Chart Commentary 9/8/08
Paul Hyett
-------
After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Script #3, Katy Perry (IKAG) #4, Saturdays #8, Noah & The Whale
#10
Top 20 : Ida Maria #16+
Top 30 : Ultrabeat v Darren Styles #23, Usher #25
Top 40 : Honey Ryder #32, Rihanna #34, Kylie #36*
+ Is it me, or does part of this remind you of the Banana Splits (for
those of you old enough to remember them)?
* By some distance, her lowest ever lead-credit chart position.
Re-entries T40 : none
New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Stiff Dylans (UV) #41,
Sam Sparro #44, Nelly #45, Nicky Bliss (IKAG) #50*, Cascada #51, Natty
#53, Pendulum #54, Bob Sinclar #61, BWO #69, Pigeon Detectives #70,
Slipknot #72, Tinchy Stryder #74, Lloyd ft Ludacris #75
* Presumably a simple case of people buying the wrong version.
Re-entries : Script (WC) #62
Albums
------
Extremely close at the top this week, with Abba just pipping Coldplay -
incidentally setting a new record as the oldest GH set to top the chart
(measured from original release, rather than the act's debut).
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Kid Rock #4 (up from #145!)
Top 20 : Jordin Sparks #17
New outside the top 20 : Nine Inch Nails #25, Alice Cooper #31, Ida
Maria #39, Scars On Broadway #41, Melee #61, Soulfly #64, Hans Zimmer
(DK-OST) #67
Re-entries : Newton F (HBBR) #66, Ne-Yo (BOY) #73, Snow Patrol (EO) #75
Next Week
---------
Singles
-------
Given Katy Perry's high iTunes sales, she could well be #1, despite the
physical release not officially being due for another 4 weeks!
Top 5 : Noah & The Whale
Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
Top 20 : Scouting For Girls
Top 30 : Bob Sinclar, Casacada, Nelly
Top 40 :
Any other possibilities?
Albums
------
Yet another week with no new releases likely to threaten the upper chart
regions (or even get close).
That being the case, I'd have to say either Abba or Coldplay for #1
again.
Top 10 NE : none
Top 20 NE : none
Others : Lloyd, Natty, Soft Cell, Dave Stewart
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
Chris Brown
"Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LYPrsa3R...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Singles
> -------
> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
Well, "steady" may not be the exact word - it's been in a pretty high
position for the last three or four weeks.
I suppose the consolation is that 'Sweet Home Alabama' has at last started
slipping.
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Script #3,
Highest climber of the week, for what that's worth.
I feel like the Man Who Can't Be Moved myself, because this record just
bores me.
>Katy Perry (IKAG) #4,
Officially slated for CD release on the 1st of September, although this fact
seems doomed to irrelevance.
>Saturdays #8,
Two of them used to be S Club Juniors and by the look of the cover, they
haven't been allowed to eat since. There was a time when this would be
considered a disappointing debut for a much-hyped manufactured pop act, but
in 2008 it must be more or less what the label hoped.
The high point of this record is, of course, the sample from Yazoo's
'Situation' - bonus geek points to anyone who can name the other Top 10
single that contained elements from it.
>Noah & The Whale #10
Mrs Brown asked me the other day whether this record was a joke.
> Top 20 : Ida Maria #16+
Is she?
Yes, I've looked it up and she's 23.
I presume this climb reflects people who've taken a while to ID the track.
> Top 30 : Ultrabeat v Darren Styles #23,
Climbing somewhat further on physical release than many dance tracks have
recently. Perhaps the remixes are especially good.
> Usher #25
Still his smallest hit in a decade but it's climbing a little. Either people
have been looking for the mix or he has a big crossover fanbase with Kety
Perry.
> Top 40 : Honey Ryder #32,
I didn't get round to drafting much for this commentary, but even if I had I
wouldn't have expected them to last the week.
Not to be confused with Honeyrider, they're a duo who've done the
increasingly frequent download-only, fanbase-only, what's-actually-the-point
hits. Having now heard the track, it's not unlistenable but oddly lacking in
personality.
>Rihanna #34,
Still not officially scheduled as a single, but de facto it is one now.
By my count, the present version of Good Girl Gone Bad now contains more hit
singles than her first two put together.
>Kylie #36*
I guess not a lot of people could be bothered to buy a Freemasons remix of a
track that the Freemasons produced in the first place.
> + Is it me, or does part of this remind you of the Banana Splits (for
> those of you old enough to remember them)?
I think I'm old enough, but I never really watched them. I sort of
half-remember the theme tune though. I also remember Bob Mills suggesting
that 'Buffalo Soldier' by Bob Marley sounded a bit like it.
However, the Kylie single does remind me of 'SOS' by ABBA. And the News 24
theme, obviously.
> * By some distance, her lowest ever lead-credit chart position.
Only about 8 positions, surely?
Still, it does seem to suggest that she's dependent on selling CD and vinyl
singles.
> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Stiff Dylans (UV) #41,
Isn't 'Ultraviolet' only one word? And isn't this their only charting single
anyhow?
Creepily, HMV attributes this to "Stiff Dylans & Angus Thongs" but that's
just a reference to the film in which this appears. That alone won't explain
why it's done so much better than the Ava Leigh thing though.
> Sam Sparro #44,
Actually a bit better than I thought it was going to do, but with 'Black &
Gold' still Top 20 it's not exactly flattering.
I'm told that it sounds a bit like Calvin Harris.
>Nelly #45,
Supposedly coming out on CD on the 11th, although that sounds oddly soon.
>Nicky Bliss (IKAG) #50*,
The chart I have here spells it "Nicki" but the point will soon be moot.
> Cascada #51,
Definitely out tomorrow on CD. With seven mixes, including the radio cut.
>Natty #53,
Not the unavoidable summer smash hit it was intended to be then. At least
he's always got engineering to fall back on.
> Pendulum #54,
Maybe 'Granite' was just too big for any follow-ups to have a chance.
> Bob Sinclar #61,
Featuring Fireball whoever that may be.
Out tomorrow on predictable formats.
>BWO #69,
Rejected Swedish Eurovision entry, which gives us a glimpse of how Madonna's
'Hung Up' might have sounded had she not been able to clear the Abba sample.
> Pigeon Detectives #70,
With the inadvisably-titled 'Everybody Wants Me'. Not that they've ever been
a consistently massive singles act, but this is not impressive for the
follow-up to a Top 20 hit.
> Slipknot #72,
Not the sort of track you'd expect to climb. I suppose it's getting a lot of
video play?
>Tinchy Stryder #74,
Now that's a bad hand in Scrabble!
This comes out on CD tomorrow.
>Lloyd ft Ludacris #75
If this is coming out on physicals, I don't know about it.
> * Presumably a simple case of people buying the wrong version.
Well, I suppose "wrong" is a subjective term...
AIUI, this version was on iTunes first, so people who were searching there
for the song title at the start of the week would have seen this one.
> Re-entries : Script (WC) #62
An apt set of initials.
> Albums
> ------
> Extremely close at the top this week, with Abba just pipping Coldplay -
> incidentally setting a new record as the oldest GH set to top the chart
> (measured from original release, rather than the act's debut).
Which is surely the only sensible way to count it.
There can't be many albums of any kind that have topped the chart this long
after release though, or indeed enjoyed three entirely seperate spells at
Number One more than five years apart.
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Kid Rock #4 (up from #145!)
Time was when I would have questioned his ability to make a career from
this. But with 'Photograph' enjoying yet another week in the Top 30, who's
to say?
> Top 20 : Jordin Sparks #17
I kept forgetting to mention that this was Top 20 last week. What happened,
I wonder?
> New outside the top 20 : Nine Inch Nails #25,
Trent Reznor's second album release of the year, although this is supposed
to be the sixth "proper" NiN album, as opposed to the instrumental Ghosts.
It was given away free as a download in May, but fans who pay for the CD
version get the benefit of a DVD with rehearsals of five songs.
>Alice Cooper #31,
Along Came A Spider is apparently his/their 25th studio album, a conceptual
work about a serial killer who claims eight legs from his victims. Perhaps
because it coincides with some big UK shows, it becomes the highest-charting
Alice Cooper album since 1994 and the first new one to reach the Top 40
since 2000.
>Ida Maria #39,
Debut album, of course, and it doesn't look like a lot of people have rushed
to take the plunge off the back of one single.
>Scars On Broadway #41,
Debut album by the new project from Daron Malakian and John Dolmayan,
ex(?)-members of System Of A Down. It's said to draw on wider influences
than the parent group.
>Melee #61,
Second album from these Californians, although possibly the first to make it
to the UK. Even holding back the release here for the best part of a year
doesn't seem to have helped much, though, possibly because it's mostly as
generic as the title. The track 'Frequently Baby (She's A Teenage Maniac')
should be in some eighties TV movie though.
> Soulfly #64,
In a busy week for metal Max Cavalera enjoys his second UK chart album of
2008, having previously cropped up as one of the Cavlera Brothers.
>Hans Zimmer (DK-OST) #67
Available for some weeks, but understandably selling better now people have
seen the film.
> Re-entries : Newton F (HBBR) #66,
Because Virgin Radio listeners are very slow sometimes, I guess.
>Ne-Yo (BOY) #73,
Presumably revived by his new material.
>Snow Patrol (EO) #75
In a rare week when they don't have a single in the Top 75!
> Next Week
> ---------
> Singles
> -------
> Given Katy Perry's high iTunes sales, she could well be #1, despite the
> physical release not officially being due for another 4 weeks!
Bearing in mind that she didn't need a full week to sell this many, that's
quite possible.
