Graham A

That's the reason why OAOS fell out of favour with the record companies. The case in question that caused this issue was undoubtedly the Nicola Roberts single. She entered low in the chart, a Radio Station used it not to playlist it calling it a flop, so it didn't sell. After that record companies backed out of OAOS. The trouble is that the UK radio is not like USA radio, where national stations do not dominate the airwaves. I suspect that in most of the rest of Europe too, a few Radio stations do not pick up large parts of the radio audience. So OAOS doesn't make any difference to the sales of a record being stopped because a single radio station boss says it's entered a 49, so we are not going to playlist it. Also the chart is not a popularity chart. It's a sales chart. If you simply want a popularity chart, you could ask the public which records they like each week. This site could simply put a list of all the available records and people vote for them. I dare say it does already. The trouble is nobody would make any money from such a chart. And that's the problem with streaming sites. How much money is each record getting for being played by a member of the public. With what I see for the amount a streaming site charges for listening to records, then the amount a record "sells" for - for one play is too low to measure, so you have to add lots of plays together. But I still think that it would not come to much, plus don't the OCC chart have rules about the minimum price of a sale? So would a stream track have to meet the minimum sale price? Perhaps that would be so high that a streamed record would need 5,000 + to match just one download.

That's ironic because it's BBC Radio One that are pressing for its introduction in the chart!

That's not true for a none free service. This is the cost per play of each track. Fee for one month. We will use your price of £9.99. Weekly cost £2.4975 Less total time you cannot listen to stream service for the month, a sleep, eating, work, school etc. Less the time each track you listen to is playing. Less the time spent searching for music to play. Equals cost of each track you play. Footnote: cost of each track will rise up each time you play it, since it will eat into the time you have to play tracks. The longer you can spend on the streaming site the cheaper the track costs. If you don't often use the streaming site, costs will be greater than what you might spend on downloads. As download sales fall due to people streaming records, the costs of the fee will rise up as record companies try to recover costs.

The fact it was the BBC that said this is a lot to do with the argument that they don't like an iTunes top 40. The BBC has this funny balancing act between not seen as backing commercial companies and popular taste. They don't like the fact that the top 40 looks too much like the iTunes chart, that's what I think. Till someone can produce a statement from a BBC person saying that it's not a reason, it has to be considered the main reason for this change. Do the streaming sites allow explicit recordings to be listened to by younger persons? If they don't that will change the chart for the worse. Since they can't stop someone buying a record that's explicit. Didn't the BBC not play Dapper Laughs on the same grounds over the weekend. Streaming chart position for that record? "Zero" is my guess!

I think I know the reason they want to add streaming. It's to stop the top 40 looking like iTunes charts. The record industry has let iTunes take the biggest share of the chart, other download sites are ignored. You only have to look at a current Play.com top 100 to see that it's having little effect on the OCC chart, to prove this. I'm pretty certain that the BBC are not at all happy playing what is the iTunes top 40 for the week. In the past the record store chart was a mix of shops, none of which produced sales lists that were up to date, or showed with any certainty what might be number one come Sunday. That's not the case now. You can easily predict what will be top ten, just by following the iTunes chart. By opening it up to streaming it changes the look of the chart. Looking at the iTunes chart after the event of a streaming chart to find out what is going to be in the chart Sunday, will be pointless. One thing is for certain iTunes will not be happy about the combined streaming chart. The Christmas number one might well be Mariah Carey if this goes ahead.

One problem that limiting would cause is that downloads often come off different albums. They are often duplicated because they are very easy to get a licence for. There could be ten different albums all with the same track on. These days some oldies have bounced back in the chart due to some advert on TV or a special event. Some download sites don't have all the albums available for purchase, so one of these sites will be only be able to sell the special event download from one album. That might apply to several sites each with a different album. Customers will also pick and choose which version to download. So one of these special event downloads could have ten versions combined together for the chart. It's unlikely that anybody would download any twice or more. So to limit them to 3 versions would be very unfair. With the CD, the record company had to specify which CD counted towards the chart. That would be a big mistake to introduce now too! I'm am more concerned about iTunes having too much control over the chart, especially the constant flooding of it with 59p tracks that are not generally new material. It would be much better if that company had more new records sold at 59p than something by Blackstreet or Kanye West from the start of this Century priced cheap again!

45 cat is good for solving these problem. The answer is no it was not a double AA. I think a lot of people get confused with the We Will Rock You and We Are The Champions record by Queen, which was released in the same year and was a AA. http://www.45cat.com/record/emi2593

The advantage of having double A sides is that the record company can con people into buying a record twice. The most obvious example being Boney M's tracks. Another advantage is Christmas records, after the day is over. The Radio stations can play the other side and the record picks up sales. However in practice sales didn't pick up with most singles released with a none Christmas other side. I don't think Demis would have got that number one in 1976 without it being in the chart Dave. Even the Real Chart has only recorded one record that was top without making the other charts and that was down to a load of collectors and some dodgy sellers pulling a fast one on Madonna fans in 1992 with the Shine A Light record. The disadvantage is that record companies and acts have to make TWO videos which increases costs, very bad if the records don't sell. I have seen in Chart Books that this or that record was listed in the BMRB chart from this date to that date. When the record was not actually listed as a double A, simply added to the official listed A side. Was this down to the chart makers or some retailers listing that record selling rather than the A side? Robson & Jerome, I think liked AA sides, but was White Cliffs of Dover just added on or a double AA side?

