Van Morrison at the new Bonus Arena Hull

Van Morrison at 73 is one of the elder statesmen of Rock and it was great to have him in Hull for the inauguration of our new Arena.

The last time I saw Van was with Them back in 1965. Baby Please Don’t Go was still in the charts and Here Comes The Night had just been released. I was fifteen years old at the time and that band, only the second band I’d ever seen live, made quite an impression on me.

Them were pretty raw and exciting and Van was a young man of nineteen with long hair with a very powerful Blues voice.

His appearance has changed a little over those intervening fifty three years but that voice has only got better. At seventy two he is still going strong.

Photo – Hull Daily Mail – no copyright infringement intended

Van played an hour and a half set that was non-stop. There were no introductions between songs, no chatter and hardly a pause. The only time he spoke was towards the end when he said thank you and then again when he acknowledged the band.

He came on stage with his saxophone and began with some laid-back jazzy numbers. This was followed by a great little set of Blues numbers – Baby Please Don’t Go, Don’t Start Crying Now, Got My Mojo Working and I Can Tell – that reminded me of those heady days in the sixties with Them. This six piece band, with their keyboards, xylophone, brass, bass, guitar, female backing singer and percussion were really slick. They weren’t the raw energy of Them but they nailed it with precision and skill in a more sophisticated manner that still retained that earthiness. Van’s voice was every bit as good as it ever was – if not better.

What followed were some of his great standards – such as Moondance, Have I told You Lately That I Love You and the fabulous Warm Love.

At the end the crowd were on their feet and he did two encores – No Guru No Method No Teacher and finishing with what must be his signature song – Brown Eyed Girl.

The end was a bit different though. I did take some of my old albums along to see if I could get them signed. I didn’t expect much but last time I’d seen him with them we were invited backstage and they whole band signed postcards of the band. I had two signed by Van and the whole of the original band. Sadly I gave one to a friend and my Mum chucked the other one out! I lived in hope. But as the band entertained us Van walked straight out the back to a waiting car and was gone. Times change!

A great way to get the Arena off the ground though!

I guess these albums of mine will have to go unadorned!!

Happy Birthday Van – August 31st – 73 years old today!!


79 thoughts on “Van Morrison at the new Bonus Arena Hull

  1. Actually there was a five week gap between Baby Please and Here Comes being in the charts. Rather strange to be trying to find a tangible link today with back in 1965 considering everything he’s done. I’ve been to well over one hundred, probably nearer the one-fifty mark of Van gigs and it would be fair to say that his current touring band are one hundred times more of musicians than Them ever were. It’s also worth mention that it was in fact James Patrick Page who played the lead guitar track on these two aforementioned singles. The Van-heads must’ve had grins ear-to-ear had they spotted your bag of expectant albums. What were you thinking? Van sitting at the merch table saying hi and autographing? Van Morrison? Seriously? LMAO.

    1. Moondancer – yet there was a direct link wasn’t there? Van did a little cameo set of Blues numbers that harked right back to Them and that must have been deliberate mustn’t it?
      Here Comes the Night was released about 11 weeks after Baby Please Don’t Go and Baby Please Don’t Go was in the charts for 9 weeks so there wasn’t too much of a gap really was there? Certainly didn’t seem much at the time.
      Thanks for the Jimmy Page input. It was a bit unclear how much he did on Baby Please Don’t Go – he may have done the lead riff or adapted it or not done it at all. He certainly did the Here Comes The Night one though.
      In terms of comparing the two bands it is like comparing chalk and cheese. The musicianship of Van’s current band far exceeds that of Them but in terms of raw excitement it doesn’t come near. There is always the danger of things veering into too perfect a performance and becoming cabaret. When a band starts out they are full of nascent energy and creativity – trying things out, experimenting – trying. When they have been around for decades they are merely tweeking and perfecting. I’m not saying Van was cabaret. I enjoyed it greatly. The band was spot on and gave a great performance. Van’s voice was superb. But it lacked spontaneity, did not try to connect with the audience and lacked the raw energy of Them. There’s the old debate about Rock – whether it’s better to have a young, raw band with energy in a small club or a consummate group of musicians producing a sophisticated nigh on perfect performance in an arena. Probably something to be said for both.
      No I did not expect Van to come out signing albums. But it is always possible to slip a few to a roadie to get signed and occasionally that works. They said the same about Ginger Baker and he signed my albums. Sometimes the unexpected can happen. But no I did not have high hopes.

      1. I think perhaps my comment that informed I’ve attended some quantity of Van’s concerts is sufficient.
        Yes, he’s more often than not played Baby Please or Here Comes in one shape or other, be it in entirety or medley format.
        I wasn’t referring to the songs performed, but your expectations of expecting to see on stage a Van Morrison circa 1965 – as your wishful expectation claimed “They weren’t the raw energy of Them…”. That’s all. A mere observation of the impossible.

        Yes, Page played lead on both. Full details of all Page’s 1960’s sessions were made available to subscribers of the Led Zeppelin fanzine ‘Tight But Loose’ some fifteen or so years ago and that information is now all over the internet were one wanting to know.

        I’ll have to correct you with your timings on these records.
        Baby Please was released 6th November 1964. It entered the Top Twenty on 16th January 1965, rose to #10 and was in the Top Twenty for 6 weeks.
        Here Comes was released 5th March 1965 – some 17 weeks later and not 11 weeks as you claimed – rose to #2 and remained in the Top Twenty for 8 weeks.
        Release dates maybe clarified from the experts at or the everyman’s Wikipedia.
        Back in 1965, Pop records outwith the Top Twenty were barely played as there simply wasn’t enough needle time allowance as per the policy of the BBC Light Programme. Therefore, playtime was completely focused to those records populating the Top Twenty. This changed come the advent of BBC Radio One in 1967, where all such restrictions were lifted and the Top Forty became the format focus.