> Top 5 : Noah & The Whale
Logical.
> Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
Which it is, apparently.
> Top 20 : Scouting For Girls
As it appears to have dropped out of the Top 75 this week, that doesn't seem
very likely.
> Top 30 : Bob Sinclar,
I suppose so - he's pretty much bled the formula dry now.
> Casacada,
Ahem.
> Nelly
Perhaps, since some people seem to know it exists.
> Top 40 :
>
> Any other possibilities?
It's not an exciting week, is it?
I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
> Albums
> ------
> Yet another week with no new releases likely to threaten the upper chart
> regions (or even get close).
The whole record industry tends to go on holiday simultaneously, doesn't it?
> That being the case, I'd have to say either Abba or Coldplay for #1 again.
Or something similarly unexciting.
> Others : Lloyd,
Off the back of his massive Number 75 single?
> Natty,
In this climate, yes.
>Soft Cell,
Is this that same phantom Soft Cell album you thought was going to chart a
couple of weeks ago?
>Dave Stewart
Not actually that popular as a solo artist, but it's a quiet week.
Speaking of which, Randy Newman is Number One on the Amazon pre-order chart.
Can he break his duck?
Chris
--
"It's always hard meeting your heroes. Especially when they punch you in the
face."
http://thehitparade.blogspot.com
More of my blathering is available at
http://faynights.users.btopenworld.com
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>> Singles
>> -------
>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>
>Well, "steady" may not be the exact word - it's been in a pretty high
>position for the last three or four weeks.
But climbing each week, that's the point.
>I suppose the consolation is that 'Sweet Home Alabama' has at last started
>slipping.
Consolation for whom?
>
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Script #3,
>
>Highest climber of the week, for what that's worth.
Ignoring Katy Perry's 135 place climb to #4, of course...
>I feel like the Man Who Can't Be Moved myself, because this record just
>bores me.
I've avoided hearing it right through, altogether, so that doesn't even
apply to me.
>
>>Katy Perry (IKAG) #4,
>
>Officially slated for CD release on the 1st of September, although this fact
>seems doomed to irrelevance.
For some reason, chart-show Reggie seemed to think it was released
today?
On a side issue, he *really* needs to see a shrink about his obsession
with seeing his mum in a leotard! :)
>>Saturdays #8,
>
>Two of them used to be S Club Juniors and by the look of the cover, they
>haven't been allowed to eat since.
By choice, or as a punishment? :)
>The high point
There's a high point?
>of this record is, of course, the sample from Yazoo's
>'Situation'
Not a song I can recall, offhand.
Guinness says it's from 1990, so that would be why - although I thought
they'd split in the mid-80's??
>
>>Noah & The Whale #10
>
>Mrs Brown asked me the other day whether this record was a joke.
Wouldn't be alone in the current T10. :)
Still, at least there are 4 new songs in the T10 this week, which is
something.
>
>> Top 20 : Ida Maria #16+
>
>Is she?
Very droll.
>
>I presume this climb reflects people who've taken a while to ID the track.
Or to believe it?
>
>> Top 30 : Ultrabeat v Darren Styles #23,
>
>Climbing somewhat further on physical release than many dance tracks have
>recently. Perhaps the remixes are especially good.
Unlike the original? :)
>
>> Usher #25
>
>Still his smallest hit in a decade but it's climbing a little. Either people
>have been looking for the mix or he has a big crossover fanbase with Kety
>Perry.
I don't get that?
>
>> Top 40 : Honey Ryder #32,
>
>I didn't get round to drafting much for this commentary, but even if I had I
>wouldn't have expected them to last the week.
I didn't even know the song's title until I downloaded the T75 from
Buzzjack.
>
>>Rihanna #34,
>
>Still not officially scheduled as a single, but de facto it is one now.
>By my count, the present version of Good Girl Gone Bad now contains more hit
>singles than her first two put together.
Yes, this is the 7th!
>
>>Kylie #36*
>
>I guess not a lot of people could be bothered to buy a Freemasons remix of a
>track that the Freemasons produced in the first place.
I did - eventually.
>
>> * By some distance, her lowest ever lead-credit chart position.
>
>Only about 8 positions, surely?
14 positions actually - 'Some Kind Of Bliss' peaked at #22.
>Still, it does seem to suggest that she's dependent on selling CD and vinyl
>singles.
Not for the main singles from her albums, only the later ones - though
that's true for most artists nowadays anyway.
Of course, the last really good single she released was 'I Believe In
You', which predated download inclusion, so it's hard to judge her full
download potential - although 'Wow!' charted steadily on download for
quite a while.
>
>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Stiff Dylans (UV) #41,
>
>Isn't 'Ultraviolet' only one word?
But you know which song I meant, which is the point.
> And isn't this their only charting single
>anyhow?
Well, they have 'Ever Fallen In Love' at #93, too.
>
>> Sam Sparro #44,
>
>Actually a bit better than I thought it was going to do, but with 'Black &
>Gold' still Top 20 it's not exactly flattering.
The 'one hit wonder' label is circling above him like a vulture... :)
>I'm told that it sounds a bit like Calvin Harris.
In an unflattering sense, I assume you mean?
>
>>Nelly #45,
>
>Supposedly coming out on CD on the 11th, although that sounds oddly soon.
Haven't heard it, and not inclined to. I don't mind Ashanti, but I
definitely don't like Nelly or Akon!
>
>>Nicky Bliss (IKAG) #50*,
>
>The chart I have here spells it "Nicki" but the point will soon be moot.
Presumably this is the version that caused the midweek charts mix-up.
>
>> Cascada #51,
>
>Definitely out tomorrow on CD. With seven mixes, including the radio cut.
At least with that many mixes, buying the CD is cheaper than downloading
each one separately.
>
>>Natty #53,
>
>Not the unavoidable summer smash hit it was intended to be then.
By whom?
>At least
>he's always got engineering to fall back on.
I don't get that?
>
>> Pendulum #54,
>
>Maybe 'Granite' was just too big for any follow-ups to have a chance.
Or people are buying the album instead.
>
>> Bob Sinclar #61,
>
>Featuring Fireball whoever that may be.
>Out tomorrow on predictable formats.
Boring, you mean? :)
>
>>BWO #69,
>
>Rejected Swedish Eurovision entry, which gives us a glimpse of how Madonna's
>'Hung Up' might have sounded had she not been able to clear the Abba sample.
Though even then, she'd have done a lot better than *this*. :)
>
>> Pigeon Detectives #70,
>
>With the inadvisably-titled 'Everybody Wants Me'. Not that they've ever been
>a consistently massive singles act, but this is not impressive for the
>follow-up to a Top 20 hit.
Once again, the emphasis was on shifting albums.
>
>> Slipknot #72,
>
>Not the sort of track you'd expect to climb. I suppose it's getting a lot of
>video play?
No idea.
>
>>Tinchy Stryder #74,
>
>Now that's a bad hand in Scrabble!
>This comes out on CD tomorrow.
It might scrape T60, then.
>
>>Lloyd ft Ludacris #75
>
>If this is coming out on physicals, I don't know about it.
Clearly, since this *includes* physical sales! :)
It's been in the shops from last Monday.
>
>> Re-entries : Script (WC) #62
>
>An apt set of initials.
Indeed. :)
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Extremely close at the top this week, with Abba just pipping Coldplay -
>> incidentally setting a new record as the oldest GH set to top the chart
>> (measured from original release, rather than the act's debut).
>
>Which is surely the only sensible way to count it.
>There can't be many albums of any kind that have topped the chart this long
>after release though, or indeed enjoyed three entirely seperate spells at
>Number One more than five years apart.
This may be the longest *ever* on that score - no doubt the MW
commentary will enlighten us.
>
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Kid Rock #4 (up from #145!)
>
>Time was when I would have questioned his ability to make a career from
>this. But with 'Photograph' enjoying yet another week in the Top 30, who's
>to say?
Err, that was by *Nickelback*, though...
>
>> Top 20 : Jordin Sparks #17
>
>I kept forgetting to mention that this was Top 20 last week. What happened,
>I wonder?
Two words : No Air.
>
>> New outside the top 20 : Nine Inch Nails #25,
>
>Trent Reznor's second album release of the year, although this is supposed
>to be the sixth "proper" NiN album, as opposed to the instrumental Ghosts.
>It was given away free as a download in May, but fans who pay for the CD
>version get the benefit of a DVD with rehearsals of five songs.
IRO these free albums in general, I wonder what percentage of fans wait
for the 'proper' version nonetheless (or get both)?
Radiohead fans clearly wanted both, but as to how well McFly's
commercial release of 'Radioactive' will do...
>
>>Alice Cooper #31,
>
>Along Came A Spider is apparently his/their 25th studio album, a conceptual
>work about a serial killer who claims eight legs from his victims. Perhaps
>because it coincides with some big UK shows
By 'big' - does that mean attended by more people than could fit in a
phone box? :)
>, it becomes the highest-charting
>Alice Cooper album since 1994 and the first new one to reach the Top 40
>since 2000.
>
>>Ida Maria #39,
>
>Debut album, of course, and it doesn't look like a lot of people have rushed
>to take the plunge off the back of one single.
Unsurprising.
>
>>Scars On Broadway #41,
>
>Debut album by the new project from Daron Malakian and John Dolmayan,
>ex(?)-members of System Of A Down.
Is there any rock group you don't know all the members names of? :)
>It's said to draw on wider influences
>than the parent group.
Is that saying much?
>
>>Melee #61,
>
>Second album from these Californians, although possibly the first to make it
>to the UK.
For all the good it did...
