources. Let me explain…
How the chart are compiled
Charts are compiled by gathering sales data from retailers. They are compiled following various rules and then a verified list of the records, from 1 downwards, is created. This forms the lisiting that all publishers use when re-producing the chart in print form.
That explanation of chart compilation is as true today as it was in 1940 (when Billboard began) or in 1960 when Record Retailer began their chart or 1969 when the British Marie Research Bureau began the first official chart in the UK. Whilst detail is lacking as to how each company compiled the chart, that explanation covers the points needed for this blog.
The compilers produced a listing of the records which is then sent to the magazines that publish the chart.
This is the start of errors in printing as now the compiled listing (which is assumed to be correct although that in itself can be a source of errors as we have witnessed over the years) is typeset by the various publications into their own format. Sometimes this results in weeks when a chart was compiled but not printed as, say, Record Retailer had a week off but Record Mirror did not. We are not concerned with that here. We are concerned with other types of errors, because the typos in a title can have quite profound consequences. Suppose an artist has two albums – identically titled but different catalogue numbers? R.E.M. did this in 2003 with a special and a deluxe package, for example. A type in the catalogue number could mean both are lobster as the same entry at different positions. As the public don’t see the original listing, they wont know which is which.
Many of these are corrected the following week or before publication. But sometimes the error can be quite serious
Melody Maker 1973
Recently I’ve been adding the Melody Maker album charts to my database, a chart not previously researched and seemingly lacking research in other sources. The chart for 17 March 1973 presented a large problem when trying to work out which record should really be listed at joint 29. Deep Purple and Made In Japan (see below) is clear enough, but what do you, make of the other entry?
These Top Of The Pops albums by Hallmark where all cover versions by unknown (unlisted) artists. Discogs lists 122 running from Volume 1 (1968) through to Volume 92 in 1985. They where a very cheap way to get possible versions of hit records and clearly sold in sufficient quantities to justify repeated issues (Rather like the Now! albums of the last 30 years).
So my question is this – which particular Top Of The Pops volume is this?
Guesswork needs to be done to work out what the album really is. Release dates help a lot here, as they rule out various volumes and entries, but those release dates may be in error as well. This is where we turn to other chart sources, as Melody Maker was not the only chart compiler in the UK at this time – we have NME and the Official chart to look at.
Scans of the NME album charts are hard to come by, but fortunately they issued an Album book in 1995 (see below for an ebay search listing the book).
Turning to the week of 17 March 1973 I find the book is of no help – Top Of The Pops never charted that entire month!
Turning to the UK charts you wont find the Top Of The Pops albums listed (at least not in 1973) as they where definitely Mid Price selling albums and so where relighted to the Mid Price chart. I’ve recently been compiling this as well, so turning to the relevant week I find again nothing! The album simply did not chart in Mid Price on Record Retailer/Music Week.
This is now a problem… The album can’t be identified exactly so I really do have to guess here.
I ended up going for Volume 29 because Volume 28 had charted in February and Volume 30 charted in May. Equally, the track listing covers hits from Jan-Feb 1973 meaning that this seems about right.
Hopefully this ending is the right one, but it shows the type of issues faced with interpreting (in this case) 45 year old chart printouts. And thats assuming you actually have the scans to begin with. But thats another story…
I issued a new book on Saturday for the Billboard Best Sellers In Stores Chart. (If your interested then a link to check out the page is here) and I thought I’d go through the process of putting it together. My last post talked about gathering the data I nave, so this one will talk a little more about checking and compiling that data.
It all starts with gathering the weekly charts themselves, either in picture form or as typed files. For many of the Best Sellers charts I obtained these originally as typed weekly charts so long ago that I’ve forgotten from where. They came as text files, and so I had to transfer them into my database. I’ll talk more about the database later, but below is an example of the files and how they appeared.