        There is no comparing the two bands. Them had people who couldn’t play properly, hence, why they had session musicians to play the lead instruments.
        I think perhaps that you have forgotten that you weren’t actually at a Them gig in 1965, but in fact a Van Morrison (and his band) show in 2018. There was in fact no such dangers as you alluded to such as “When a band starts out they are full of nascent energy and creativity – trying things out, experimenting – trying.”
        Van Morrison has since 1965, released over forty albums, none of which are remotely of the contents of a Them album. As early as 1970, he ventured into the world of Jazz-Blues, a mile off from his R&B routes and the limitless hundreds of live bootlegs from all down the subsequent years will attest to this experimenting. He did all the experimenting he ever needed to do throughout the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s. It’s just a case of seemingly you weren’t there and missed it all. Suffice to say, that’s what bootlegs are for and there’s no shortage of them for you to indulge with and catch up on.
        Yes, it would lack spontaneity as they’re playing to a pre-determined and very rehearsed set list. You weren’t at Ronnie Scott’s, but a conventional concert hall with a conventional audience.
        He was playing to a whole bunch of people just like yourself, who’d probably never seen him before and just want to hear some of his greatest hits. That’s exactly what he did do. He was in no way, shape or form in anywhere like to sort of environment where he’d cut loose and be the sort of “in-the-pocket” Van The Man, that real fans such as myself have seen upon dozens of times.

        I think the people who put the money up to build this venue are stretching it a little with claims of it being anything of an Arena. I’ve been in bigger theatres. A 3,500 capacity hall – although there weren’t that many at that Van gig due to the seats – does not constitute an Arena. All the Arenas I’ve ever been to and that’s all over the world, will admit at least twice that, and most are somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand capacity. Wembley Arena seats 10,000. The London O2 seats 20,000 and the old Earls Court Arena at 19,000. That’s an Arena!

        Long, long gone are the days of slipping anything to any roadie. You’d also have great difficulty of getting anywhere near enough in front of the stage to speak to the real roadies working for Van anyway. In most cases these “roadies” that you see these days on the stage after gigs have nothing to do with the artists themselves, but merely employees of the production company hired to take the show on the road. It’s nothing like it used to be at all. Surely you’re aware of that?
        I would suggest that your Ginger Baker incident also happened long ago, too.

      2. Moondancer – well he is obviously someone you really adore. As for me I like him but he’s not one of my favourites. I enjoyed the concert but I probably wouldn’t shell out that sort of money to go again.
        In terms of Them – according to Official Charts – Baby Please Don’t Go was in the charts 13.1.65 and charted for 9 weeks. Here Comes The Night was released on 31.3.65. Now that seems pretty much in line with my memory. I actually saw them on March 23rd and Here Comes The Night was already out and they sang it.
        BTW – I do not discount Van’s years of experimentation with Jazz, Folk, R&B and various other forms. He is a great singer and innovator.
        The Bonus Arena was a great site – a bit too big for my liking but as I was at the front that was OK.

      3. I like a lot of his material, but some is not for me at all. I dislike maudlin rubbish like Have I Told You Lately, that’s awful, but perfect for that kind of audience in Hull, many of whom just by looking at them were not Van fans.

        Opher, I hate to argue, but read this back to yourself:
        In terms of Them – according to Official Charts – Baby Please Don’t Go was in the charts 13.1.65 and charted for 9 weeks. Here Comes The Night was released on 31.3.65. Now that seems pretty much in line with my memory. I actually saw them on March 23rd and Here Comes The Night was already out and they sang it.

        Released on 31st. You saw them on 23rd and it was already out? I think you missed your intended target point there.

        For the single Baby Please, your in the charts date of 13th January 1965 is wrong.
        The 13th was a Wednesday. They didn’t do chart entries on a Wednesday.
        They did them on a Saturday when all the chart return shops filled in their returns on a Monday and sent them back for calculation. Saturday was chart entry day only.
        Saturday was the 16th, as I previously correctly stated.

        Here Comes The Night was released on 5th March, not the 31st as you state.

        As I told you there was a 17 week gap in release dates and a 5 week gap between these records holding chart positions. Your memory has nothing to do with the facts of the information.

      4. Moondancer – I think the data was referring to the charting dates rather than release dats. I put the link there. Check it out. What a silly thing to make a fuss over?

      5. This old debate about Rock that you suggest – although to be honest I’ve never actually come across such a thing.
        Depends on the band who’s playing and what they’re playing.
        For example, I’d much rather see 1980 Pink Floyd at Earls Court performing The Wall, which was easily one of the most phenomenal gigs by anybody ever, than 1967 Pink Floyd at the UFO club.
        I much preferred seeing Jimi Hendrix at Isle of Wight 1970 than I did on about eight times in 1967. At IOW he was absolute master of his domain and his playing was devastating. Just ask David Gilmour who did the soundboard for him at that gig.
        I’d much rather see Neil Young now than in 1970.
        I’d much rather see Bob Dylan around 1997 with his Time Out Of Mind period than his shambolic stoner 1966 period. I loved Dylan `66 on album, but in retrospect him playing live `66 was a stoner shambles and I don’t enjoy stoned people crippled with the effects of excessive intake of Mogadon tablets which has the exact reverse effect of its intended facility.
        I’d rather see Clapton `68 than now. I’d rather see Clapton 2002 than Clapton 1983.
        I’d rather see the Iggy Pop in the 2000’s than the shambles of the 80’s.
        I’d rather see the Cure 1980-90 than 2000 onwards.
        I’d rather see Paul McCartney in the 2000’s and these days (and will in December at all 3 UK dates) than the McCartney of the 1990’s. (he didn’t do any tours in 1980’s following Lennon’s murder)
        The list is endless and it depends who and what.

        Opher, I see from this Them singles business that you’re still determined to attempt to bamboozle serious heads with bogus bad information. It won’t work you know. There are people out there who are matter of fact to the letter. Just accept that you are not one of them.

      6. Eric – yes it’s a matter of choice and what you are looking for. I’d rather have seen the electric Dylan of 65/66 to anything. I’d much rather see Neil Young circa 81 than now.
        I’ve just recently seen a bunch of people – Wilko Johnson, Chantelle McGregor, Van Morrison, Edwina Hayes, The Hut People, and Michael Chapman. In terms of musicianship Van was by far the best. In terms of enjoyment and excitement Wilko, Chantelle, Edwina and The Hut People came in front of him.
        In terms of Them – you are not seriously quibbling over such a silly thing are you? I gave the site the dates came from. What a childish thing to make a fuss over? Who really cares if Baby Please Don’t Go was out of the charts for two or four weeks when I saw them in March 65? What I remember and how I felt is what matters to me. A nerdy thing like a couple of weeks here or there is of no importance at all is it?

      7. I forgot to ask. But tell me, were you honestly thinking, if given the opportunity, of handing over that nasty looking copy of Moondance, with it’s charity shop price sticker, for an autograph? Please tell me you weren’t.

      8. I’m sorry, but I really have to advise you that I very much dislike being taken for a fool.
        I very much think it was you who was making the fuss. So I just made an absolute point of proving that you were wrong. And I’m going to do it again here now.