>
>> Soulfly #64,
>
>In a busy week for metal
Well, they always aim for quiet album-chart periods.
>
>>Hans Zimmer (DK-OST) #67
>
>Available for some weeks, but understandably selling better now people have
>seen the film.
And unlike may OST albums, actually qualifying for the main chart.
>
>> Re-entries : Newton F (HBBR) #66,
>
>Because Virgin Radio listeners are very slow sometimes, I guess.
Grin.
>
>>Ne-Yo (BOY) #73,
>
>Presumably revived by his new material.
What new material?
>
>>Snow Patrol (EO) #75
>
>In a rare week when they don't have a single in the Top 75!
I see their 5th album is due in the Autumn - no doubt the publicity for
that will coax Chasing Cars back in, yet again. :)
>
>> Next Week
>> ---------
>> Singles
>> -------
>> Given Katy Perry's high iTunes sales, she could well be #1, despite the
>> physical release not officially being due for another 4 weeks!
>
>Bearing in mind that she didn't need a full week to sell this many, that's
>quite possible.
Plus the fact that Kid Rock has already been out for quite a while, and
therefore his sales potential must be significantly diminishing.
>
>> Top 5 : Noah & The Whale
>
>Logical.
Indeed, Mr Spock. :)
>
>> Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
>
>Which it is, apparently.
So I've seen.
>
>> Top 20 : Scouting For Girls
>
>As it appears to have dropped out of the Top 75 this week
It's #77.
>, that doesn't seem
>very likely.
T40 then, if they're lucky.
>
>> Top 30 :
>
>> Casacada,
>
>Ahem.
T40 then, perhaps.
>
>> Nelly
>
>Perhaps, since some people seem to know it exists.
Plus it's only 5 short of the T40 already.
>
>> Top 40 :
>>
>> Any other possibilities?
>
>It's not an exciting week, is it?
Zzzz.. Huh? Sorry, I fell asleep. :)
>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent, I assumed
it wasn't a brand new track.
If that's wrong though, then it might have T10 potential - though
probably not on downloads alone.
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Yet another week with no new releases likely to threaten the upper chart
>> regions (or even get close).
>
>The whole record industry tends to go on holiday simultaneously, doesn't it?
For next Monday, the new release schedule only lists nine albums...
>
>> That being the case, I'd have to say either Abba or Coldplay for #1 again.
>
>Or something similarly unexciting.
I bet Coldplay won't still be having #1 albums almost 35 years after
their debut hit, though!
>
>> Others : Lloyd,
>
>Off the back of his massive Number 75 single?
Good point.
>
>>Soft Cell,
>
>Is this that same phantom Soft Cell album you thought was going to chart a
>couple of weeks ago?
No idea.
>
>>Dave Stewart
>
>Not actually that popular as a solo artist, but it's a quiet week.
Glacial, in fact!
>Speaking of which, Randy Newman is Number One on the Amazon pre-order chart.
>Can he break his duck?
If I knew who he was...?
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 at 22:57:51, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>>
>>Well, "steady" may not be the exact word - it's been in a pretty high
>>position for the last three or four weeks.
>
> But climbing each week, that's the point.
That leap into the Top 40 wasn't very steady, though.
>>I suppose the consolation is that 'Sweet Home Alabama' has at last started
>>slipping.
>
> Consolation for whom?
For people who hate 'Sweet Home Alabama'.
>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>> Top 10 : Script #3,
>>
>>Highest climber of the week, for what that's worth.
>
> Ignoring Katy Perry's 135 place climb to #4, of course...
Which indeed I am. Partly because I didn't know about it, admittedly, but I
was thinking in Top 75 terms anyway.
>>I feel like the Man Who Can't Be Moved myself, because this record just
>>bores me.
>
> I've avoided hearing it right through, altogether, so that doesn't even
> apply to me.
How can you tell?
>>>Katy Perry (IKAG) #4,
>>
>>Officially slated for CD release on the 1st of September, although this
>>fact
>>seems doomed to irrelevance.
>
> For some reason, chart-show Reggie seemed to think it was released today?
Did he? I missed that bit.
Anyway, it blatantly isn't.
> On a side issue, he *really* needs to see a shrink about his obsession
> with seeing his mum in a leotard! :)
Tell me about it!
Or rather, don't.
>>>Saturdays #8,
>>
>>Two of them used to be S Club Juniors and by the look of the cover, they
>>haven't been allowed to eat since.
>
> By choice, or as a punishment? :)
I wouldn't know. Frankie was also one of I Dream Featuring Frankie And
Calvin.
>>The high point
>
> There's a high point?
Well relatively speaking.
>>of this record is, of course, the sample from Yazoo's
>>'Situation'
>
> Not a song I can recall, offhand.
I've got six versions of it on my computer.
> Guinness says it's from 1990, so that would be why - although I thought
> they'd split in the mid-80's??
In 1983, in fact - the recent reissue activity was timed to mark the
anniversary.
The song was originally the B-side of 'Only You' and apparently a different
version of it was on the back of 'Nobody's Diary' before it eventually
became an A-side in its own right - I don't know if there was any particular
reason other than the fact that it had become unavailable. Even more mixes
were released to promote the best-of in 1999.
>>>Noah & The Whale #10
>>
>>Mrs Brown asked me the other day whether this record was a joke.
>
> Wouldn't be alone in the current T10. :)
>
> Still, at least there are 4 new songs in the T10 this week, which is
> something.
I meant to say something.
>>> Top 20 : Ida Maria #16+
>>
>>Is she?
>
> Very droll.
>>
>>I presume this climb reflects people who've taken a while to ID the track.
>
> Or to believe it?
Presumably they'd have to like it though.
>>> Top 30 : Ultrabeat v Darren Styles #23,
>>
>>Climbing somewhat further on physical release than many dance tracks have
>>recently. Perhaps the remixes are especially good.
>
> Unlike the original? :)
Well I didn't say that. But I'm not disagreeing.
>>> Usher #25
>>
>>Still his smallest hit in a decade but it's climbing a little. Either
>>people
>>have been looking for the mix or he has a big crossover fanbase with Kety
>>Perry.
>
> I don't get that?
One possible reason his downloads might go up would be if he attracted a lot
of passing trade from people who were online to get something else anyway.
>>> Top 40 : Honey Ryder #32,
>>
>>I didn't get round to drafting much for this commentary, but even if I had
>>I
>>wouldn't have expected them to last the week.
>
> I didn't even know the song's title until I downloaded the T75 from
> Buzzjack.
I've already forgotten!
>>>Rihanna #34,
>>
>>Still not officially scheduled as a single, but de facto it is one now.
>>By my count, the present version of Good Girl Gone Bad now contains more
>>hit
>>singles than her first two put together.
>
> Yes, this is the 7th!
And even counting 'If It's Loving That You Want' both times only makes six.
>>>Kylie #36*
>>
>>I guess not a lot of people could be bothered to buy a Freemasons remix of
>>a
>>track that the Freemasons produced in the first place.
>
> I did - eventually.
But why?
>>> * By some distance, her lowest ever lead-credit chart position.
>>
>>Only about 8 positions, surely?
>
> 14 positions actually - 'Some Kind Of Bliss' peaked at #22.
Right you are. For some reason I had 28 in my head.
>>Still, it does seem to suggest that she's dependent on selling CD and
>>vinyl
>>singles.
>
> Not for the main singles from her albums, only the later ones - though
> that's true for most artists nowadays anyway.
It seems a lot more pronounced in her case than many though. And can she get
away with only one major hit per album?
> Of course, the last really good single she released was 'I Believe In
> You', which predated download inclusion, so it's hard to judge her full
> download potential - although 'Wow!' charted steadily on download for
> quite a while.
But never very high in any one week.
>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Stiff Dylans (UV) #41,
>>
>>Isn't 'Ultraviolet' only one word?
>
> But you know which song I meant, which is the point.
Well, yes, but I did anyway.
I presume this isn't the McFly song, BTW.
>> And isn't this their only charting single
>>anyhow?
>
> Well, they have 'Ever Fallen In Love' at #93, too.
Or 'Ever Fallin In Love' as the OCC seem to have listed it. But as you
weren't including that in your list, it seems a bit pointless to make the
distinction.
>>> Sam Sparro #44,
>>
>>Actually a bit better than I thought it was going to do, but with 'Black &
>>Gold' still Top 20 it's not exactly flattering.
>
> The 'one hit wonder' label is circling above him like a vulture... :)
Of course, for all I know his next one might go Top 3.
>>I'm told that it sounds a bit like Calvin Harris.
>
> In an unflattering sense, I assume you mean?
Well, only knowing this secondhand I can't really judge. I'm not sure it's
any worse than sounding like Sam Sparro.
>>>Nelly #45,
>>
>>Supposedly coming out on CD on the 11th, although that sounds oddly soon.
>
> Haven't heard it, and not inclined to. I don't mind Ashanti, but I
> definitely don't like Nelly or Akon!
You'd have to go out of your way to actually *mind* Ashanti, who's a bit of
a non-entity.
>>>Nicky Bliss (IKAG) #50*,
>>
>>The chart I have here spells it "Nicki" but the point will soon be moot.
>
> Presumably this is the version that caused the midweek charts mix-up.
Yes - but some people obviously did buy it.
>>> Cascada #51,
>>
>>Definitely out tomorrow on CD. With seven mixes, including the radio cut.
>
> At least with that many mixes, buying the CD is cheaper than downloading
> each one separately.
If you actually want seven copies of the same song, yeah.
>>>Natty #53,
>>
>>Not the unavoidable summer smash hit it was intended to be then.
