OfficialCharts.com has received a long-awaited revamp

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ Music Charts _ UK Charts

Latest Site News

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

9 Pages

« < 7 8 9

OfficialCharts.com has received a long-awaited revamp, (thread title changed 19/2/15)

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Robbie View member profile	5th March 2015, 09:09 PM Post #161
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 3,445 User: 366	QUOTE(donnahjaneymack @ Mar 5 2015, 07:58 PM) Maybe he was hoping no-one would notice! That's very interesting Robbie about the circumstances re the 1994/95 chart, and why those charts were able to be made public but not the '99 chart, and your theories as to why the 94/95 charts were made public but not the 99 chart sounds spot on. It seems the incorrect '99 chart was due to a much larger volume of missing data. Am I right in thinking there was a similar "wrong chart" some time in early 1993, around February/March time? Maybe I'm imagining it. I've not heard about (or can't remember!) an incorrect chart from February / March 1993. I remember two consecutive charts from early 1993 both having joint number 19s (with no number 20). That was something that was remarked upon at the time... Going back to the chart in December 1994, the rerun chart was never officially published at the time (in Music week, at least) though it was used as the basis for the "last week" positions for the chart the following week - it probably explains why Bruno never referred to it the following week as it's possible he was either unaware of the chart having being rerun or was advised to not mention it when he counted down the chart the following week! Another set of charts that were also rerun were those dated 1 January 2011 (sales week 19-25 December 2010). The problem was due to the OCC computer having problems with a lack of sales data submitted for 25 December (Christmas Day! and from mainly non-digital record stores) which famously led to sales on the Albums chart being overestimated on average by 20% over the sales week. The Singles chart was largely unaffected as by then few singles were available to buy as physical releases. This post has been edited by Robbie: 5th March 2015, 09:26 PM


gooddelta View member profile	5th March 2015, 09:25 PM Post #162
Hello? Joined: 8 March 2006 Posts: 83,056 User: 116	Poor Tina Cousins! I always thought Blur/Semisonic would have been top ten too, good to finally find out that this was never the case!


donnahjaneymack View member profile	6th March 2015, 05:07 PM Post #163
BuzzJack Climber Joined: 31 March 2011 Posts: 70 User: 13,379	QUOTE(Robbie @ Mar 5 2015, 09:09 PM) I've not heard about (or can't remember!) an incorrect chart from February / March 1993. I remember two consecutive charts from early 1993 both having joint number 19s (with no number 20). That was something that was remarked upon at the time... Going back to the chart in December 1994, the rerun chart was never officially published at the time (in Music week, at least) though it was used as the basis for the "last week" positions for the chart the following week - it probably explains why Bruno never referred to it the following week as it's possible he was either unaware of the chart having being rerun or was advised to not mention it when he counted down the chart the following week! Another set of charts that were also rerun were those dated 1 January 2011 (sales week 19-25 December 2010). The problem was due to the OCC computer having problems with a lack of sales data submitted for 25 December (Christmas Day! and from mainly non-digital record stores) which famously led to sales on the Albums chart being overestimated on average by 20% over the sales week. The Singles chart was largely unaffected as by then few singles were available to buy as physical releases. I had a bit of time today so I did a bit of digging and found there was a "wrong" chart for the w/e 6th March 1993 for the chart read out the previous Sunday (28/2/93) on BBC Radio. I don't know if I'm allowed to post the link as the link is coming out really long for some reason, but if you search in Google Groups Archive and search "CHART: UK Charts for Week Ending 6th March 1993" there is a post containing info about this incorrect chart. There only seems to have been minor switches (apart from the 4 Of Us, an Irish band - yay! - who were as high as 30 on the wrong chart but only 35 officially, and Martha Wash being slightly higher in the wrong chart at 32, falling a few places in the correct chart to 37). I forgot all about the joint positions in the charts in the early 90s. There seemed to have been a tonne of them at one point especially in '92/'93! Maybe it's because single sales were pretty low (especially in '92), and with the whole Groove Is In The Heart/The Joker scenario being a recent memory, so a combination of both these factors resulted in this large amount of joint chart positions. I think it may well have been a case of Bruno being told not the mention the problematic chart in Dec 1994, they were probably hoping that people would forget about it asap if it wasn't mentioned, and that it would all just blow over! And I completely forgot about that chart at the end of 2010 that had to be rerun. I'd completely forgotten about it in the intervening years, but I remember it now that you mentioned it!