        As fact of the matter you are wrong again even with your last assumptions.
        I gave you the exact release dates on the records themselves.
        Then I gave you the exact dates of their respective entry into the charts.
        Then I gave you the exact number of weeks between the 1st being in the charts and the 2nd entering into the charts.

        Yet you persisted in your attempts to argue by providing really faulty information. So faulty that you tried to explain that the data was referring to the charting dates rather than the release dates. It was neither because it was simply wrong. The problem lies with your powers of very basic knowledge – you haven’t got any.
        1) Any record regardless of label if released in UK, was on a Friday.
        2) Any records subject to inclusion in the UK pop charts, entered the charts on a Saturday.
        Go check any of these dates that you provided and see if they correspond with:
        1) the correct day of release – a Friday.
        2) the correct day of entry into the charts – on Saturday.

        A simple Google search will clarify the day of the week date for you. Just ask it.

        You can stick your link back from whence it came. It’s not accurate. It’s like wikipedia with a lot of such similar information.

        It’s really not that difficult. But my god man, are you slow to catch on to what is very basic knowledge information. Added to the fact that you can’t even find yourself accurate and detailed enough sources. You actually thought to yourself that you could throw any old rubbish info at me and perhaps get away with it. Well no, you can’t, because I got your number on that one. I know a bumbling bullshitting fool when I see one. And I just saw one.

        I even gave you the website name of the experts, and that went right over your head. Why would I know of them? Answer – I am a major contributor to their data base which is checked, double checked and triple checked again. It is so accurate that every other source in the world bleeds off it. Go see our Beatles release section to give you an idea of exactly what it is that we do. Trust me, you’ll wish you’d never so much as uttered one single word. OK?

      9. Moondancer – I’m sorry but I don’t have time for this extreme nerdy anorak stuff. The simple fact is that I was there. Baby Please Don’t Go was just out of the charts and Here Comes The Night had just been released. What on earth is there to create an argument about? For heavens sake – it is trivial and silly. You are manufacturing a storm in a teacup when there isn’t even a teacup. Silly.

      10. Well I can tell you, Bob Dylan 1965 UK was completely acoustic. It had it’s moments as well as it’s lesser ones. We of course weren’t subject to the few electric half of the shows he performed Stateside, and reviewing the few recordings, it’s all a bit rough and ready. The rhythm section is a disaster and Mike Bloomfield just about passes muster on lead guitar. He was no Jeff Beck, that’s for sure.
        I already described my thoughts of his live `66 outings. He really was only on target on about a quarter of these shows he performed in Europe. On too many nights he was sloppy with his acoustic half a real drag to listen too for any length of time.

        Neil Young 1981? You cannot be serious. 1981 was possibly the nadir of his career with certainly one of the worst albums that he ever released in Re-ac-tor.
        I really don’t think you know what you’re saying by saying you wouldn’t prefer to see Neil Young now. Go ask anybody who saw him here in UK on his last visit with Promise Of The Real. They are beyond anything he’s ever done live before with anybody. You are seriously mistaken here. Trust me on that. Even David Crosby in his most recent interview in Mojo, October 2018 edition, says as much.
        Did you see him on his last UK visit? No, because you don’t go to £90 a ticket gigs.
        Go to YouTube and find some recent film, say of Cortez The Killer, then tell me that 1981 is preferable. C’mon man!

        I can’t comment really on any others from your recently seen list except that I probably wouldn’t have except for Van. Although I don’t mind a bit of Michael Chapman. I really couldn’t go accordion slap-dance anymore that I could eat glass.
        It all looked a wee bit twee for me.

        No, it wasn’t me making any big deal if you care to read what I said. I simply commented on your seemingly futile attempts of attempted big deal making when you were evidently up against a “one who knows”, you know, that breed of person that you have utmost contempt for because they know more than you know.
        Leave it, I wasn’t involved. I wasn’t involved because I didn’t need to be as Moondancer said all that needed to be said. And proved his point with absolute accurate precision. You could learn a little from guys like him. Or at least learn when to draw your nets in, so to speak.

      11. Newport was 65 and that sound was just brilliant. Bloomfield produced just the type of raw guitar I like and Dylan was at his angry best. That’s what I like.
        Reactor was a terrible album but the sound on Live Rust was great.
        The Hut People were a million miles from Twee. They were experimental and extremely worth a listen.
        As for nitpicking about dates like that – nerdy, daft and childish. Who fucking cares? I was there. I sense a hint of jealousy.

      12. It’s actually not about being nerdy. What it is about is plain straight facts. You made false claims, so I corrected them for you. You took exception to that because you seemingly hate to be corrected. That’s your failing, and not mine.
        And let me clarify one particularly important detail for you. It is NOT nerdy for one to be correct with a matter. There is absolutely no need for such slight of disdainful remarks as you were certainly not subjected to any name calling by me. And if you were, trust me, I’d do a hell of a lot better job of that too, than you ever could.
        I trust that clarifies where its at.

      13. No – it is quibbling over silly little things of no consequence at all – that’s being a nerdy anorak. Depending on which site you look at as to what ‘facts’ you choose. What are you arguing about for fuck’s sake? You are making a fuss as to whether BPDG was in the charts 2, 3 or 4 weeks before I saw them. Who cares?

      14. Whoo, I’m sort of glad I stayed in this morning – look at what I’d a missed!

        On that record of yours with the sticker. Have a good look at that cover sleeve will you. It’s scuffed, it’s scraped, it’s bent a little. That’s not what we call “in good nick”, not by any stretch of the imagination.
        Neither would anybody ever really want a US pressing on the Warners Bros. label as their pressings and vinyl quality was simply dire horrible. Never opt for a 70’s US pressing if you can buy a UK. Everytime think UK.

      15. Eric – I’m no bloody collector! I like my music and I don’t give a shit for all that psued collector stuff. I play the music and if it sounds good to me that’s good enough. I’ve got all sorts in my collection and I don’t care about its value or collectability – just what it means to me.

      16. Fer chrissakes Opher, get your facts together will ya!
        Live Rust was recorded in September 1978 and released tail end of 1979, in fact on the very same day as Pink Floyd’s The Wall album.
        It clearly wasn’t 1981! Your three years out. Please!

        Not nerdy. Just completely A1 accurate.

        Jealousy? I REALLY don’t think so. I’ve seen everybody and I mean everybody. Except Elvis Presley.