>
> By whom?
Well, the record company who paid for the studio time, for a start.
>>At least
>>he's always got engineering to fall back on.
>
> I don't get that?
He's a recording engineer as well as a musician.
>>> Pendulum #54,
>>
>>Maybe 'Granite' was just too big for any follow-ups to have a chance.
>
> Or people are buying the album instead.
Well, some people have - but 'Granite' managed a long enough chart run.
>>> Bob Sinclar #61,
>>
>>Featuring Fireball whoever that may be.
>>Out tomorrow on predictable formats.
>
> Boring, you mean? :)
What other formats could this possibly fit onto?
>>>BWO #69,
>>
>>Rejected Swedish Eurovision entry, which gives us a glimpse of how
>>Madonna's
>>'Hung Up' might have sounded had she not been able to clear the Abba
>>sample.
>
> Though even then, she'd have done a lot better than *this*. :)
Sales-wise, you mean?
>>> Pigeon Detectives #70,
>>
>>With the inadvisably-titled 'Everybody Wants Me'. Not that they've ever
>>been
>>a consistently massive singles act, but this is not impressive for the
>>follow-up to a Top 20 hit.
>
> Once again, the emphasis was on shifting albums.
Not intentionally.
>>> Slipknot #72,
>>
>>Not the sort of track you'd expect to climb. I suppose it's getting a lot
>>of
>>video play?
>
> No idea.
Just a guess.
>>>Lloyd ft Ludacris #75
>>
>>If this is coming out on physicals, I don't know about it.
>
> Clearly, since this *includes* physical sales! :)
>
> It's been in the shops from last Monday.
Oops. Didn't think to look backwards.
>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> Extremely close at the top this week, with Abba just pipping Coldplay -
>>> incidentally setting a new record as the oldest GH set to top the chart
>>> (measured from original release, rather than the act's debut).
>>
>>Which is surely the only sensible way to count it.
>>There can't be many albums of any kind that have topped the chart this
>>long
>>after release though, or indeed enjoyed three entirely seperate spells at
>>Number One more than five years apart.
>
> This may be the longest *ever* on that score - no doubt the MW commentary
> will enlighten us.
I haven't read it yet, but my old Guinness book says that even in 1999 it
had the latest chart week for a Number One album.
>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>> Top 10 : Kid Rock #4 (up from #145!)
>>
>>Time was when I would have questioned his ability to make a career from
>>this. But with 'Photograph' enjoying yet another week in the Top 30, who's
>>to say?
>
> Err, that was by *Nickelback*, though...
Yes, I'm using it as a comparison.
>>> Top 20 : Jordin Sparks #17
>>
>>I kept forgetting to mention that this was Top 20 last week. What
>>happened,
>>I wonder?
>
> Two words : No Air.
That's been in the charts for months though. Why have people only just
noticed it's on the album?
>>> New outside the top 20 : Nine Inch Nails #25,
>>
>>Trent Reznor's second album release of the year, although this is supposed
>>to be the sixth "proper" NiN album, as opposed to the instrumental Ghosts.
>>It was given away free as a download in May, but fans who pay for the CD
>>version get the benefit of a DVD with rehearsals of five songs.
>
> IRO these free albums in general, I wonder what percentage of fans wait
> for the 'proper' version nonetheless (or get both)?
I'd guess that the number who voluntarily waited would be pretty small, but
there are probably more who'd get both.
> Radiohead fans clearly wanted both, but as to how well McFly's commercial
> release of 'Radioactive' will do...
It tends to be the case that they're baited with extras on the paid-for
version, although Radiohead are something of an exception.
>>>Alice Cooper #31,
>>
>>Along Came A Spider is apparently his/their 25th studio album, a
>>conceptual
>>work about a serial killer who claims eight legs from his victims. Perhaps
>>because it coincides with some big UK shows
>
> By 'big' - does that mean attended by more people than could fit in a
> phone box? :)
It means the O2 Arena - if he can persuade this many people to buy this rot,
you can imagine there'd be more people prepared to watch him perform the
actual hits.
>>>Ida Maria #39,
>>
>>Debut album, of course, and it doesn't look like a lot of people have
>>rushed
>>to take the plunge off the back of one single.
>
> Unsurprising.
Although people have obviously done it in other cases.
>>>Scars On Broadway #41,
>>
>>Debut album by the new project from Daron Malakian and John Dolmayan,
>>ex(?)-members of System Of A Down.
>
> Is there any rock group you don't know all the members names of? :)
Well, I don't know who the rest of Scars On Broadway are.
>>It's said to draw on wider influences
>>than the parent group.
>
> Is that saying much?
Yes. Whatever else you accuse SOAD of, they were/are unusually imaginative
for a metal act. I have no idea whether it's true though.
>>>Melee #61,
>>
>>Second album from these Californians, although possibly the first to make
>>it
>>to the UK.
>
> For all the good it did...
Maybe it's just too late.
>>> Soulfly #64,
>>
>>In a busy week for metal
>
> Well, they always aim for quiet album-chart periods.
Sort of, although nowadays they have to synchronise internationally.
>>>Hans Zimmer (DK-OST) #67
>>
>>Available for some weeks, but understandably selling better now people
>>have
>>seen the film.
>
> And unlike may OST albums, actually qualifying for the main chart.
That's because this is a score rather than a compilation.
>>>Ne-Yo (BOY) #73,
>>
>>Presumably revived by his new material.
>
> What new material?
Er, remember that Number One single he had a few weeks ago?
>>>Snow Patrol (EO) #75
>>
>>In a rare week when they don't have a single in the Top 75!
>
> I see their 5th album is due in the Autumn - no doubt the publicity for
> that will coax Chasing Cars back in, yet again. :)
It may not take that long.
>>> Next Week
>>> ---------
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> Given Katy Perry's high iTunes sales, she could well be #1, despite the
>>> physical release not officially being due for another 4 weeks!
>>
>>> Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
>>
>>Which it is, apparently.
>
> So I've seen.
As of tonight, Number 7 on iTunes.
>>> Top 20 : Scouting For Girls
>>
>>As it appears to have dropped out of the Top 75 this week
>
> It's #77.
Indeed. Did you see somebody had posted the rest of the Top 200 as a comment
on JM's Yahoo site?
http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chartwatch/591/week-ending-august-9th-2008/?page=2#comments
>>, that doesn't seem
>>very likely.
>
> T40 then, if they're lucky.
At least for now.
>>> Top 30 :
>>
>>> Casacada,
>>
>>Ahem.
>
> T40 then, perhaps.
It wasn't the prediction so much as the spelling.
>>> Nelly
>>
>>Perhaps, since some people seem to know it exists.
>
> Plus it's only 5 short of the T40 already.
Well, that's what I meant - the people who bought it presumably noticed.
>>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
>
> I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent, I assumed it
> wasn't a brand new track.
It is. And presumably it's destined for a third album, because they can
hardly re-issue this one again.
> If that's wrong though, then it might have T10 potential - though probably
> not on downloads alone.
Agreed, on both counts.
However, in the absence of a specified digital release date I can only
assume it'll be simultaneous with the physical formats.
>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> Yet another week with no new releases likely to threaten the upper chart
>>> regions (or even get close).
>>
>>The whole record industry tends to go on holiday simultaneously, doesn't
>>it?
>
> For next Monday, the new release schedule only lists nine albums...
Although that's presumably edited - the online stores have more items than
that, albeit most of them obscure.
>>> That being the case, I'd have to say either Abba or Coldplay for #1
>>> again.
>>
>>Or something similarly unexciting.
>
> I bet Coldplay won't still be having #1 albums almost 35 years after their
> debut hit, though!
Hmm... how many people in, say, 1982 thought Abba would still be doing it
now?
>>>Soft Cell,
>>
>>Is this that same phantom Soft Cell album you thought was going to chart a
>>couple of weeks ago?
>
> No idea.
Anyway, AFAICT there isn't anything from them this week.
>>Speaking of which, Randy Newman is Number One on the Amazon pre-order
>>chart.
>>Can he break his duck?
>
> If I knew who he was...?
If his ability to chart is dependent on that, he's got no chance!
You might know who Elvis Presley was though.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>>>
>>>Well, "steady" may not be the exact word - it's been in a pretty high
>>>position for the last three or four weeks.
>>
>> But climbing each week, that's the point.
>
>That leap into the Top 40 wasn't very steady, though.
So?
On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
Buzzjack currently over Kid Rock!
It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a hefty
dose of nostalgia throw in.
>
>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> Top 10 : Script #3,
>>>
>>>Highest climber of the week, for what that's worth.
>>
>> Ignoring Katy Perry's 135 place climb to #4, of course...
>
>Which indeed I am. Partly because I didn't know about it
That's as good a reason as any. :)
>but I
>was thinking in Top 75 terms anyway.
Fair enough, though of course under the new rules there's no reason to
consider positions below #75 as less legitimate than higher ones.
>
>>>I feel like the Man Who Can't Be Moved myself, because this record just
>>>bores me.
>>
>> I've avoided hearing it right through, altogether, so that doesn't even
>> apply to me.
>
>How can you tell?
Why do you *think* I haven't heard all of it... :)
>
>>>>Katy Perry (IKAG) #4,
>>>
>>>Officially slated for CD release on the 1st of September, although this
>>>fact
>>>seems doomed to irrelevance.
>>
>> For some reason, chart-show Reggie seemed to think it was released today?
>
>Did he? I missed that bit.
>Anyway, it blatantly isn't.
This has subsequently been explained elsewhere, which you will have
probably seen by now.