Do you actually like music Suedehead2? Or are you just an aging punk rocker :heehee:

By the time the first Guinness Book came out both the NME and Melody Maker papers were not interested in the charts as they were full of pop bands such as ABBA and Brotherhood of Man. The music these papers raved about didn't go near the charts or if it did the acts that did it had sold out to the corporate media and institutions. Can you really see the NME having anything to do with Mike Read? A man who modelled himself on Cliff Richard!!

The only reason why these fake versions are ever even issued is due to the fact that the UK waits for a record to build up airplay on the Radio before releasing a track. These fakes kill the sales of the original version when it is released. They only get away with it because the EU Law allows them to make cover versions. It states that if the original version is officially released in just one of the member countries than they are free to issue these covers. Since most other member countries use the system whereby a new record on the Radio is on sale, they are not plagued by these cover version. However the record companies in the UK got bitten hard with On Air On Sale, when some artists released records using this method and because they entered low having no airplay, where deemed flops by the big radio stations and therefore not given airplay. So the principal was dropped. In practice it only needs adjusting so that records such as those clearly going to big hits, such as those released in the USA and other places (but mostly the USA) go straight to OAOS and the rest get airplay. Let's also be clear that a fake version is a cover, simply to make money using session musicians, who probably record several different versions of the same song under different names. These names are also made to be found quickly by a search engine from someone looking for the original artist. They are often purchased by people thinking it is the original artist and is made to sound like it is especially for the sample player used by sales sites. It should be pointed out the money made from these is big, sufficient to cover the registration fee for the OCC inclusion in the charts, which is why they chart in the OCC chart now and didn't a few years ago. The company(s) that made them quickly caught on to the fact paying the fee for the chart was worth it. So registered the tracks. I believe that some companies give different names for the same track for both iTunes and Amazon. So on iTunes the same singers will be called one thing and on Amazon another. This can mean sometimes they chalk up two purchases for the same record.

Shouldn't this act come under "L" section? LAZY B Danish musical "project" of Søren Nystrøm Rasted, formerly of Aqua 26 Aug 06 Underwear Goes Inside The Pants 30 4 wks Total Hits : 1 Total Weeks : 4

Then it was probably a working practice that had continued since the days when the BMRB was doing the chart. The BBC was full of these for many years. The BBC could have in fact broadcast the chart on Sunday, it didn't see the need, since it gave TOTP the first opportunity to broadcast the new top 30 on Thursday. By the 1980's Radio One had lost much of it's audience to ILR, plus was still on the AM band, when most people chose to listen to stereo radio. The Tuesday run-down was just a DJ giving out the chart positions for about 5 minutes. Blink and you would miss it! So most people found out what was doing well from TOTP. This all changed with the introduction of the Network Chart. With the BBC playing a week old chart on Sunday, the public got bored. So the BBC had to scrap old rules and get the chart broadcast after it came out. The BBC had the Tory party dangling the wee will cut off the licence fee and privatise Radio One if it lost too much audience. So that was another pressure. It's simply the case that the BBC had to be dragged kicking and screaming forward, most often by ILR and ITV, to do what they should have been doing long ago. You have to remember that the BBC powers that be didn't like pop music and thought the charts were a "commercial" for record company products. This is why the run down was restricted to a voice over and not playing any records. DJ's were told also not to mention the chart positions of records not in the 30 or 40 depending on what part of the chart was to be aired by the station. Oddly it was this attitude of the BBC elite that has put them in deep water over the Savile case, because they didn't care if degenerates were in charge of pop stations or presenting TV shows, just as long as News and Current affairs programs were of the highest standards. The switch over to the Sunday Chart did however mean that TOTP was broadcasting the old chart, so it lost an advantage that it never recovered from.

The actual answer is to do with printing. The chart was ready for Sunday which means that Radio One could broadcast it for then. Published for Tuesday means that "copy" as they call it in the print trade would be ready for Tuesday. This means that if there was a bank holiday on Monday that the "copy" could not arrive on time (to prepared for the press) and therefore the page would not be ready to go to the printers. PS I should say that the "copy" would be a typed up copy of the chart. This would have to be then typeset to make the page.