      17. Good for you Moondance. And I’ve seen most of the ones I wanted to as well and still do. Wouldn’t do for our tastes to be the same would it?
        The Neil Young I like was that of the Neil in the Film Rust Never Sleeps which I saw when my Dad was dying in 1981 (emblazoned in my memory) – though it was a 1978 concert I believe.

      18. No Opher, you REALLY don’t get it at all do you?
        It not about which sites as you state, quote: “Depending on which site you look at as to what ‘facts’ you choose.”
        The facts are the facts. They are taken from original in-house Decca Records official release schedule files and matched to the UK chart entry file information files and the Top Forty charts as published every week by Record Mirror.
        There are only THREE sets of facts. Three sets of accurate facts that all have to tie up with one another.
        You either understand that or you don’t. You seemingly just can’t.
        Christ, I wouldn’t be wanting you on my pub quiz team.

      19. And your point is? Nothing more than a quibble over whether the record had been in the charts two or three weeks earlier. What is the big deal? Who on earth does that matter to?

      20. The fact that you actually saw a film in 1981 has nothing to do with the actual date of filming the film. Had you been at the cinema sometime earlier you could have seen the film as early as January 1980.
        What point were you trying to make? Does the point in time when you see or hear something therefore, determine that point to be it’s determined point of origin?
        That’s some very weird logic that you employ there. It wouldn’t work very well for me or most others, I would imagine. However.

      21. The point in time is that was my reference point – a poignant moment in my life that resonates with me. It wouldn’t with you would it? Your father wasn’t dying at the time.

      22. The point was Opher, not your collecting or not collecting or whatever. Just the simple fact that that’s not what we call “in good nick”. Nothing more.
        Were you to sell that online as described, they’d bite you and you’d have to give their money back.

        Do you always have such extreme difficulties taking in any information?

  2. You’re wrong again.
    You said “Depending on which charts you use. There were a number. Facts? No.”

    No. As I already explained to you in black and white, the UK Charts were managed by Record Mirror. They published the results fed back to them by the UK Phonographic Societies and BBC Light Programme fed these results over the air. The BBC continued to use the Record Mirror upon the launch of Radio One.

    Record Mirror was a British weekly music newspaper between 1954 and 1991 for pop fans and record collectors. The first UK album chart was published in Record Mirror in 1956, and during the 1980s it was the only consumer music paper to carry the official UK singles and UK albums charts used by the BBC for Radio 1 and Top of the Pops, as well as the US Billboard charts. Following acquisition in 1962 of NME by Odhams, Record Mirror was the only independent popular music newspaper.

    It was a very SIMPLE process provided one could understand the system.
    1) Records released on a Friday
    2) BBC begins to play the the ones they like and think suitable for playing
    3) Records in the shop for sale on Saturday
    4) Sales returns made out on Monday and sent off for counting
    5) Record Mirror publishes chart on Saturday for sales up to and including last Saturday (because shops didn’t open on Sunday in 1965)
    6) BBC play chart on Saturday
    and the whole process repeats etc.

    As far as YOU were concerned in 1965, the ONLY chart that you were privy to concerning anything to do with the pop charts as featured on the radio was EXACTLY as that which has been put in front of you now four times.
    Did you say you had something to do with education? LMAO.

    1. So what about the NME charts, Record Retailer, Melody Maker, Disc and Record Mirror?? They all produced charts.
      An example:
      The Beatles’ second single was their first to reach number one. That is, according to some charts.
      Back in the day there was no single official source for chart placings. On some, including New Musical Express and Melody Maker, Please Please Me made the top spot; in others it only managed number two.

      1. Opher, C’mon, why are you looking at the mantlepiece when you shoul be stoking the fire. All these other charts were either copies of Record Mirror’s or just ephemeral fluff just for jingoist pop-journalism purposes. Like who cared if NME listed a diferent number one and two in reverse order? The Official Charts ignored them, The BBC Radio and Top of the Pops ignored them and they were n’t linked to the shops.

        It took me two posts to explain to you the factual reasons as to why you were mistaken as to the release dates and chart activity of the two Them singles.

        Then it’s taken a further four posts to explain to you the management process for the UK Pop Charts System. And explained it in detail – all to no avail. I’m really not sure what’s going on with you.

        Anyway, as ever your last post above is again inaccurate and there’s no good reason for that either as I have furnished you with all the accurate information that you need. This is what we do at
        We are the experts. We can tell you all you need to know along with picture examples of every Beatles’ record ever released anywhere in the world, every pressing, every special export edition, every label in America, every Matrix stamp, every factory mother stamper plate, every factory stamper, every factory pressing plant, every release date, and oh yes, every chart placing.

        Record Mirror is referred to twice in specific terms in two paragraphs in my last post above and again in two other previous posts. This information has not been kept secret from you. I couldn’t mention it anymore apart from rubbing your nose in it.

        All the other charts were a copy of Record Mirror’s. They’d have to be because it was Record Mirror who printed all the results from all the associated sales shops linked to the sales return system.
        Of course there was an official place for chart placings. Whatever suggested otherwise? The chart return shops – Record Mirror – The BBC Radio and TV – ALL linked to the same system telling you what record was where in the chart.

        The Beatles’ Please Please Me was a #2! Why do you think even The Beatles and EMI did NOT include it on their BIGGEST selling CD ever, the BIGGEST selling CD so far in the 21st Century – titled, yes you got it … 1. A big 1. And guess what – it’s doesn’t have Please Please Me on it. Because it only got to #2. And you know why it wasn’t included? Because they used the OFFICIAL chart as printed in … yes, you got it… Record Mirror!

        Next time do yourself a favour and read the flippin text will you?
        I’ve told you now four flipping times it was the RECORD MIRROR that did the UK charts! How many times do I have to explain it to you?
        These were the only charts that mattered for the BBC Radio, for Top Of The Pops TV show and even for Radio Caroline And Radio Luxemburg.

        Next topic! Quick… cut the agony. I can’t take anymore of this. Talking about music is supposed to be fun, like swapping info. You ain’t got any, but intent with arguing your ass off on what is fundamental basic knowledge dude. You need to chat to more people and learn a little. You can’t be so outta the loop as you are. I mean, whatya gonna say in any chat `cept I remember this .. and that etc. But if you want to go head to head with Them singles stuff with a Van-head like me, you better come armed with more than some charity shop scuffed up albums and a few scatty memories from 53 years ago. Always trust one who knows dude. Any major dude will tell you.