>
>>>of this record is, of course, the sample from Yazoo's
>>>'Situation'
>>
>> Not a song I can recall, offhand.
>
>I've got six versions of it on my computer.
You make it sound like a virus... :)
>
>
>>>> Usher #25
>>>
>>>Still his smallest hit in a decade but it's climbing a little. Either
>>>people
>>>have been looking for the mix or he has a big crossover fanbase with Kety
>>>Perry.
>>
>> I don't get that?
>
>One possible reason his downloads might go up would be if he attracted a lot
>of passing trade from people who were online to get something else anyway.
But that doesn't explain why he should benefit more than anyone else?
>
>>>>Kylie #36*
>>>
>>>I guess not a lot of people could be bothered to buy a Freemasons remix of
>>>a
>>>track that the Freemasons produced in the first place.
>>
>> I did - eventually.
>
>But why?
Loyalty.
>
>>>> * By some distance, her lowest ever lead-credit chart position.
>>>
>>>Only about 8 positions, surely?
>>
>> 14 positions actually - 'Some Kind Of Bliss' peaked at #22.
>
>Right you are. For some reason I had 28 in my head.
You're saying : you can't get it out of your head? :)
>
>It seems a lot more pronounced in her case than many though. And can she get
>away with only one major hit per album?
She could, as long as she fires whoever co-wrote most of the songs on
'X'!
>
>> Of course, the last really good single she released was 'I Believe In
>> You', which predated download inclusion, so it's hard to judge her full
>> download potential - although 'Wow!' charted steadily on download for
>> quite a while.
>
>But never very high in any one week.
Doesn't #6 on 8/3/08 count?
No doubt she'd have gone even higher, if her X-F appearance hadn't
caused it to chart too early.
>
>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Stiff Dylans (UV) #41,
>
>>> And isn't this their only charting single
>>>anyhow?
>>
>> Well, they have 'Ever Fallen In Love' at #93, too.
>
>Or 'Ever Fallin In Love' as the OCC seem to have listed it. But as you
>weren't including that in your list, it seems a bit pointless to make the
>distinction.
I don't usually see #76-100 until Monday afternoon, and #101-200 until
Thursday, so I obviously can't include what I don't know... :)
>
>>>> Sam Sparro #44,
>>>
>>>Actually a bit better than I thought it was going to do, but with 'Black &
>>>Gold' still Top 20 it's not exactly flattering.
>>
>> The 'one hit wonder' label is circling above him like a vulture... :)
>
>Of course, for all I know his next one might go Top 3.
If he has another song with that potential on the album, then WTF was he
thinking releasing '21st C Life'...? :)
>
>>>>Nelly #45,
>>>
>>>Supposedly coming out on CD on the 11th, although that sounds oddly soon.
>>
>> Haven't heard it, and not inclined to. I don't mind Ashanti, but I
>> definitely don't like Nelly or Akon!
>
>You'd have to go out of your way to actually *mind* Ashanti, who's a bit of
>a non-entity.
But she is attractive, though.
>
>>>>Nicky Bliss (IKAG) #50*,
>>>
>>>The chart I have here spells it "Nicki" but the point will soon be moot.
>>
>> Presumably this is the version that caused the midweek charts mix-up.
>
>Yes - but some people obviously did buy it.
Almost all before Wednesday though, presumably.
>
>>>> Cascada #51,
>>>
>>>Definitely out tomorrow on CD. With seven mixes, including the radio cut.
>>
>> At least with that many mixes, buying the CD is cheaper than downloading
>> each one separately.
>
>If you actually want seven copies of the same song, yeah.
Couldn't even see it in HMV yesterday.
>
>>>>BWO #69,
>>>
>>>Rejected Swedish Eurovision entry, which gives us a glimpse of how
>>>Madonna's
>>>'Hung Up' might have sounded had she not been able to clear the Abba
>>>sample.
>>
>> Though even then, she'd have done a lot better than *this*. :)
>
>Sales-wise, you mean?
By just about *any* measure! :)
>
>>>>Lloyd ft Ludacris #75
>>>
>>>If this is coming out on physicals, I don't know about it.
>>
>> Clearly, since this *includes* physical sales! :)
>>
>> It's been in the shops from last Monday.
>
>Oops. Didn't think to look backwards.
It might sound better *played* backwards...
>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>>>> Extremely close at the top this week, with Abba just pipping Coldplay -
>>>> incidentally setting a new record as the oldest GH set to top the chart
>>>> (measured from original release, rather than the act's debut).
>>
>> This may be the longest *ever* on that score - no doubt the MW commentary
>> will enlighten us.
>
>I haven't read it yet, but my old Guinness book says that even in 1999 it
>had the latest chart week for a Number One album.
Various sources confirm that oldest #1 album tag.
>
>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>> ---------------------
>
>>>> Top 20 : Jordin Sparks #17
>>>
>>>I kept forgetting to mention that this was Top 20 last week. What
>>>happened,
>>>I wonder?
>>
>> Two words : No Air.
>
>That's been in the charts for months though.
Or feels that way, at least...
>Why have people only just
>noticed it's on the album?
The TV advertising?
>
>
>> Radiohead fans clearly wanted both, but as to how well McFly's commercial
>> release of 'Radioactive' will do...
>
>It tends to be the case that they're baited with extras on the paid-for
>version, although Radiohead are something of an exception.
I suspect even those extras will barely drag McFly's album T10.
>>>>Ne-Yo (BOY) #73,
>>>
>>>Presumably revived by his new material.
>>
>> What new material?
>
>Er, remember that Number One single he had a few weeks ago?
I've already repressed that. :)
>
>>>>Snow Patrol (EO) #75
>>>
>>>In a rare week when they don't have a single in the Top 75!
>>
>> I see their 5th album is due in the Autumn - no doubt the publicity for
>> that will coax Chasing Cars back in, yet again. :)
>
>It may not take that long.
I wonder if they'll come up with another long-charting power ballad from
the new album?
>
>>>> Next Week
>>>> ---------
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>>
>>>> Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
>>>
>>>Which it is, apparently.
>>
>> So I've seen.
>
>As of tonight, Number 7 on iTunes.
#5 now - though it may be one of those cases where pent-up demand
front-loads even download sales. ISTM it would already need to be #2, or
#3 at worse to have a realistic chance of #1 on full release, though.
On the subject of the iTunes chart, I see Rockstar has reappeared at
#28.
>
>>>> Top 20 : Scouting For Girls
>>>
>>>As it appears to have dropped out of the Top 75 this week
>>
>> It's #77.
>
>Indeed. Did you see somebody had posted the rest of the Top 200 as a comment
>on JM's Yahoo site?
No - I only ever visit there for the download chart.
>
>>>> Top 30 :
>>>
>>>> Casacada,
>>>
>>>Ahem.
>>
>> T40 then, perhaps.
>
>It wasn't the prediction so much as the spelling.
Oh right. :)
>
>>>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
>>
>> I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent, I assumed it
>> wasn't a brand new track.
>
>It is. And presumably it's destined for a third album, because they can
>hardly re-issue this one again.
On further inspection, it's listed as 'tba'
>
>> If that's wrong though, then it might have T10 potential - though probably
>> not on downloads alone.
>
>Agreed, on both counts.
>However, in the absence of a specified digital release date I can only
>assume it'll be simultaneous with the physical formats.
The first single from their last album (Prayer) wasn't.
It's made little impression on the airplay chart so far - they can
*usually* manage T30 there.
Haven't heard it myself, yet.
>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>>>> Yet another week with no new releases likely to threaten the upper chart
>>>> regions (or even get close).
>>>
>>>The whole record industry tends to go on holiday simultaneously, doesn't
>>>it?
>>
>> For next Monday, the new release schedule only lists nine albums...
>
>Although that's presumably edited - the online stores have more items than
>that, albeit most of them obscure.
Like a majority of the albums on the NR sched *aren't*? :)
>
>>>> That being the case, I'd have to say either Abba or Coldplay for #1
>>>> again.
>>>
>>>Or something similarly unexciting.
>>
>> I bet Coldplay won't still be having #1 albums almost 35 years after their
>> debut hit, though!
>
>Hmm... how many people in, say, 1982 thought Abba would still be doing it
>now?
>
But they had many massive hit singles from which to create a good GH
album - Coldplay's singles success has been relatively modest.
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 at 22:29:08, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>>>>
>>>>Well, "steady" may not be the exact word - it's been in a pretty high
>>>>position for the last three or four weeks.
>>>
>>> But climbing each week, that's the point.
>>
>>That leap into the Top 40 wasn't very steady, though.
>
> So?
So it hasn't been steady all along.
> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on Buzzjack
> currently over Kid Rock!
Only because Soulja Boy peaked at Number 2!
> It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a hefty
> dose of nostalgia throw in.
Isn't that part of the problem - the fact that the nostalgia is so obviously
hokey? I can't imagine that very many of the people in the UK who've bought
this were actually listening to Skynrd in 1989, and I don't really believe
he was either.
And personally, I hate 'Sweet Home Alabama' and am therefore none too happy
about having it inflicted on me more often.
>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>> Top 10 : Script #3,
>>>>
>>>>Highest climber of the week, for what that's worth.
>>>
>>> Ignoring Katy Perry's 135 place climb to #4, of course...
>>
>>Which indeed I am. Partly because I didn't know about it
>
> That's as good a reason as any. :)
>
>>but I
>>was thinking in Top 75 terms anyway.
>
> Fair enough, though of course under the new rules there's no reason to
> consider positions below #75 as less legitimate than higher ones.
I think I may have demonstrated one of them above. :-(
>>>>I feel like the Man Who Can't Be Moved myself, because this record just
>>>>bores me.