US Top 30 Best Sellers In Stores Week Ending 5th January, 1955
Issue Date 15th January, 1955
TW LW TITLE-Artist (Label)-Weeks on Chart (Peak Position)
1 1 MR. SANDMAN
The Chordettes (Cadence)-12 (8 weeks at #1) (1)
2 2 LET ME GO, LOVER
Joan Weber (Columbia)-7 (2)
3 3 THE NAUGHTY LADY OF SHADY LANE
The Ames Brothers (Columbia)-8 (3)
4 7 HEARTS OF STONE
The Fontane Sisters (Dot)-6 (4)
5 6 TEACH ME TONIGHT
The DeCastro Sisters (Abbott)-15 (3)
Now the first thing to do after entering was to verify the data was accurate. When copying direct from the original chart that was easy, as the data presented was normally completely correct, in terms of positions, but in the case of the text files I wanted to be sure.
I was very fortunate to discover, around about 2010, Google Books. Google have scanned almost all issues from 1942 to 2000 and made them available free of charge online (meaning you can do what I did if you want to). The archive can be found here, as well as in other places around the internet. One other source in more recent years has been the truly excellent and amazing American Radio History which currently has almost all issues from 1927 to 2015. For issues of all of these with missing pages or charts the British Library contains an almost complete run, and so I went there.
Armed now with pages of scans (The archive now runs to almost 200Gb and not just of Billboard charts) the process of checking each week can begin, and amending errors. This in itself is not without flaws, as sometimes the chart I had was right, corrected by a note in a future issue of Billboard, and I accidentally correct to the original error. But I progress through the changes and the checking.
This gives me Artist, Title, Label, Catalogue Number and sometimes B-Side (in the early days). Of course, that just gives me how Billboard printed the title and that was not always correct, which then meant each record has to be verified. 2,294 records made the Best Sellers In Stores chart. Each one needs to be found, duration noted, composer noted, correct titles noted, etc. Wikipedia, Discogs, iTunes (less so for this particularly chart) and 45cat have all been immensely useful.
Others have helped me immensely here, in verifying and checking data. I produce the ChartBookWeekly and a gentleman who has bought this, Jörg, has been very helpful in error correcting.
All this does mean that errors can still exist. I’d be foolish in the extreme to assume I had everything correct, and sometimes errors creep in, particularly in sorting of artists. One of the things I don’t do is distinguish whether a recording artist is a group or a solo artist and thats something I will be looking to add to the database over time (30,000 records currently in the database covering 1940-1971 and 500,000 positions with another 5 million positions to add from the old database into the new one.). That can lead to a sorting error and the slip of a finger can make Deep Purple appear under P rather than D. Happily, these are errors which are very easy to fix (annoyingly they cause me acute personal embarrassment when pointed out – but please don’t let that stop you from pointing them out!)
Once the data has been verified and weekly charts exist in the database, that’s when the export comes in – and thats for another post. Suffice to say, when I began re-building the database in December last year (It’s not entirely finished now) I went for something that could export quickly and easily – so creating the Best Sellers In Stores book physically took five minutes – after about 15 years (off and on) work to get to that stage. So, if you do buy a copy, I hope you enjoy it.
After relaunching the website a few weeks ago I’ve been concentrating on updating the database that creates the ChartBookWeekly and the associated books and that’s what I want to talk about now.
When I began to collect the UK charts (and it was the UK as I didn’t know about Billboard back then) it was on 28 August 1999. Geri Halliwell was number 1 (new at the top of course as almost all of them where at that point) but that wasn’t the reason I listened to the chart. I listened because I was bored.
I was 14. School holidays. Sunday afternoons dragged. I don’t play sports (sorry to those for whom it is but football isn’t my thing at all) and there was nothing to do. I was playing with dads old typewriter (I love Star Wars and for the special edition in 1997 they released script books of the films. I was a school librarian, convinced them to get the books and then borrowed them for the summer break to learn it all – read copy on dads old typewriter – I can still recite almost all the dialogue from each of the original three films). I got fed up typing Star Wars (on page 2…) and put Radio 1 on.
I heard Mark Goodier. I heard Groove Armada “At The River” (down five places to number 40) and was hooked. S Club 7. Steps. Shania Twain. ATB. Travis. Five. Ricky Martin. Texas. I loved the songs. Still do. But then you never forget your first time you get hooked on something.