      2. Moondancer – you seem to think that if you say things often enough they will be true. 1969 was the year that we finally got one definitive chart for singles. Prior to that there were many charts. Some obviously carried more weight than others because of the way they were compiled.
        The Beatles Please Please Me was not included because there was a split in the various charts. Some had it Number 1 and some Number 2. Given that dispute they had no need to start a controversy over whether it was or wasn’t. They didn’t need it did they? The Beatles were too big for minor crap like that.
        No Moondancer things are never quite as clear as you would make out are they? Facts fade into opinions.
        But take heart – what is important is the music (not the number of weeks on the charts, position it got to, the pressing or whether the cover is a bit tatty). It’s always the music that counts. Oh – and what it meant to someone.

      3. What utter and complete tosh. I can’t even begin to tell you what complete tosh your belief that 1969 was the start of anything is. You know NOTHING. Simply NOTHING.

        1. you didn’t understand the system of record release
        2. you didn’t understand the system of chart entry and you provided a load of bumbled and bungled dates.
        3. you don’t understand that it was just one publisher responsible for printing the charts following feedback from the centralised counting house.

        You make a complete tool of yourself earlier. You should have backed up into your shell immediately you realised your mistake. That sorry state garbage information that you grimly offered up in weak hope of having something credible to say to support your fading and confused memory would be termed as Fake News in any modern context. A woefully inadequate summation of plain bad quality lousy dross information.

        Your bullshit Beatles claim is total bullshit. We know the reasons. We are the world authority on Beatles releases. Nowhere anywhere outwith will you find such a detailed archive.
        The Charts Returns determined that it only got to #2, Record Mirror prints the chart and that’s why it’s a #2. You have to understand that other weekly music newspapers were only that, any charts they printed had nothing to do with the official archive and official statistics and official records of information and most importantly – they had no official responsibilities. So you are completely wasting your time thinking that such like the NME had ANY input towards information conveyed over the British airways on either Radio or TV. You have to understand that very basic premise.

        You also display a great deal of a lack of knowledge. When EMI were researching their forthcoming release, the compilation of number one hits titled simply “1”, who did they come to for all these pretty little pictures of all the world-wide sleeves that you see throughout the CD booklet? Why of course, the bloody experts, that’s who = They’d have to because we ARE the world authority.
        You also don’t realise that Paul McCartney was absolutely insistent that Please Please Me was NOT included because it was NEVER an OFFICIAL #1. So if that isn’t good enough for your tiny little toy box of information on this what would be?
        Paul McCartney says his own Beatles record was only ever a UK #2, and you want to argue the toss? Really? You’re a bloody joker, matey. I can think of some much more appropriate Scouse terms but I’ll refrain from using them as you would not be able to handle them and would run to mother’s apron for protection.

        You are a mere seeder, a taker of information already prepared and researched by others who know what to look for.
        Along with the fact that you’d only have to read Wikipedia – Record Mirror, and there’s a rather detailed explanation of exactly what they were responsible for and how they did it. And if it wasn’t correct before rest assured that it would have been corrected to the exact letter by now. If you know – but doubt you would – but were you a Wikipedia writer you would be able to determine how many edits by how many writers have been made to compose that entire piece. It’s not a ten minute job to do something like that.
        All the information that I have thus far supplied on this topic is 100% accurate. For you to dismiss it is disgusting. You have very, very little knowledge on the subject matter. That is evidently clear for the offset with your miserably inaccurate dates and links to a website that is completely unattended by experts.

        There was no such activity as you make claim in 1969. Nothing of the kind. The same publication Record Mirror published all through the 1960’s to the early 1990’s. It’s a no brainer.
        But not in your case seemingly and you know what they say about garbage in = garbage out. Or was that you again – as per your other claim, quote, “I was just explaining why it is associated that way in my head. I get the point.”
        I really don’t think you got any point at all. LMAO.
        Not when you say something as dumb-ass naive as this, quote, “No Moondancer things are never quite as clear as you would make out are they? Facts fade into opinions.”
        LOL, how do you work that out? It’s on bloody paper print! It’s all there in print.
        You want to know when these two Them singles were released? First refer to the Decca archive for release schedules. Second refer to Record Mirror for date of chart entry and every other chart entry position for the entire running chart life of that record. Third refer to BBC Light Programme broadcast archives for playlists – available at BBC House. Four refer to collector’s BBC Light Programme broadcast home tapes archives. Five refer to BBC Top Of The Pops broadcasts archives on either full detailed paper reports or some remaining film rolls.
        We at cat45,com don’t deal in opinions. I don’t deal in opinions.
        It’s all there and nothing to do with any “facts fading into opinions” as you so wildly claim. Not a bit of it. What a stupid bloody statement. There you are, a know-fuck-all, with his stupid dumb statements and there’s thousands of industrious intelligent people out there building extremely accurate archives of information and someone of your ilk comes along and attempts to piss all over it because it contradicts their really bad awful memory that works off batteries going on some 53 years old. Give us a break here. Seriously, give us a break.
        But you seemingly do suffer that problem and along with a bad memory and scant details if any appertaining to any facts. In your confused state world, where you have bugger all relative facts, bugger all real knowledge, a huge lack of understanding of the system process.
        Were you in the company of your peers, you’d get laughed out the room. LMAO.
        Here endeth the lesson.

        And by the way – I wasn’t talking to you about your tatty cover – that was another poster, Eric the half-a-bee. I wasn’t talking to you about enjoying records or what they meant to you.

      4. Ha Ha – I lived through it and I used to check out the different charts. I know a lot more than you do about it.
        Here – it doesn’t take much to check it out:
        Before February 1969 (when the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) chart was established), there was no official chart or universally accepted source.[11][18][19] Readers followed the charts in various periodicals and, during this time, the BBC used aggregated results of charts from the NME, Melody Maker, Disc and (later) Record Mirror to compile the Pick of the Pops chart.[15]
        Just because you shout a lot and are arrogant and rude with it does not mean you are right.

      5. Ha Ha said the Clown.

        You completely failed to understand your own point made about 1969. 1969 was simply the year in which organisation responsible for the mechanisms of the charts changed hands. But NOTHING else changed. The Record Mirror continued to be the only medium used by the BBC. Nothing was more important or carried anything like the weight of the BBC.

        You also ran ahead of yourself – forgetting that these two Them records were released in 1965 and not 1969. 1969 had fuck all to do with anything about these records.