>>>
>>> I've avoided hearing it right through, altogether, so that doesn't even
>>> apply to me.
>>
>>How can you tell?
>
> Why do you *think* I haven't heard all of it... :)
I meant (slightly facetiously) how can you tell whether you've heard it or
not?
>
>>>>of this record is, of course, the sample from Yazoo's
>>>>'Situation'
>>>
>>> Not a song I can recall, offhand.
>>
>>I've got six versions of it on my computer.
>
> You make it sound like a virus... :)
Well, it's true that I didn't intentionally collect all of them (indeed
there are more I could have got if I really wanted them). But I do like the
song.
>>>>> Usher #25
>>>>
>>>>Still his smallest hit in a decade but it's climbing a little. Either
>>>>people
>>>>have been looking for the mix or he has a big crossover fanbase with
>>>>Kety
>>>>Perry.
>>>
>>> I don't get that?
>>
>>One possible reason his downloads might go up would be if he attracted a
>>lot
>>of passing trade from people who were online to get something else anyway.
>
> But that doesn't explain why he should benefit more than anyone else?
Only if people who went on to download Katy Perry particularly liked him. It
wasn't a very serious suggestion.
>>>>>Kylie #36*
>>>>
>>>>I guess not a lot of people could be bothered to buy a Freemasons remix
>>>>of
>>>>a
>>>>track that the Freemasons produced in the first place.
>>>
>>> I did - eventually.
>>
>>But why?
>
> Loyalty.
I sometimes think I'm too loyal to bands.
>>>>> * By some distance, her lowest ever lead-credit chart position.
>>>>
>>>>Only about 8 positions, surely?
>>>
>>> 14 positions actually - 'Some Kind Of Bliss' peaked at #22.
>>
>>Right you are. For some reason I had 28 in my head.
>
> You're saying : you can't get it out of your head? :)
Boo!
Wish I'd thought of that.
>>It seems a lot more pronounced in her case than many though. And can she
>>get
>>away with only one major hit per album?
>
> She could, as long as she fires whoever co-wrote most of the songs on 'X'!
I haven't researched this, but aren't they a lot of the same people she'd
worked with before?
>>> Of course, the last really good single she released was 'I Believe In
>>> You', which predated download inclusion, so it's hard to judge her full
>>> download potential - although 'Wow!' charted steadily on download for
>>> quite a while.
>>
>>But never very high in any one week.
>
> Doesn't #6 on 8/3/08 count?
Not as a week when it was selling on downloads, no.
>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Stiff Dylans (UV)
>>>>> #41,
>>
>>>> And isn't this their only charting single
>>>>anyhow?
>>>
>>> Well, they have 'Ever Fallen In Love' at #93, too.
>>
>>Or 'Ever Fallin In Love' as the OCC seem to have listed it. But as you
>>weren't including that in your list, it seems a bit pointless to make the
>>distinction.
>
> I don't usually see #76-100 until Monday afternoon, and #101-200 until
> Thursday, so I obviously can't include what I don't know... :)
Er, isn't that what I was saying?
>>>>> Sam Sparro #44,
>>>>
>>>>Actually a bit better than I thought it was going to do, but with 'Black
>>>>&
>>>>Gold' still Top 20 it's not exactly flattering.
>>>
>>> The 'one hit wonder' label is circling above him like a vulture... :)
>>
>>Of course, for all I know his next one might go Top 3.
>
> If he has another song with that potential on the album, then WTF was he
> thinking releasing '21st C Life'...? :)
Ego?
>>>>>Nicky Bliss (IKAG) #50*,
>>>>
>>>>The chart I have here spells it "Nicki" but the point will soon be moot.
>>>
>>> Presumably this is the version that caused the midweek charts mix-up.
>>
>>Yes - but some people obviously did buy it.
>
> Almost all before Wednesday though, presumably.
Certainly a majority.
>>>>> Cascada #51,
>>>>
>>>>Definitely out tomorrow on CD. With seven mixes, including the radio
>>>>cut.
>>>
>>> At least with that many mixes, buying the CD is cheaper than downloading
>>> each one separately.
>>
>>If you actually want seven copies of the same song, yeah.
>
> Couldn't even see it in HMV yesterday.
I can tell you where it was in the Harrow branch, if that helps.
>>>>>BWO #69,
>>>>
>>>>Rejected Swedish Eurovision entry, which gives us a glimpse of how
>>>>Madonna's
>>>>'Hung Up' might have sounded had she not been able to clear the Abba
>>>>sample.
>>>
>>> Though even then, she'd have done a lot better than *this*. :)
>>
>>Sales-wise, you mean?
>
> By just about *any* measure! :)
Hmm... I don't think she'd be as likely to get to Eurovision.
>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>>>> Extremely close at the top this week, with Abba just pipping
>>>>> Coldplay -
>>>>> incidentally setting a new record as the oldest GH set to top the
>>>>> chart
>>>>> (measured from original release, rather than the act's debut).
>>>
>>> This may be the longest *ever* on that score - no doubt the MW
>>> commentary
>>> will enlighten us.
>>
>>I haven't read it yet, but my old Guinness book says that even in 1999 it
>>had the latest chart week for a Number One album.
>
> Various sources confirm that oldest #1 album tag.
I think even in 1999 it held the record for longest gap between spells at
Number 1.
>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>> ---------------------
>>
>>>>> Top 20 : Jordin Sparks #17
>>>>
>>>>I kept forgetting to mention that this was Top 20 last week. What
>>>>happened,
>>>>I wonder?
>>>
>>> Two words : No Air.
>>
>>That's been in the charts for months though.
>
> Or feels that way, at least...
>
>>Why have people only just
>>noticed it's on the album?
> The TV advertising?
I thought you said that'd been going on for weeks though?
>>>>>Ne-Yo (BOY) #73,
>>>>
>>>>Presumably revived by his new material.
>>>
>>> What new material?
>>
>>Er, remember that Number One single he had a few weeks ago?
>
> I've already repressed that. :)
If it spends any longer in the Top 10, the record company might have to as
well. Geddit?
>>>>>Snow Patrol (EO) #75
>>>>
>>>>In a rare week when they don't have a single in the Top 75!
>>>
>>> I see their 5th album is due in the Autumn - no doubt the publicity for
>>> that will coax Chasing Cars back in, yet again. :)
>>
>>It may not take that long.
>
> I wonder if they'll come up with another long-charting power ballad from
> the new album?
Universal will be pretty annoyed if they don't.
>>>>> Next Week
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>>> Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
>>>>
>>>>Which it is, apparently.
>>>
>>> So I've seen.
>>
>>As of tonight, Number 7 on iTunes.
>
> #5 now - though it may be one of those cases where pent-up demand
> front-loads even download sales.
Although if it's going up, that'd tend to be the opposite, surely?
>ISTM it would already need to be #2, or
> #3 at worse to have a realistic chance of #1 on full release, though.
On downloads or overall, you mean?
> On the subject of the iTunes chart, I see Rockstar has reappeared at #28.
Presumably undeleted then.
>>>>> Top 20 : Scouting For Girls
>>>>
>>>>As it appears to have dropped out of the Top 75 this week
>>>
>>> It's #77.
>>
>>Indeed. Did you see somebody had posted the rest of the Top 200 as a
>>comment
>>on JM's Yahoo site?
>
> No - I only ever visit there for the download chart.
I hope you followed the link when I posted it, because they've been removed
now.
>>>>> Top 30 :
>>>>
>>>>> Casacada,
>>>>
>>>>Ahem.
>>>
>>> T40 then, perhaps.
>>
>>It wasn't the prediction so much as the spelling.
>
> Oh right. :)
And they're one of your favourite bands too!
You wouldn't catch me spelling XTC wrong. ;-)
>>>>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
>>>
>>> I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent, I assumed
>>> it
>>> wasn't a brand new track.
>>
>>It is. And presumably it's destined for a third album, because they can
>>hardly re-issue this one again.
>
> On further inspection, it's listed as 'tba'
Which is a bit meaningless, really - it's saying "they haven't split up or
been dropped, so they must be going to do a third album sometime".
>>> If that's wrong though, then it might have T10 potential - though
>>> probably
>>> not on downloads alone.
>>
>>Agreed, on both counts.
>>However, in the absence of a specified digital release date I can only
>>assume it'll be simultaneous with the physical formats.
>
> The first single from their last album (Prayer) wasn't.
No, but it was released one week before the physical (and advertised as
such) so if they were following the same schedule this time, 'Mercury' would
already be out.
FWIW, their last all-new single, 'Flux' was released simultaneously in all
formats.
> It's made little impression on the airplay chart so far - they can
> *usually* manage T30 there.
R1 listed it almost instantly, but it's never made the A-list.
> Haven't heard it myself, yet.
You can hear it at blocparty.com - starts quietly, as John Peel used to say.
>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>>>> Yet another week with no new releases likely to threaten the upper
>>>>> chart
>>>>> regions (or even get close).
>>>>
>>>>The whole record industry tends to go on holiday simultaneously, doesn't
>>>>it?
>>>
>>> For next Monday, the new release schedule only lists nine albums...
>>
>>Although that's presumably edited - the online stores have more items than
>>that, albeit most of them obscure.
>
> Like a majority of the albums on the NR sched *aren't*? :)
It's a relative term.
>>>>> That being the case, I'd have to say either Abba or Coldplay for #1
>>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>>Or something similarly unexciting.
>>>
>>> I bet Coldplay won't still be having #1 albums almost 35 years after
>>> their
>>> debut hit, though!