donnahjaneymack View member profile	6th March 2015, 05:10 PM Post #164
BuzzJack Climber Joined: 31 March 2011 Posts: 70 User: 13,379	QUOTE(gooddelta @ Mar 5 2015, 09:25 PM) Poor Tina Cousins! I always thought Blur/Semisonic would have been top ten too, good to finally find out that this was never the case! Aw, Tina Cousins was great. She was fantastic on "Just Around The Hill". Whatever happened to her? I agree, I would have thought Blur and Semisonic would have been top 10, especially since they were kind of defining songs of that era that you still hear the odd time these days, and since the managers of both acts felt their acts should have been top 10 and were loud in their demands to have the chart rerun.


-Jay- View member profile	7th March 2015, 11:27 PM Post #165
"Jayrusaleminians" - Umi. Pronouns: he/him Joined: 4 April 2007 Posts: 41,456 User: 3,217	QUOTE(Robbie @ Mar 5 2015, 12:38 AM) Thanks for spotting that the OCC have (presumably by mistake) included the revised chart for the 10 July 1999 in their new archive! I've updated the thread at ukmix with what you have posted above. I hope you don't mind me posting the differences with the new entries but I have thanked you for the list in my ukmix post! No problem at all Robbie, thank you! I was very surprised to see the differences, rather interesting though.


Robbie View member profile	8th March 2015, 01:58 AM Post #166
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 3,445 User: 366	QUOTE(donnahjaneymack @ Mar 6 2015, 05:07 PM) I had a bit of time today so I did a bit of digging and found there was a "wrong" chart for the w/e 6th March 1993 for the chart read out the previous Sunday (28/2/93) on BBC Radio. I don't know if I'm allowed to post the link as the link is coming out really long for some reason, but if you search in Google Groups Archive and search "CHART: UK Charts for Week Ending 6th March 1993" there is a post containing info about this incorrect chart. There only seems to have been minor switches (apart from the 4 Of Us, an Irish band - yay! - who were as high as 30 on the wrong chart but only 35 officially, and Martha Wash being slightly higher in the wrong chart at 32, falling a few places in the correct chart to 37). I forgot all about the joint positions in the charts in the early 90s. There seemed to have been a tonne of them at one point especially in '92/'93! Maybe it's because single sales were pretty low (especially in '92), and with the whole Groove Is In The Heart/The Joker scenario being a recent memory, so a combination of both these factors resulted in this large amount of joint chart positions. I think it may well have been a case of Bruno being told not the mention the problematic chart in Dec 1994, they were probably hoping that people would forget about it asap if it wasn't mentioned, and that it would all just blow over! And I completely forgot about that chart at the end of 2010 that had to be rerun. I'd completely forgotten about it in the intervening years, but I remember it now that you mentioned it! I didn't realise or had forgotten that there was a problem with the chart of 6 March 1993. Here's a shorter link to the post you refer to. The article was written by James Masterton. Masterton later was the chart analyst at the music website Dotmusic from 1995 until the website closed in December 2003. He then wrote the chart analysis for Yahoo Launch. He's now a producer at radio station TalkSport and still writes chart analysis reports each week at about.com. His website is a good read http://www.masterton.co.uk/ The link for the Google Groups article is http://tinyurl.com/kwsmptq Alan Jones' Chart Focus column for Music Week for 6 March 1993 has the following note at the end of his analysis: QUOTE Readers who tuned in to hear the new Top 40 on Radio 1FM yesterday may be surprised to hear the positions quoted on air for some records are different from those published in MW. The MW chart is correct. The discrepancies were caused by computer error at Gallup. The most extreme examples of a chart being incorrect happened in February 1976 and November 1979. On Tuesday 17 February 1976 Johnnie Walker, then of Radio 1, unveiled the new chart on his lunchtime programme. The number 1 was announced as being 'Rodrigo's Guitar Concerto De Aranjuez' by Manuel And The Music Of The Mountains. The record had jumped from number 8 to number 1. However record companies soon noticed something was amiss with the chart as there were many records making extreme chart movements, some making massive climbs and some making massive falls. The then chart compiler, BMRB, quickly realised that the computer had thrown a wobbly and had allocated sales from numerous records to other records. Three hours later the chart was rerun and Manuel was found to only be number 4. The correct number 1 was in fact 'December 1963 (Oh What A Night) by The Four Seasons. Cue red faces all around. On Tuesday 6 November 1979 on the lunchtime programme Paul Burnett of Radio 1 announced that the UK had a new number 1 - 'When You're In Love With A Beautiful Woman' by Dr Hook had displaced 'One Day At A Time' by Lena Martell. Except the chart was wrong. Again record companies noticed there was an error in the chart. BMRB ran a check and noticed that some sales data that should have been allocated to Lena Martell had been counted as Dr Hook sales. This time it was only the top 2 that were affected and 24 hours after the chart had been compiled BMRB had to admit the chart was incorrect and that Lena Martell was still number 1. Dr Hook were still at number 2. The following Tuesday Dr Hook really did reach number 1. This post has been edited by Robbie: 8th March 2015, 02:00 AM


