I just hope they see sense to add the top 75 stuff when the next singles edition gets devloped that's if they decide to have a second edition, as it feels a bit light. If you are going to pay £20 a book, you want your money's worth, the Guinness books were retailed at 20 pounds a shot, it feels too expensive for half the info there is, that's my gripe with it, at the moment, and not having the top 75 included... obviously.

You only get Top 40 Weeks On Chart - so Hits that failed to get

higher than No.41 only have their Date & Peak shown.

 

That also means that songs that spend many weeks between 41 & 75, get a massive chunk of their chart run lopped off.

 

The worst example of this is Snow Patrol's 'Chasing Cars' - up to the cut-off point, they registered 78 weeks in the T75, but only 30 of those in the T40 (and even those are, absurdly IMO, split onto two separate lines).

 

FYI, the cut-off date appears to be the 29/3/08 chart.

 

I saw this for the first time yesterday, had a look at it, and put it straight back on the shelf.

 

And fancy not having a list of the No1 singles in order.

 

Edit - If the cut-off date is March 29th, what a waste of time (seven months later).

Edited November 9, 200816 yr by DitzyNizzy

Usually it was a year before with the Guiness books though, but they made up for it by being super-detailed :)

Usually it was a year before with the Guiness books though, but they made up for it by being super-detailed :)

it was less than a year, usually 5 months. The cut off point was the last chart of the year and the book was usually published in late May of the following year. It was easier for Guinness though since all the previous information was stored in their database so they only had to update it. Virgin didn't have this luxury... But I'd also guess that the current book was held back a while to compete in the lucrative Christmas market.

Robbie - but 'Virgin' DO have the Chart Data from the Graham Betts Books.

('Complete Book Of British Hit Albums', & 'Complete Book Of British Hit Singles').

 

The OCC bought the Data off Mr. Betts, earlier in 2008 - and allowed Martin Roach

& Virgin to use it for the new Singles Chart Book.

 

That's why the lay-out is similar to his Mr. Betts Books, & why Virgin have copied

his idea of using Symbols to show which Hits have got Silver, Gold, & Platinum, BPI

Awards.

 

There are no Trivia, & Statistics/Feats Sections in the Book, because Graham Betts

had none in his Books - and they decided to copy most of his methods.

 

However - they dumped his Lists of No.1 Hits, short Biogs, & Top 75 Data, &

decided to only use Weeks On Chart for Top 40 Hits.

 

In the Forword to the Book, it makes it clear that a 2010 Edition is planned - just

as there will be a 'Virgin British Hit Albums' Book in June 2009.

 

 

I meant they didn't have the luxury of updating the information on a week by week basis which Guinness could do. Obtaining an existing database is one thing, but learning how to use it and then update it is another. It's a recipe for errors as the existing data will have had little chance to be rechecked.

 

Perhaps it is why the book is so sparse, could it be that the new editor had little time to do anything more than put out a shell of a book?

I know someone at The OCC, & I've told him that the June 2009 Album Book

MUST have a Stats/Trivia/Feats Section in it. I've also outlined 7 other things that

'Chart Fans' want from such Books. He tells me that he will pass all my points to

Virgin/Martin Roach - but they have the final say on the matter. The OCC only

grant them a License to do the Books.

 

Of course - by outlining 8 things that such Chart Books should contain, I've

also pointed out that the Singles Chart Book has none of them!

 

In my view there were good features in the Graham Betts Books, the Guinness

Books, & the 'Complete Book Of British Charts' Books, & a really good, worthwhile

Chart Book would combine the best features of all 3 Books.

 

Instead the Virgin Book just uses some of the features in Graham Betts Books

- and pleases virtually nobody.

Edited November 10, 200816 yr by zeus555

It's the editor of the book that needs to get the feedback rather than the OCC. The OCC are only a small organisation with 8 or 9 staff and it isn't within the remit of the OCC to dictate to the editor and publishers of Hit Singles what features should or should not be in the book. The OCC have a set of objectives and in relation to publications such as Hit Singles it is simply to maximise income through licensing in order to offset the annual costs of compiling the charts. If Martin Roach and Virgin wanted to pay £££s to the OCC to obtain the license and then just publish a Hit Singles book that only listed every single to peak at number 75 and nothing else then it would be up to them and the OCC would not step in to prevent them. The book would fail - I hope - but that would not be the concern of the OCC.

 

The last editor of Guinness Hit Singles provided a contact email address for people to leave feedback and suggestions, has Martin Roach provided something similar?

well, I'm assuming that Martin Roach / Virgin can do with the data what they want once they have a license... I can't imagine the OCC selling them a license and then dictating limitations on its use. In other words, the unsatisfactory nature of this book is surely down to the publishers and not the OCC?

Robbie - The OCC had more of a hand in the Book than you think.

They want the Book to Sell well, because they even had some of their

Staff, 'Proof Reading', it - Months ago. Also, they asked another Chart

Book Expert, (who used to do UK Chart Books), to help them 'Proof Read'

the Book. The 'Proof Reading' was very rushed. There was a lack of time.

 

I can't see The OCC 'Proof Reading' The Virgin Book, (when they have

only about 8 Staff), unless the Book is far more important to The OCC than

merely Licensing the Data to Martin Roach/Virgin.

 

I'd say that the Sales of the Book matter - very much - to The OCC.

Therefore, anything that is wrong with the Book, would interest The

OCC too. (Chart Fans directly Contacting Martin Roach & Virgin is another

option - of course).

Edited November 10, 200816 yr by zeus555

I'd still say that contacting the publisher / editor is the right approach. If everyone began to contacted the OCC over the Hit Singles book they would just start to ignore any and all correspondence.

 

The OCC probably had a more hands on approach because they were handing data over (in the form of Betts' database and related material) to someone who probably didn't have the resources to produce a book in a relatively short period of time. After all it is Roach's and Virgin's first Hit Singles book. Hence it is in the interests of the OCC to check they are licensing correct data to someone who is paying a premium price which may explain why they chipped in with proof reading, though to what extent they could have done this with such limited resources of their own is debatable. The layout of the book and the sparseness of data in the book is most definitely the concern of the editor and publisher of Hit Singles though and not the OCC.