>>
>>Hmm... how many people in, say, 1982 thought Abba would still be doing it
>>now?
>>
> But they had many massive hit singles from which to create a good GH
> album - Coldplay's singles success has been relatively modest.
I'm not sure that's really the point though.
Chris
Jan Buxton
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 at 22:29:08, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>>>>
>>>> Well, "steady" may not be the exact word - it's been in a pretty high
>>>> position for the last three or four weeks.
>>>
>>> But climbing each week, that's the point.
>>
>> That leap into the Top 40 wasn't very steady, though.
>
> So?
>
> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
> Buzzjack currently over Kid Rock!
>
> It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a hefty
> dose of nostalgia throw in.
Its just woeful. Why does it exist? It offers nothing. I could listen to
Werewolves Of London, or Sweet Home Alabama...I don't need a record that
mutilates them.
--
Jan
Paul Hyett
>>>>
>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
>>Buzzjack currently over Kid Rock!
>> It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a
>>hefty dose of nostalgia throw in.
>
>Its just woeful. Why does it exist? It offers nothing.
Well, some 30k+/week seem to disagree with you.
>I could listen to Werewolves Of London, or Sweet Home Alabama...I don't
>need a record that mutilates them.
But there must be many people who don't know either song. I don't know
the former at all, and barely the latter.
In any case, that doesn't mean the people who've heard both will
automatically prefer the original. For example, I prefer the Scissor
Sisters version of Comfortably Numb to Pink Floyd's...
Paul Hyett
>>>>
>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>> -------
>
>> currently over Kid Rock!
>
>Only because Soulja Boy peaked at Number 2!
That's a somewhat obscure connection.
>
>> It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a hefty
>> dose of nostalgia throw in.
>
>Isn't that part of the problem - the fact that the nostalgia is so obviously
>hokey? I can't imagine that very many of the people in the UK who've bought
>this were actually listening to Skynrd in 1989, and I don't really believe
>he was either.
Fortunately, song lyrics don't have to be true. :)
>
>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>
>> Why do you *think* I haven't heard all of it... :)
>
>I meant (slightly facetiously) how can you tell whether you've heard it or
>not?
>
Because I recognise their sound from the previous hit.
>
>>
>> She could, as long as she fires whoever co-wrote most of the songs on 'X'!
>
>I haven't researched this, but aren't they a lot of the same people she'd
>worked with before?
If they were the ones who also worked on 'Body Language', she should
have fired them, then... :)
>
>>>>>> Sam Sparro #44,
>>>
>>>Of course, for all I know his next one might go Top 3.
>>
>> If he has another song with that potential on the album, then WTF was he
>> thinking releasing '21st C Life'...? :)
>
>Ego?
His ego would be *boosted* by a single that bombed??
>
>>>>>> Cascada #51,
>>
>> Couldn't even see it in HMV yesterday.
>
>I can tell you where it was in the Harrow branch, if that helps.
Not really. :)
>
>
>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>Ne-Yo (BOY) #73,
>>>>>
>>>>>Presumably revived by his new material.
>>>>
>>>> What new material?
>>>
>>>Er, remember that Number One single he had a few weeks ago?
>>
>> I've already repressed that. :)
>
>If it spends any longer in the Top 10, the record company might have to as
>well. Geddit?
Beats me why it got there in the first place.
>
>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>>> Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
>>>>>
>>>>>Which it is, apparently.
>>>>
>>>> So I've seen.
>>>
>>>As of tonight, Number 7 on iTunes.
>>
>> #5 now - though it may be one of those cases where pent-up demand
>> front-loads even download sales.
>
>Although if it's going up, that'd tend to be the opposite, surely?
If the trend continued all week, yes.
>
>>ISTM it would already need to be #2, or
>> #3 at worse to have a realistic chance of #1 on full release, though.
>
>On downloads or overall, you mean?
Downloads. I see it's #2 on iTunes now, but I'd be very surprised if it
overtook Katy Perry.
>
>> On the subject of the iTunes chart, I see Rockstar has reappeared at #28.
>
>Presumably undeleted then.
So it seems. It was probably done late last week, as it rose from 66 to
55.
>
>>>Did you see somebody had posted the rest of the Top 200 as a
>>>comment
>>>on JM's Yahoo site?
>>
>> No - I only ever visit there for the download chart.
>
>I hope you followed the link when I posted it, because they've been removed
>now.
I didn't, but I should only have to wait 24 hours anyway...
>
>>>>>> Top 30 :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Casacada,
>>>
>>>It wasn't the prediction so much as the spelling.
>>
>> Oh right. :)
>
>And they're one of your favourite bands too!
Well technically, just the female third of the group... :)
>
>>>>>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
>>>>
>>>> I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent
>>
>> On further inspection, it's listed as 'tba'
>
>Which is a bit meaningless, really - it's saying "they haven't split up or
>been dropped, so they must be going to do a third album sometime".
Well actually, it's listed as 'tba [Oct]'
>
>> It's made little impression on the airplay chart so far - they can
>> *usually* manage T30 there.
>
>R1 listed it almost instantly, but it's never made the A-list.
Usually that's enough for T100 on airplay - i'll know when I see #51-100
in C+ tomorrow.
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 at 21:48:02, Jan Buxton <ja...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in
> uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>
>>> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
>>> Buzzjack currently over Kid Rock!
>
>>> It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a
>>> hefty dose of nostalgia throw in.
>>
>>Its just woeful. Why does it exist? It offers nothing.
>
> Well, some 30k+/week seem to disagree with you.
>
>>I could listen to Werewolves Of London, or Sweet Home Alabama...I don't
>>need a record that mutilates them.
>
> But there must be many people who don't know either song. I don't know the
> former at all, and barely the latter.
Evidently there are such people - but clearly there are those of us who do
know them, so why should we pretend we don't?
> In any case, that doesn't mean the people who've heard both will
> automatically prefer the original. For example, I prefer the Scissor
> Sisters version of Comfortably Numb to Pink Floyd's...
So do I, but that's because the Scissors actually put in some effort to
reinvent the song.
Chris
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 at 21:22:01, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>
>>> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
>>> Buzzjack
>>> currently over Kid Rock!
>>
>>Only because Soulja Boy peaked at Number 2!
>
> That's a somewhat obscure connection.
I mean that there was a heck of a lot of bile chucked at that too - but it
wasn't a Number One, and thus your claim remains accurate.
>>> It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a hefty
>>> dose of nostalgia throw in.
>>
>>Isn't that part of the problem - the fact that the nostalgia is so
>>obviously
>>hokey? I can't imagine that very many of the people in the UK who've
>>bought
>>this were actually listening to Skynrd in 1989, and I don't really believe
>>he was either.
>
> Fortunately, song lyrics don't have to be true. :)
Of course not - but then you can't claim the nostalgia as a selling point.
>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> Why do you *think* I haven't heard all of it... :)
>>
>>I meant (slightly facetiously) how can you tell whether you've heard it or
>>not?
>>
> Because I recognise their sound from the previous hit.
Really? I never thought they were all that distinctive.
To spell out my joke, I meant that this was so dull you could fail to detect
you were hearing it.
>>>>>>> Sam Sparro #44,
>>>>
>>>>Of course, for all I know his next one might go Top 3.
>>>
>>> If he has another song with that potential on the album, then WTF was he
>>> thinking releasing '21st C Life'...? :)
>>
>>Ego?
>
> His ego would be *boosted* by a single that bombed??
What I'm suggesting (and it's pure imagination on my part) is that he ego
might have made him overestimate the appeal of this track.
>>>>>>> Cascada #51,
>>>
>>> Couldn't even see it in HMV yesterday.
>>
>>I can tell you where it was in the Harrow branch, if that helps.
>
> Not really. :)
Some people are certainly finding it though - it was Top 5 on physicals.
>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Top 10 : Verve (if downloadable)
>>>>>>
>>
>>>ISTM it would already need to be #2, or
>>> #3 at worse to have a realistic chance of #1 on full release, though.
>>
>>On downloads or overall, you mean?
>
> Downloads. I see it's #2 on iTunes now, but I'd be very surprised if it
> overtook Katy Perry.
Bearing in mind her presence, this could be one of those tracks that has no
realistic chance of Number One even if it does become hugely popular.
>>>>>>> Top 30 :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Casacada,
>>>>
>>>>It wasn't the prediction so much as the spelling.
>>>
>>> Oh right. :)
>>
>>And they're one of your favourite bands too!
>
> Well technically, just the female third of the group... :)
I know. Just an excuse for that lame gag.
>>>>>>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent
>>>
>>> On further inspection, it's listed as 'tba'
>>
>>Which is a bit meaningless, really - it's saying "they haven't split up or
>>been dropped, so they must be going to do a third album sometime".
>
> Well actually, it's listed as 'tba [Oct]'
Still not saying a lot.
>>> It's made little impression on the airplay chart so far - they can
>>> *usually* manage T30 there.
>>
>>R1 listed it almost instantly, but it's never made the A-list.
>
> Usually that's enough for T100 on airplay - i'll know when I see #51-100
> in C+ tomorrow.
It's up to A-list today.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>>> After a steady climb, Kid Rock finally makes it to #1.
>>
>>>> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
>>>> Buzzjack currently over Kid Rock!
>>
>>>> It is mystifying to me, as I see it as a catchy summer song with a
>>>> hefty dose of nostalgia throw in.
>>>
>>>Its just woeful. Why does it exist? It offers nothing.
>>
>> Well, some 30k+/week seem to disagree with you.
>>
>>>I could listen to Werewolves Of London, or Sweet Home Alabama...I don't
>>>need a record that mutilates them.
