Finchingfield

The OCC are stubborn fellows. They do what they want regardless of logic. The solution to this problem is of course (1) have an album tracks chart, and (2) have a singles chart. That's the best solution, it's a compromise, and it gives everyone in both camps what they want. Never forget that the OCC declared Record Retailer as the so-called "official" chart of the 60s, decades after the fact. It never was "official", there was no "official" chart prior to Feb 1969, and it was the least accurate, least followed, had the highest low chart position volatility, and it sampled the fewest number of record shops, compared to the other major charts of the day. Of course the most famous example to prove this point, The Beatles "Please Please Me" in 1963. #1 for 2 weeks on NME, Melody Maker, and Disc, and 3 weeks on the BBC POTP and TOTP average chart. Based on a total of 270 record shops. Meanwhile, Record Retailer sampled a measly 30 record shops, and said Please Please Me peaked at #2. The OCC says #2 is the historical peak. What galled rubbish! And the same thing happened to The Rolling Stones "19th Nervous Breakdown" in 1966. 3 weeks at #1 on NME, Melody Maker, Disc, and the BBC average. But peaked at #2 on Record Retailer, so that's "official". Horse hockey!! Yes friends, the OCC is a bunch of stubborn fellows who defy reason, logic, and truth, burying their heads firmly in the sand...

Here’s what I’m thinking. We set up an organization to rival the OCC. It’s open to everyone. We don’t necessarily have a brick and mortar building / physical address. Rather we are connected by our like mindedness of historical charts, we could exist as possibly an internet site / forum. We come up with a name, something similar to “The Historically True UK Chart Canon Company.” HTUKCCC, or whatever. We collectively decide on what the UK chart historical canon should be. We could do this one of several ways, picking and choosing the best chart to represent a given time period based on certain criteria (such as number of record shops sampled), jumping to another music paper chart when it becomes more accurate. This could also involve choosing a best chart for the Top 30 (say NME), and using positions 31-50 from another chart (say RR). Working out all the quirks and bugs as needed. Or we decide that the new canon should be back calculated from the available national charts of the day, similar to the BBC averaging but weighting the records based on the number of shops sampled per music paper. And we include every record on every chart every week in the mix. So the total number of chart positions could fluctuate as needed. The driving idea is to represent all chart history, every charted record makes an appearance on this new average weighted chart. Step 1 we decide on what the formula should be, Step 2 we crunch the numbers and create the charts. That’d be only constructing 520 weekly charts for the 60s. I’m mostly thinking of this in regards to the 1960s, but also open to the 50s, and early 70s. We could also determine if and when we would flop over to the OCC charts, what year they truly did become historically accurate, etc. The alternative is to try and get the OCC to change the error of their ways. Get a group of chart experts together, form a committee, approach the OCC with their findings and recommendations, and try to reason with them to correct their own canon of 60s charts, for the sake of truth and history! If necessary, compile the weighted 60s charts and GIVE them to the OCC… Or we infiltrate the OCC in the upcoming years, planting secret HTUKCCC members, and when enough members are in place, then a bloodless coup takes over and changes the OCC canon overnight. One way or another, this can be done, and it needs to be done, especially for the 60s. History is history, and it should not be rewritten! Perhaps one of our chart experts with music industry contacts could approach Paul McCartney / Ringo Starr / George Martin / EMI (or now Universal), Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, etc., and try to get them to bring this thing up in the national music press, during their next set of interviews. As we know, Please Please Me and 19th Nervous Breakdown (among others) DID hit # 1 on all the national charts that mattered back in the day, regardless that Record Retailer / OCC says they peaked at # 2. It irks me beyond words that EMI went for the lie and didn’t include PPM on The Beatles “1” CD, totally unbelievable. With the weight of a famous champion like Macca, this issue could very well get out to the masses. I really can’t think of an easier way than to get Macca to take this up. Especially with all the Beatlemania now going on with various reissues, copyright extensions, 50th anniversary of them arriving in the US, etc. Just remind him that the OCC says PPM never got to # 1 on the official UK charts, and check his reaction… OK. So who amongst us knows Paul McCartney and can approach him about this? Or does anyone else have a better idea?

As to concerns whether the OCC will or will not 'recognize' this new chart book 1940-52, I am of the opinion that the OCC is illegitimate when it comes to chart 'recognition' prior to Feb 1969, and for probably a few years after that. They 'recognize' Record Retailer charts as the 'canon' for the 60s, I absolutely do not, history does not, and I hope most posters here do not either. What is needed is a rival organization to the OCC, made up of chart historians/experts/critics, and for them to establish a new chart canon prior to Feb 1969 and possibly a few years after that. Get it talked about, get some press coverage, magazine articles written, etc. Keep pushing for the chart truth and never give up...