And I typed it all down.
At first the collection was hand written. Then it became hand written in massive notebooks a page for each week. And then I got my own desktop computer. I discovered Excel. Then in about 2001 I discovered Access databases. I haven’t looked back since.
I am self taught on Access, largely because we did not have internet until 2003 at home (when I started University). I copied charts from the internet (some amazing posters on forums helped a lot in sharing) and trips to London followed to look at the original paper copies as printed in the British Library.
The British Library is amazing. A copy of everything printed and all free to access. I devoured the issues of Music Week, NME, Disc, Billboard. All went in the database. I wanted timings, producers, composers, b-sides, all to make the most of the database. Then for albums I wanted tracks. Nobody was doing a book with album tracks. Guinness stopped the Hit Singles / Hit Albums books (the internet almost killing factual books of that sort) and I wanted to replace and do it better.
Now you can argue the merits of each book and some like one and some like the other but look at Joel Whitburn. His books for the US charts are the gold standard. Why doesn’t the UK have something equally as good?
I was explaining to my wife why I collect charts and she listened and then asked why I didn’t make books like Whitburn if I could. I thought. I wrote some code. I wrote some tables. I made a book. And that’s the first of the Decade Series if books. But after 18 months the database wasn’t up to it. So I needed a new one and that’s largely why no new books for a long time.
The new database was built with export in mind so that I can create the books here and also other things to share the collection. Over the years I’ve sunk a lot of money into the charts. Mostly to get full chart scans of each week so I can verify that the data is correct. It’s amazing how many errors creep in when data is copied from other books or positions are transposed. Either way mine are the most accurate (which is my goal) so hopefully that’s the case.
But it all began on a lazy Sunday afternoon. (Queue the Kinks)
Chart errors. Some are genuine mistakes and so can be fixed easily. Some are more annoying as they can’t. I’m going to pick out a one in particular, of the annoying variety, and talk about that, but really there are hundreds over the years.
The UK Album Charts are the second class citizen of the music industry. Okay, a sweeping statement, so let me put that into context and make clear my meaning. The charts first began (in both the UK and USA) as Single Sales charts, measuring how many records where sold per week from various outlets. Singles where cheap (in comparison to albums – still the case today as you can get an iTunes track for 59p at its cheapest while an album is £4.99.) Now, obviously you get more with an album, and if you like the artist your going to buy the album (which is why Abbey Road by the Beatles entered at number 1 in October 1969). But suppose you just like this one song?
That’s what I did when I first started buying music in 1999 – I didn’t like (and still don’t entirely) dance music. Now, some dance music is very, very good, but some (personally) annoys me as its a dull repetitive thud with nothing much to redeem it. That’s largely the beauty of the charts because nobody will like all of it. But, thats beside the point – I do not like dance music, and yet I bought Alice Deejay and ‘Better Off Alone’ in 1999. I liked the song. Can’t stand the full album, but the song was nice so I bought the song.
Singles allow you to buy the song you like. And that’s largely why, particularly up until the 1970’s really, Albums always sold less than singles. In 2008 more albums where sold than singles (My source for that is here) but only just.
But it is important to realise that Singles sold more than Albums in the 1960’s, particularly for the chart error about to be discussed.
History – The charts in February 1969
The Official UK Album Chart, as compiled by British Market Research Bureau, began on 15 February 1969. Record Retailer and Record Mirror published the same chart, and the BBC counted down the same on the radio and on Top Of The Pops. The chart carried a legend “CHART compiled for RR and BBC by British Market Research Bureau”., as shown above. The Album chart was a Top 15, with tied places, and a Top 15 Breakers, ranked A-O, in alphabetical order. Breakers were sometimes more or less than a Top 15, but in general, for the first few months, thats what the Album chart consisted of. Singles consisted of a Top 50, as had been the case before, but Albums was a reduction from a Top 40 plus 5 or 6 breakers. An additional chart, described as “Top Budget LP’s” was also printed, again a Top 15 with 15 Breakers, labelled A-O, also published.
