Posted June 21, 200817 yr Earlier in the Year, The OCC told me that there would be another UK Chart Book - probably later in 2008 - or sometime in 2009. The Company behind Guinness - Hit Entertainment - decided that they no longer wanted to be associated with Chart Books, or Music Books - which is why there will never, ever, be another Guinness Chart Book. It looks like The OCC have now given the Job to Virgin, & Martin Roach will Edit the Book. He did the 'Top 100 Singles Book' in 2002 - which was full of mistakes - dozens of them. The Virgin Book will be about British Hit Singles only - no Album Chart Data - which is also what The OCC told me a few Months ago. Amazon.co.uk are taking Orders for the Book now, & there is a description of it at that Site too:, THE LINK:, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Virgin-Book-Britis...9789&sr=1-5 Edited June 23, 200817 yr by zeus555
June 21, 200817 yr Will it still cover the top 75? And no albums? :angry: but it never was for albums, thats a very recent addition.
June 21, 200817 yr but it never was for albums, thats a very recent addition. I know, but there was a seperate albums one, which was discontinued. It was great having both in one book.
June 21, 200817 yr I know, but there was a seperate albums one, which was discontinued. It was great having both in one book. the books getting too big though... maybe virgin will go back to two books :)
June 22, 200817 yr Earlier in the Year, The OCC told me that there would be another UK Chart Book - probably later in 2008 - or sometime in 2009. The Company behind Guinness - Hit Entertainment - decided that they no longer wanted to be associated with Chart Books, or Music Books - which is why there will never, ever, be another Guinness Chart Book. It looks like The OCC have now given the Job to Virgin, & Martin Loach will Edit the Book. He did the 'Top 100 Singles Book' in 2002 - which was full of mistakes - dozens of them. The Virgin Book will be about British Hit Singles only - no Album Chart Data - which is also what The OCC told me a few Months ago. At last, a light at the end of the tunnel - let's just hope it's not the proverbial oncoming train... :)
June 22, 200817 yr Excellent news, like to know how download entries are included. I guess this won't be Volume 20, it be back to basics... Volume 1
June 22, 200817 yr Author Elsewhere - chc Media Forums - Kingofskiffle has said that the Virgin British Hit Singles Book will only have Data in it from the UK Top 40 - at least that is what he's heard. He says:, What it doesn't tell you is that this is a Top 40 only book, according to info received to date about this - so I might be wrong!! I will correct if I am wrong. It gives every records peak in the Top 75. But it only gives weeks in the Top 40. At least, it does in information I have received. I leave it up to others to comment. THE END OF HIS COMMENTS I don't know if this is true or not. If it is true, it would distort many Acts Weeks On Chart. Also, at chc Media Forums, Robbie says that IF the Book only gives Weeks In The Top 40:, A) 'Shame' by Evelyn 'Champagne' King, (1978), would be shown as spending just 1 Week on the Chart - as it Peaked at No.39 - its only Week in the Top 40. Yet it spent a further 22 Weeks in the Top 75. B) Oasis spent 134 Weeks On Chart in 1996 - one of the Most Weeks in a Year, ever. But, IF the Virgin Book only gives Top 40 Weeks, Oasis drop to about 24 Chart Weeks in 1996 - a very low tally. Edited June 22, 200817 yr by zeus555
June 22, 200817 yr Gah! We need top 75 weeks - especially in these days of downloads - Chasing Cars for instance will have a much smaller chart run! :lol:
June 22, 200817 yr I had a feeling this was gonna happen - they sell it to someone else, who decide to undo all the work that their predecessor (sic) did. And if their only doing weeks in the Top 40, what are they going to do for those singles that peaked below that number? And if it's true about the albums, does anyone know where I can find the album charts since January 1st 2006? Edited June 22, 200817 yr by DitzyNizzy
June 22, 200817 yr I had a feeling this was gonna happen - they sell it to someone else, who decide to undo all the work that their predecessor (sic) did. And why only 40? And if it's true about the albums, does anyone know where I can find the album charts since January 1st 2006? Try chartstats (its where I look for old charts!)
June 22, 200817 yr The suggestion on other forums is that it will cover every single to reach the top 75 but that the number of weeks will only be top 40 weeks. This is dotty. It can't cost any more to collect the top 75 weeks and it doesn't make any difference to the number of pages. So I don't see the logic behind this at all.
June 22, 200817 yr The suggestion on other forums is that it will cover every single to reach the top 75 but that the number of weeks will only be top 40 weeks. This is dotty. It can't cost any more to collect the top 75 weeks and it doesn't make any difference to the number of pages. So I don't see the logic behind this at all. Weeks in Top40 is more comparable to historic data. It seems fine to me.
June 22, 200817 yr Author If we want a Chart Book that has Content which compares 'Historic Chart Data' on a 'Level Playing Field' basis, then we may as well say that the Virgin Book, should be only based on the Top TEN - as from November 1952 to now, the UK Singles Chart has always had a Top 10. The Point is - are Chart Books based on shorter Charts, good value for money? Should they not reflect the size of the UK Charts at ALL periods, rather than just shorten them, as regards the overall Data in such a Book? I do not mind 'Chart Trivia' Sections in UK Chart Books, having Tables, & Facts & Feats, based on the Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, etc., as it enables Acts who were big when the Charts were much smaller, to get a fair chance to compete against more 'Modern' Acts, in such Lists. However, I do not think that the overall contents of UK Chart Books should be based on a much shorter Singles Chart than we have had for several Decades.
June 23, 200817 yr :angry: The OCC should have made sure that they included the full OCC Top 100 as published on the OCC website in their contract. If it only covers the Top 40 then I for on will not be buying it. Edited June 23, 200817 yr by Euro Music
June 23, 200817 yr :angry: The OCC should have made sure that they included the full OCC Top 100 as published on the OCC website in their contract. If it only covers the Top 40 then I for on will not be buying it. I probably won't be either. Even more so if albums aren't included. (I believe the 2004 edition said that the album chart is a better indication of music trends in this country than the singles chart.)
June 24, 200817 yr Weeks in Top40 is more comparable to historic data. It seems fine to me. EXcept that I, and no doubt many others who purchased the Guinness books, *won't* buy this if the info is more limited! :(
June 24, 200817 yr EXcept that I, and no doubt many others who purchased the Guinness books, *won't* buy this if the info is more limited! :( I usually mail order my copy, by the looks of it I will have to browse through a copy before I purchase one, if its only going to cover the top 40, some weeks are going to be missing for certain artists, especially for tracks that enter the lower end of the chart which drop out after a week, to me it sounds pointless in owning a copy. When most of the info is not covered.
June 24, 200817 yr Weeks in Top40 is more comparable to historic data. It seems fine to me. If we're going to go down that road, why don't we just stop it at 12? (The first couple of years of the charts stopped at No12.)
Create an account or sign in to comment