        You say you were there. As what, a spotty little cunt with 5/- in his grubby little paws?
        I owned and ran two shops matey boy. Charts Returns shops. One in Lewisham and one in Steatham. Catch ups will yas?
        Run along now sonny, will you! For fuck’s sake, you’re a total numpty. Really base level incompatible. A dereliction of intelligence. A total dissolution of all the most recognised information sources. You still are that silly wee boy. “You were there” he says, with fucking plasters on his knees. Your tee’s out sunshine, run along to mother.

        Read this as per Wikipedia.
        Record Mirror was a British weekly music newspaper between 1954 and 1991 for pop fans and record collectors. Launched two years after the NME, it never attained the circulation of its rival. The first UK album chart was published in Record Mirror in 1956, and during the 1980s it was the only consumer music paper to carry the official UK singles and UK albums charts used by the BBC for Radio 1 and Top of the Pops, as well as the US Billboard charts.

        Record Mirror was founded by former Weekly Sporting Review editor Isidore Green,[3] who encouraged the same combative journalism as NME. Staff writers included Dick Tatham, Peter Jones and Ian Dove. Green’s background was in show business and he emphasised music hall, a dying tradition. He published articles and interviews connected with theatre and musical personalities. His interest in gossip from TV, radio, stage and screen was not well received.[citation needed]

        On 22 January 1955 Record Mirror became the second music paper after NME to publish a singles chart. The chart was a Top 10, from postal returns from 24 stores. On 8 October the chart expanded to Top 20, and by 1956 more than 60 stores were being sampled. In April 1961 increased postage costs affected funding of the returns and on 24 March 1962 the paper abandoned its charts and began using those of Record Retailer, which had begun in March 1960.[4]

        The first album charts in the UK were published in Record Mirror on 28 July 1956.[5]

        Record Mirror became the second magazine to compile and publish a record chart on 22 January 1955. Unlike the New Musical Express who conducted a phone poll of retailers for a chart, Record Mirror arranged for its pool of retailers to send in a list of best sellers by post. The paper would finance the costs of this survey and by 1957 over 60 shops would be regularly contributing from a rotating pool of over 80. The chart was a top 10 until 8 October 1955. It then became a top 20; which it stayed at until being replaced by the Record Retailer top 50. It also inaugurated the countries first Long Player chart, which commenced as a top five on 28 July 1956. By March 1962, Record Mirror adopted publication of Record Retailers top 50 from 24 March 1962. After 21 April 1966, Record Mirror published a “Bubbling Under List” right under the main chart (at the time the Singles Top 50, the Albums Top 30 and the EP Top 10). “The Breakers”, as it was called later in the year, were 10 to 15 records (for the singles chart) which had not made the top 50 that week, but were poised to reach the big chart the next week ranked in sales order i.e. as if they occupied positions 51 to 64. “The Breakers” list was ceased when BMRB took over chart compilation in February 1969 but by September 1970, it was re-instated (singles only) and appeared of and on under the main chart up until May 1978 (when the top 75 was introduced). In the years 1974 and 1975 the list even expanded to 30 titles, of which the first 10 were called “Star Breakers” and given in order of sales, with the other 20 were listed alphabetically. In January 1983, when Gallup took over chart compilation, the singles chart extended to a Top 100, with positions 76-100 as ‘The Next 25’ – excluding singles dropping out of the Top 75 or with significantly reduced sales. ‘The Next 25’ was discontinued by Music Week in November 1990. Record Mirror continued printing it until the magazine’s demise in April 1991.[6]

        References: see
        Smith, Alan. “50s & 60s UK Charts: A History”.

        Warwick, Neil; Kutner, Jon; Brown, Tony (2004). The Complete Book Of The British Charts: Singles and Albums (3rd ed.). London, England: Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-1-8444-9058-5.

        ROCK FILE – Edited by Charlie Gillet (yes, the Charlie Gillett, heard of him have you?)
        Featuring a list of Every Top-20 Hit in the British Charts 1955-1969, compiled by Pete and Annie Fowler
        Published by Pictorial Presentations Ltd. 1972

      6. So what? Am I supposed to be impressed Andrew? I’m not at all. It doesn’t not alter the facts one jot. There were numerous charts. They were only centralised in 1969. I don’t need a silly history of them. I used to look them up and check the differences. Who cares what the BBC did? Who listened to the BBC? They were a pile of shite. It wasn’t until Peel came along that they had anything.
        You can come out with all this shit all the time but it doesn’t alter the facts. There were many different charts compiled in different ways – fact.
        I suggest you quit this silliness.

      7. Opher – I will have to correct you there. You said something about and I need to quote your exact word on this – “Who cares what the BBC did? Who listened to the BBC? They were a pile of shite. It wasn’t until Peel came along that they had anything.”

        Have you any idea as the the extent of the BBC’s transmissions all over the world?
        The ONLY radio station to be transmitting at regular intervals all over the world?
        A pile of shite? Are you seriously expressing a fundamental belief or are you just slightly mental?
        Have you any idea as to the listener numbers to the BBC Light Programme in UK alone and of the numbers across the globe?
        Have you any idea of the global listener figures for the programme residencies undertaken by The Beatles in 1963, 1964 and 1965?
        Have you any idea as to the numbers of singles sold by The Beatles in the UK alone simply because of BBC Light Programme broadcasting?
        The Beatles single “She Loves You” sold in excess of three million copies alone just in the UK. The only place in 1963 for these three million people to hear that record in the UK was on the BBC. And you have the temerity to mock with “who listened to the BBC”. I can only suggest you were either 1) not born 2) in prison and missed it all 3) not paying attention and completely missed the biggest cultural revolution our media communications systems experienced to date 4) just too stupid to understand.
        One of the above four options provides the answer.

        The list of questions that immediately spring to mind following your comments do not permit enough office space. You really have no semblance of awareness as to how much off the radar your comment in fact are. You could not get further from the truth. It would simply not be possible.

        I engage with people all the time on cultural media activities from 1960’S UK, and suffice to say I am in contact with people living in Greenland and Vanuatu who have a far greater understanding as to the global cultural significance of the BBC in the 1960’s that what you have so far expressed.

        John Peel as a matter of fact had some of the least listener numbers of all the BBC Radio One disc jockeys. When he first started on BBC Radio One he was pared up with co-hosting with the late Tommy Vance, presenting Top Gear. You must’ve forgotten that detail.
        Peel’s Perfumed Garden show had a let’s say, “selective audience” and by no stretch of the imagination anywhere near ever the top ten of most listened to shows on offer at that time by BBC Radio One. That is why it was broadcast at the time schedule it was on for that very reason. Even the programmes producers fully understood the limitations of the programmes diversity – as interesting to some as it may have been.