donnahjaneymack View member profile	11th March 2015, 11:59 AM Post #167
BuzzJack Climber Joined: 31 March 2011 Posts: 70 User: 13,379	QUOTE(Robbie @ Mar 8 2015, 01:58 AM) I didn't realise or had forgotten that there was a problem with the chart of 6 March 1993. Here's a shorter link to the post you refer to. The article was written by James Masterton. Masterton later was the chart analyst at the music website Dotmusic from 1995 until the website closed in December 2003. He then wrote the chart analysis for Yahoo Launch. He's now a producer at radio station TalkSport and still writes chart analysis reports each week at about.com. His website is a good read http://www.masterton.co.uk/ The link for the Google Groups article is http://tinyurl.com/kwsmptq That 1993 chart had completely slipped my mind until last week - I thought I was imagining it! Thanks for that link Robbie. James Masterton's chart analysis from the 90s on Google Groups are really interesting to read, especially the early to mid 90s period because they are from the actual time, a time when songs would still climb the chart (in the pre-download era anyway) and James would offer his opinions on what tracks that entered low down might have a good chance of making it all the way to the top. One of my biggest regrets is that I did not know of the Dotmusic forum until after it had closed and merged with Launch/Yahoo! I enjoy his About.com column. Thanks for the link to his website - I really like the parts where he retrospectively looks back on some chart from this week in the 80s/90s and reminisces about the songs! I never knew about the Lena Martell/Dr Hook mix-up at no1! But that February 1976 incident sounds pretty crazy - as it turns out Manuel never made no1! His moment of glory at thinking he was no1 - snatched away within a few hours, and to add insult to injury, he never made no1 in the end! I suppose these computer errors did creep up every now and then, but they were pretty rare on the whole. I don't think there was any "wrong chart" incident in the 80s, though I may be wrong! This post has been edited by donnahjaneymack: 11th March 2015, 12:00 PM


-Jay- View member profile	29th March 2015, 11:22 AM Post #168
"Jayrusaleminians" - Umi. Pronouns: he/him Joined: 4 April 2007 Posts: 41,456 User: 3,217	Doesn't look like I'm going to get my wish for those missing physical charts from 2005 to be added any time soon! I emailed them about it last week but got no response.