This is the show details that I have for the first TOTP: TOTP 1964 1-1-64: Presenters: Jimmy Savile & Alan Freeman (13) THE ROLLING STONES – I Wanna Be Your Man (NEW) CLIFF RICHARD & THE SHADOWS – Wishing Well (film) (12) CLIFF RICHARD & THE SHADOWS – Don’t Talk To Him (film) (21) THE HOLLIES – Stay (6) GENE PITNEY – 24 Hours From Tulsa (crowd dancing) (5) DUSTY SPRINGFIELD – I Only Want To Be With You (4) FREDDIE & THE DREAMERS – You Were Made For Me (10) SWINGING BLUE JEANS – Hippy Hippy Shake (3) THE BEATLES – She Loves You (and charts) (2) DAVE CLARK FIVE – Glad All Over (1) THE BEATLES – I Want To Hold Your Hand (film)

I remember Bruno Brookes saying that the rundown (coming direct from Gallup HQ) often only just reached them before the show went on air. It was remarked several times that it nearly didn't get to them for the start of the show. As for the use of the computers in the late 1980's it was very expensive for any company to train staff in the use of a BBC Micro. At the time I was wanting to use them for DTP work. They were slow and very poor at doing a simple task. Later on Amstrad brought out the desktop PC, but apart from some spreadsheet software and Word Processor, there was little else even these could do till the software companies caught up. I should also point out that most people had no knowledge of computers at all. And unless you were a secretary certainly didn't know how to use a keyboard. Plus if you wanted to do a training course in how to use a keyboard at say a local college, you would be taught on an old typewriter, still using an old ribbon and using a piece of carbon paper to make copies. That's how backwards the UK was in the 80's. It wasn't till the PC became linked with selling things and the use of the bar code to identify the product could the chart be computerised in the way it was. For example most of the big supermarkets could have told you how many cans of beans they had sold, but not an individual record. This was because they classed anything not food as "none food stock".

With the exception for Boney M, the BMRB chart had a quirk of removing records that were falling off in sales. This was done deliberately by BMRB itself. This practice was certainly done in the 1976 and 1977 charts, so it might have still been occurring in 1979. The Christmas records do tend not be purchased after the event. But back then shops would have stopped ordering copies quickly, so a big seller would soon dry up.

Frank Oz sang the title!

They had to up their gain after Hot Gossip made them look like Pan's Grannies!

Who would have thought it? The official charts are compiled by the Only Way is Essex! :rofl:

There's nothing to stop anyone burning an MP3 album to a CD. Most laptops and computers can do that. I bet the market for blank CDR is not falling.

Ah! But can you prove that happens, where's the evidence? Especially when you consider that most Radio Stations will concentrate on the top 40 records, plus play things that that they know will be hits, such as those released in the USA or acts with a track record. I myself use to use streaming services that are free, but found that the content would "drop" out. I used them to record the tracks, but it was mainly old material that I didn't want to pay 99p for. I gave up in the end since you had to name the files add the material and get the album cover. Otherwise Windows Media Player and the ipod just show a musical note. Plus if you have an "official" track in the same folder then all the other tracks carry the same picture. So if you have say a David Essex album track in with your Spotify songs, then they all show David Essex even if they are Lily Allen songs. And trying to change them is a nightmare.

Exactly! ;) Illegal downloaders haven't just started in the last year. They might have effected the odd album, such as the overpriced iTunes exclusive of Beyoncé's, but they haven't grown in numbers. Indeed with restrictions by internet providers they might be less of them around in the UK at least. Streaming is probably killing the Radio audience, I'm not convinced it's effecting the download market in the UK. Can you even stream to an ipod?

Last week on Amazon I download £16 worth of individual tracks! Downloading an album is much cheaper, if they are only £10. But the problem is like many people I don't want to download or buy tracks that A: I don't want. And B: that I already have. Single track downloaders are tempted to download by reducing the price, mostly down to 59p. But many sites charge 99p for tracks and that's a rip off. The whole concept is still based on the album. Even the MP3 single track is presented as an album. Record companies are not going to give up on the album. If the shops won't sell them, I can see the record companies doing so. It's always baffles me why Record Companies need places like iTunes to sell them? Why don't they just bypass the middleman and sell them direct. Taking iTunes profit. Your not telling me a big company like Universal can't afford the technology to get a website and sell them? I would also dispute that the digital format increased last year. As for the CD it will probably make a comeback. But not anytime soon.

People call me nuts for doing the Real Chart :rolleyes: It all falls apart this idea on the basis you can get people to agree on things. And you will get any experts to agree on anything. The NME charts for example are just the sheets of paper you see in each issue. There's no-way to tell if it was more accurate than one put out by any paper. Since methods of doing them and even the days it was done are different for each publication. I doubt if there are even the calculations used to compile a chart from the 1960's even for the Record Retailer. So you can't "crunch numbers". You can't get an accurate chart from combining several charts together. All you can do is get the people who compile chart books to include the NME charts from the present cut off point to the introduction of the BMRB chart in 1969. I should point out that when the 1969 chart came about, the NME refused to take part in it. So it was largely NME's fault that it took so long to get a full national chart. They were part of the negotiations for new charts of 1969. Sadly they couldn't agree on things, which bodes well for The Historically True UK Chart Canon Company. People have some wonderful ideas, but getting bodies and experts to agree is a nightmare. You could finish up with two sets of charts, that still nobody likes, as different factions pull out of THTUKCCC and slag it off! You only have to look at the NHS formation and the battle they had with doctors. Now most doctors are it's biggest defender! If you want the accurate list of 50's and 60's number ones you know where to go ;)