        In conclusion, I charge you sir, with a glaring incapacity of ability to acknowledge factual and accurate information as presented in front of you.

        I would also not require your services within my pub quiz team.

      8. Who cares? Good to hear you defending the BBC fuddy-duddies. They hadn’t got a clue about Rock Music and anybody with half a brain back then knew it. They were twee. We listened to Luxembourg and the Pirates who at least played something more like it.
        John Peel was not a mainstream DJ – playing the usual BBC pop tripe for the masses (they still do). He played real music for a more discerning audience.
        Do you think we might have heard Captain Beefheart on Saturday Club?

      9. Opher – you are also very, very wrong with your claims.
        You said, quote ” There were numerous charts. They were only centralised in 1969.”
        But how many times do you need to be told that only one chart was the official chart as used for all broadcasting purposes? How many times do you need to be told of how the system of chart returns worked?
        How can there be any other charts that were effective if they were not linked to the data output of the shops selling the records?
        No other publication other than Record Mirror was charged with publishing the charts. This the only charts used by all the shops up and down the country selling records. Even if they were not a chart returns shop they still used that Record Mirror chart. That was it – nothing else mattered. They might have done their own charts but they carried no weight – no nothing.
        I can’t see what’s hard to understand here.

        I think it’s a case of not wanting to understand. Something upset your stupid pride or whatever. Grow up, please.

      10. No – don’t twist that. I never said they were all used by the BBC. Who cared what the BBC did? Back in those days it was run by a group of old-fashioned deadbeats. Those in the know listened to Luxembourg or the pirates.
        The fact remains that there were numerous charts put together in different ways by different people – fact.
        The charts were not brought together into one official chart until 1969 – fact.
        The Record Mirror might well have been the most thorough and the one used by the BBC. So what? It wasn’t the only one and people followed different ones. Only in 1969 was it standardised around Record Mirror. Mountains, molehills and trouble-making come to mind.
        What a childish thing to make a fuss about. You must be hard up for things to pick on.

      11. Opher – I don’t know who you think you are talking to, but I can only assume it is me because it cannot be anybody else due to absenteeism.
        You must be that match in the box that came without a fire hat on it.
        There’s no conclusion as to your misfortunes of cognitive agility and I can offer no solutions.

        Come over to the 100,000 plus membership base at and discuss this with the chaps. See if they’re up for your take on the history of events – particularly with your latest quips about the BBC. My god man, where does it end with you or what?

        Better still, I could send some over to here for a wee natter about it.

  3. I’m sorry Opher, but we weren’t talking about your dates of time of personal grief as sad a time as that was. It might be a total surprise to you but I too had a father who also sadly died. But the point was the music, not the death date of fathers.
    Like If I said I really liked Elvis of 1979, because that’s when I saw his film “Aloha from Hawaii”, you’d say “but it’s from 1973 you clod and he was dead by 1979”. But not going by your logic. So, OK, you’ve just invented a whole new way of attributing a time piece in relation to what point in time you in fact had seen it first. Let me just run that by a few people and see if they can work out any possible logic with that as I for certain cannot.

  4. Oh by jingo! Looks like you took yet another hammering there Opher. My, my, I’m almost left speechless. I think your Van The Man Fan knows the score there and some.
    Pity you can’t just learn and always need to intimidate people with nasty contempt for their knowledge. Knowledge that exceeds that of your own by some substantial distance. As that wonderful age old saying goes:
    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink
    You can lead a man to the truth but you can’t make him …


  5. Opher, hello from a n other reprobate. My man, Van The Man Fan, Moondancer made inquiries and gave directions. What’s with you man, what don’t you get with all this?
    Oh goodness.
    Starts of with bogus claims and a bad memory – nothing too serious just some loose inaccuracies.
    Steps deeper into fantasy memories and non facts – stating them as factual.
    Makes excuses for mistaken identities of time-frame provenance and sites “emotional difficulties” as leverage of excuse – that is stretching it a little. However.
    Total failure to grasp the official system of compilation and reporting there of – despite it recited by line and verse on multiple occasions.
    Total failure to compute accurate facility to differentiate between urban myth and absolute fact – acute cognitive dissonance.

    Don’t worry Mr Opher, there’s many of your type out there. We can’t cure them, but we can ignore them. It’s ever so much more effective.

    1. Wow once more!! How many schizoid doppelgangers can one man create. Very impressive. All spouting identical stupidities too. At least there is consistency. Though I do believe the creativity obviously has limits and is flawed. It’s plodding the same trite path. You could at least try a bit of variation. It is becoming tedious. My amusement is waning.

  6. Hello Opher, I too have been asked to check in, take a gander at proceedings and that, see what’s what.
    Some mighty far-out claims to be had here with your full-on totally off-the-boil approach to reason and dealing with a level of historical fact that could only be refuted were it never to have existed in the first place. But that isn’t the case.
    You were given a lesson on the matter.
    Best leave it be.
    You don’t need shit thrown at your windows.
    Unless of course you wish to engage in some “Cleaning Windows” with some other more than up-for-it Van The Man Fanboys.
    Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

    1. Wow again!! Another creation from the schizoid mind! Interesting psychology at work here! Why would someone go to such trouble to create so many doppelgangers all spouting the same stupidity? Is it an illness?

  7. Look what we got here, it’s Comedy Central. And you host is …
    Hi Opher,
    Dropped by on request of my Man The Van Fan, Moonscrubber, although he prefers Moondancer. Semantics …

    Grab your coat dude, there’s your hat and you’re in a hurry.
    How off the beaten track do you want to get. Any further out and you’d be lost – whoosh, straight over that cliff into the ether.
    Nope. you was stone dead wrong. Wrong on ever point.
    Moondancer was real nice to you too. I think he took pity. Most are left as a twisted wretched mess whose credibility is never to recover.
    Quit while you’re still alive. Notice I didn’t say ahead? No, its long past that stage.
    Hey, at least you learned some today. A free education. Who’d a thought of it – in 2018? Free? Roll it on bro.