What the British Market Research Bureau did was create a Top 120 chart of all price albums and supplied this to the BBC and others. Record Retailer separated this out and published the Full Price albums as the main chart and kept others with a defined dealer price as Budget releases. In so doing, Record Retailer was activity reducing the size of the chart available and the only reason for this would be accuracy. In late 1971 Record Retailer started to print a Top 50 albums and a section called ‘The Next Fifty’, supplied from the full Top 120 created from 300 record shops sales returns. The chart carries the legend ‘Because of the small variations in sales in the bottom 50 of the Top 100 albums, these are listed alphabetically. Because of small differences in sales among the records in the lower sections of the chart, the positions below 20 are approximate.’ This would be removed in 1972, although the chart would remain a Top 120, at least compiled as such according to Music Week, through to at least 1978. (That said the chart became a Top 100 by 1973 and Music Week forgot to update the text). I’ve seen copies of the sales figures for a week in 1973 and five albums sold 50 copies through the shops supplying returns to BMRB – the albums appeared between positions 82 and 86. The number 50 sold 70 copies, the number 100 sold 44 and so their idea of alphabetically listing was a good one.
8 March 1969
No chart published. Previous weeks have duplicated.
That’s what most of the chart books say, and the above comment is not strictly true, as a chart was published in Record Retailer, comprising the Top 30 of the Top 120 supplied by British Market Research Bureau with no splitting into the usual Budget and Full Price charts. This chart comprised no week counts (as Record Retailer usually supplied) and listed last week positions that did not correspond to either of the two printed charts in the previous edition.
The supposition is to what happened is as follows:- British Market Research Bureau had to manually tally the diaries for both singles and albums. Their staff where unable to accurately compile both charts by the Tuesday deadline, instigated because the BBC counted down the new chart on a Tuesday lunchtime and Record Retailer was published on a Thursday and so needed the chart by Tuesday for typesetting and then Wednesday printing. The album chart was of secondary importance to the singles chart and so was compiled afterwards. The supposition is that it was compiled on Wednesdays, although this is pure conjecture and may not be the case. The Singles chart was always the chart which was published for the immediately preceding week, while, from this point forward, the album chart was always for the week before the same Singles chart. Thus if an issue contained the Singles chart dated week ending 22 Mar and cover a sales period for 9-15 Mar, diaries posted 16 Mar, received 17 Mar, compiled 18 Mar and published 20 Mar, then the Album in the same issue would be dated week ending 22 Mar but cover a period for 2-8 Mar, diaries posted 9-11 Mar, compiled from 13 or 14 Mar. This would be apparent from 1973 onwards when Music Week, as the publication became renamed, when the Album chart carried the legend “Charts cover week ending xxx” after them. Thus in the issue for 24 November 1973 the charts covering week ending 10 November were published, together with singles charts for week ending 17 November (the date being the end of the sales period at this time). It would be October 1979 before the charts where again for the same period.
So what happened on 8 March 1969? Well, again conjecture but informed conjecture, leads to the belief that after three weeks of compiling the charts each week had led to a fraught situation at BMRB and so the singles chart was prioritised and the album chart arrived, in week 4, too late to be split by the Record Retailer chart manager. As such, it was carried un-edited.
The following weeks chart is identical to this weeks chart, but correctly split into “Top Albums” and “Budget LPs”. It can be seen in the published magazine as the week counts are simply one more than the chart of 1 March which supports this theory.
Guinness Hit’s Of The Sixties used the original 8 March chart in their book, leading to the odd situation of the album “Four And Only Seekers” having an entire chart career consisting of 1 week at the top of the chart and then nothing else.
Well, I wanted a new website. I actually don’t, what I really wanted was a refresh, but this seemed really good, so it’s a WordPress website. Does most of what I want and what I don’t want I can turn off. Probably.
So far I have written a couple of pages and it will take me the rest of today to add the older pages back in, into this new format. Please sign up for subscriptions. I think it emails when I post a new page or blog, so that means you get told about new chart books.
My aim is to post something on the blog at least once a week, but then I aim and doesn’t always happen. For now, this is the first post and we shall see how it all works out!