  8. AH. How many more times. See this what happens when too many people get given privileges. They forget they have responsibilities to others. Their command of raison d’etre is diminished through over use and all sense of equilibrium of common fucking sense is flushed down the toilet pan.
    See Opher, your problem is two-fold – stupidity and ignorance, but not necessarily in that order.
    All the facts point to the truth and what you goes and do. You threw the pack into the air and picked the first one that landed face-side up – that was the bullshit webpage you provided as “evidence.” That really won’t wash. Not by any stretch it won’t. Shit floats for us all to see. And we all saw.
    Go back to the beginning, read through and take some notes of where you made some mistakes. I suggest you’ll need an A5 size sheet of paper.
    Thanks for the entertainment. Was it worth it?

  9. Opher,
    And let that be an end to all your nonsense. It you can’t take a profoundly efficient beating down whereby being told repeatedly that every point that you so much as raised was completely wrong and misinformed, well, then what?
    What’s your action plan, your ‘modus operandi’ – ooh, looks who’s swanky! he says.
    There’s a quantity of collective error in your thought process and I needn’t amplify it anymore than need be. But I will go on, so here goes …
    Kidding. But maybe you should trust your eyes rather than your pride in future.
    Moondancer is The Man. You know he’s a player from the very beginning on this page.
    But if you want to play skipping ropes with the girls, hey cool, I’m easy. Otherwise, it’s a no-brainer.
    Till the next.

    1. Put it this way Eric, it’s a lot easier to pull somebody’s trousers down than it is to attempt to hoik them back up again.
      Takes a heck off a lot more energy and effort.

  10. I am crying laughing. My company think I’ve just watched that scene again in the Forty Year Old Virgin, where the woman looks at his toys and then him and then the toys again. I very nearly died.
    Whooofff. What is this?
    How does this happen to people? How can they get such a firm hold of the wrong end of the stick?
    I don’t know where Moondancer got the patience from. Well I do. You know the phrase “Education Is A Wonderful Thing”, well that’s what he did I believe after his record shops business. That why he ran Economic Science at LSE. That’s what comes with a lifetime of knowledge and information at your fingertips. What I’d give for just a slice of that. I feel so inadequate. Correction, I don’t feel, I just am. Hey ho.

    1. More tripe from the same source.
      What is this? If you say something often enough from different sources it suddenly becomes true? Didn’t Goebbels try that?
      Is this another lecture on how charts are compiled? As if I didn’t know. The emphasis is on the plural.

  11. A few will know me from
    I’m so old now that I only do The Beatles and a few other 1960’s groups.
    Is this the point where we offer round the sandwiches and offer commiserations to the loser?
    Who’d have thought – the 1960’s BBC – “Who listened – they were a pile of shite”.
    Yet my entire school, I remember were glued to every single episode of The Beatles on the BBC Light Programme. It was absolutely wonderful.
    I remember sitting around our Radiogram in our dining room waiting for the shows to start in hushed reverence. Then shooshing sister to stop singing along.
    We got loads of Beatles.
    Here We Go
    Saturday Club – with Brain Matthew
    The Talent Spot
    Parade Of The Pops – with Brian Matthew
    On The Scene
    Side By Side – with John Dunn
    Easy Beat – with Brian Matthew
    Steppin’ Out
    Pop Go The Beatles – with Lee Peters and then Rodney Burke
    From Us To You – with Alan Freeman
    Top Gear – with Brian Matthew
    Ticket To Ride – with Denny Piercy
    It was incredible. How can anybody use such utterly vile language association towards such wonderful times. I very much hope they sooner start to feel contrite for such. That very much upsets me. I wish I’d never read that now.

    1. I’m very sorry about that Malcolm. That was never my intention at all for you to be so offended. And how offensive to so many of us it was too. I feel for you because I know only too well what it all means to you. It’s just the world we live in now where even the people doing the blogging are pretty nasty with it, too. It’s not just YouTube with that kind of thing. We of course as you know at 45cat never tolerate anything of the such. I in fact banned one member for life last Thursday for repetitive nasty behaviour. I don’t mind an opinion but not finger pointing nasty.
      But cheer up old bean, we’ll have a marvelous time at Paul’s concerts in December. Just three months to go! All the best, Moondancer.

    2. Gosh you are my hero. Extremely creative. Just thinking up the different persona takes time. Add to that the attempts to generate conflict out of nothing. Wow!! An art in itself. Very time-consuming I would have thought. You obviously have the type of mind that enjoys trying to cause unpleasantness. Bit childish really.

  12. In 1966 when I turned 16 my dad allowed me to get a Saturday job in Woolworths. I think because of my age and also my hair style the manager put me behind the record sales counter, and I’m certain we also did the sales for stationery items as well. I can remember putting the Record Mirror weekly charts sheets on the counter top, one on each side and sellotaping it down. We used to get these sheets from Record Mirror as well as the weekly edition of the paper as well because our Woolies was a chart return shop and our weekly sales were reported back to the agency that compiled the charts. The return forms were always counted up when we closed the shop on a Saturday and the manager would take them for whatever he did with them. I think somebody phoned in the results on Mondays.
    It was only the Record Mirror that did the real British charts at that time. I don’t know why other music papers such as the New Musical Express did their charts because they weren’t linked up to the sales reporting for the national charts and it seemed a bit silly to me especially when there already was the official charts in Record Mirror. This was the paper that the BBC radio and Top of the Pops used for their chart shows. I always used to know which records would go up the charts the week before Top of the Pops came on the telly on a Thursday night because I’d helped to fill in the forms the Saturday before. I definitely always knew if there was going to be a new number one, although some like The Beatles were instantly number ones. We used to get record company people coming in and asking us questions on what records were selling the most and sometimes they brought in more records if we were running low on stocks and would have to wait a few days otherwise. My boss Eileen was always very careful and always used to say you mustn’t cheat and say you sold more records just because you like the singers because these sales forms were important and were what the whole country and the world got to know about. So, yes the Record Mirror was the British pop charts in the 1960’s. The other paper’s charts were not included and were either copies of Record Mirrors charts or something to do with record company promotions but nobody paid them any attention and certainly not the BBC.
    Why did somebody say the BBC wasn’t important? I though that very strange because everybody listened to the BBC and they did the chart shows. And also how would anybody ever hear new records that were just out if they didn’t listen to the BBC programmes. Or they would have to go to their local shop and ask to hear all the new records. We never did that in our shop because we were not allowed to sell records that had been played a few times before anyway as the manager said it was not fair to the customer who might been buying that record, so everybody always got an unplayed record in our shop. Sometimes we did play some when we were given what we called shop copies and after a while I got to take some of them home. My dad would say I hope you didn’t pay for that rubbish. Those were the days.

I'd like to hear from you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.