>>
>> But there must be many people who don't know either song. I don't know the
>> former at all, and barely the latter.
>
>Evidently there are such people - but clearly there are those of us who do
>know them, so why should we pretend we don't?
I never said you shouldn't - but that's still a long way from some of
the strident negative comments on Buzzjack. :)
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
>>>> Buzzjack
>>>> currently over Kid Rock!
>>>
>>>Only because Soulja Boy peaked at Number 2!
>>
>> That's a somewhat obscure connection.
>
>I mean that there was a heck of a lot of bile chucked at that too - but it
>wasn't a Number One, and thus your claim remains accurate.
But I can understand why *Soulja Boy* was hated.
>>
>> Fortunately, song lyrics don't have to be true. :)
>
>Of course not - but then you can't claim the nostalgia as a selling point.
But you only have to invoke the *feeling* of nostalgia for it to work.
>
>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>> Sam Sparro #44,
>>>>
>>>> If he has another song with that potential on the album, then WTF was he
>>>> thinking releasing '21st C Life'...? :)
>>>
>>>Ego?
>>
>> His ego would be *boosted* by a single that bombed??
>
>What I'm suggesting (and it's pure imagination on my part) is that he ego
>might have made him overestimate the appeal of this track.
OK, that makes sense.
>
>>>>>>>> Cascada #51,
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't even see it in HMV yesterday.
>>>
>>>I can tell you where it was in the Harrow branch, if that helps.
>>
>> Not really. :)
>
>Some people are certainly finding it though - it was Top 5 on physicals.
All I could find on 7 Digital was the album track, but the remixes must
be available on-line somewhere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Top 10 : Verve
>>>>>>>
>>>>ISTM it would already need to be #2, or
>>>> #3 at worse to have a realistic chance of #1 on full release, though.
>>>
>>>On downloads or overall, you mean?
>>
>> Downloads. I see it's #2 on iTunes now, but I'd be very surprised if it
>> overtook Katy Perry.
>
>Bearing in mind her presence, this could be one of those tracks that has no
>realistic chance of Number One even if it does become hugely popular.
If a 'hugely popular' song missed out on #1, then an even greater
superlative would necessarily apply to Katy Perry...
>
>
>>>>>>>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent
>>>>
>>>> On further inspection, it's listed as 'tba'
>>>
>>>Which is a bit meaningless, really - it's saying "they haven't split up or
>>>been dropped, so they must be going to do a third album sometime".
>>
>> Well actually, it's listed as 'tba [Oct]'
>
>Still not saying a lot.
Other than releasing in October greatly lessens its chance of being #1.
>
>>>> It's made little impression on the airplay chart so far - they can
>>>> *usually* manage T30 there.
>>>
>>>R1 listed it almost instantly, but it's never made the A-list.
>>
>> Usually that's enough for T100 on airplay - i'll know when I see #51-100
>> in C+ tomorrow.
>
>It's up to A-list today.
New at #97 on airplay, per C+
Not exactly impressive just a few days before release, but then again,
as a fanbase act that probably won't matter that much.
BTW, I just listened to it on Youtube, and its bloody awful! No wonder
radio has been wary about picking it up.
I don't know how much they paid to licence the 'Planet Of The Apes' look
for the video, but IMO it was money pissed down the drain.
Chris Brown
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 at 19:33:55, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>> On a side issue - rarely have I seen such bile about a #1, as on
>>>>> Buzzjack
>>>>> currently over Kid Rock!
>>>>
>>>>Only because Soulja Boy peaked at Number 2!
>>>
>>> That's a somewhat obscure connection.
>>
>>I mean that there was a heck of a lot of bile chucked at that too - but it
>>wasn't a Number One, and thus your claim remains accurate.
>
> But I can understand why *Soulja Boy* was hated.
I never said you couldn't.
>>> Fortunately, song lyrics don't have to be true. :)
>>
>>Of course not - but then you can't claim the nostalgia as a selling point.
>
> But you only have to invoke the *feeling* of nostalgia for it to work.
In commercial terms, I'm sure that's true but I don't think it's something
I'd be proud of.
>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>> Sam Sparro #44,
>>>>>
>>>>> If he has another song with that potential on the album, then WTF was
>>>>> he
>>>>> thinking releasing '21st C Life'...? :)
>>>>
>>>>Ego?
>>>
>>> His ego would be *boosted* by a single that bombed??
>>
>>What I'm suggesting (and it's pure imagination on my part) is that he ego
>>might have made him overestimate the appeal of this track.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
Even though I wrote "he ego" instead of "his ego".
>>>>>>>>> Cascada #51,
>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't even see it in HMV yesterday.
>>>>
>>>>I can tell you where it was in the Harrow branch, if that helps.
>>>
>>> Not really. :)
>>
>>Some people are certainly finding it though - it was Top 5 on physicals.
>
> All I could find on 7 Digital was the album track, but the remixes must be
> available on-line somewhere?
Possibly, although that would explain why it's selling so much better on
CDs...
Woolworthsdownload is down at the moment, and I haven't got Itunes anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Top 10 : Verve
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>ISTM it would already need to be #2, or
>>>>> #3 at worse to have a realistic chance of #1 on full release, though.
>>>>
>>>>On downloads or overall, you mean?
>>>
>>> Downloads. I see it's #2 on iTunes now, but I'd be very surprised if it
>>> overtook Katy Perry.
>>
>>Bearing in mind her presence, this could be one of those tracks that has
>>no
>>realistic chance of Number One even if it does become hugely popular.
>
> If a 'hugely popular' song missed out on #1, then an even greater
> superlative would necessarily apply to Katy Perry...
In theory, yes. In practice, of course, things can be more complicated than
that.
>>>>>>>>I don't know when the Bloc Party single comes out on download.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did notice it, but since I could see no new album imminent
>>>>>
>>>>> On further inspection, it's listed as 'tba'
>>>>
>>>>Which is a bit meaningless, really - it's saying "they haven't split up
>>>>or
>>>>been dropped, so they must be going to do a third album sometime".
>>>
>>> Well actually, it's listed as 'tba [Oct]'
>>
>>Still not saying a lot.
>
> Other than releasing in October greatly lessens its chance of being #1.
Although that's a fairly meaningless concept before we know what those
chances are likely to be. What I really meant was that saying at this stage
that an album might be coming out in October isn't very specific. Who knows
whether they've even finished recording it yet?
>>>>> It's made little impression on the airplay chart so far - they can
>>>>> *usually* manage T30 there.
>>>>
>>>>R1 listed it almost instantly, but it's never made the A-list.
>>>
>>> Usually that's enough for T100 on airplay - i'll know when I see #51-100
>>> in C+ tomorrow.
>>
>>It's up to A-list today.
>
> New at #97 on airplay, per C+
>
> Not exactly impressive just a few days before release, but then again, as
> a fanbase act that probably won't matter that much.
And of course that won't be accounting for the A-listing.
> BTW, I just listened to it on Youtube, and its bloody awful! No wonder
> radio has been wary about picking it up.
Funny that - the fans seem a bit disappointed about them going dance, and
dance fans don't seem to like it either.
> I don't know how much they paid to licence the 'Planet Of The Apes' look
> for the video, but IMO it was money pissed down the drain.
I haven't watched the whole thing, but it doesn't look big-budget to me.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>Of course not - but then you can't claim the nostalgia as a selling point.
>>
>> But you only have to invoke the *feeling* of nostalgia for it to work.
>
>In commercial terms, I'm sure that's true but I don't think it's something
>I'd be proud of.
Not proud of having a #1, after never exceeding #25 before?
About the only thing he was known for in the UK before this, was nailing
the top Baywatch babe. :)
>
>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Cascada
>>
>> All I could find on 7 Digital was the album track, but the remixes must be
>> available on-line somewhere?
>
>Possibly, although that would explain why it's selling so much better on
>CDs...
Given that it's had virtually zero airplay, a R1 chart-show appearance
could possibly help it significantly.
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Top 10 : Verve
>>>>
>>>>I see it's #2 on iTunes now, but I'd be very surprised if it
>>>> overtook Katy Perry.
>>>
>>>Bearing in mind her presence, this could be one of those tracks that has
>>>no
>>>realistic chance of Number One even if it does become hugely popular.
>>
>> If a 'hugely popular' song missed out on #1, then an even greater
>> superlative would necessarily apply to Katy Perry...
>
>In theory, yes. In practice, of course, things can be more complicated than
>that.
I see they're still #2 on iTunes, but I suspect that they're using up a
considerable proportion of their download sales this week, so sales of
that format may slip back next week, even as CD sales begin.
>
>>>>>>>>>Bloc Party
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>new album
>>>> it's listed as 'tba [Oct]'
>>>
>>>Still not saying a lot.
>>
>> Other than releasing in October greatly lessens its chance of being #1.
>
>Although that's a fairly meaningless concept before we know what those
>chances are likely to be. What I really meant was that saying at this stage
>that an album might be coming out in October isn't very specific. Who knows
>whether they've even finished recording it yet?
Surely most albums are finished being recorded months before they are
actually released?
>>
>> New at #97 on airplay, per C+
>>
>> Not exactly impressive just a few days before release, but then again, as
>> a fanbase act that probably won't matter that much.
>
>And of course that won't be accounting for the A-listing.
But even an A-listing doesn't mean much if DJ's don't like a song - they
will only play it the absolute minimum number of times they are obliged
to, and probably hide it away in the least-listened-to part of their
show.
>
>> BTW, I just listened to it on Youtube, and its bloody awful! No wonder
>> radio has been wary about picking it up.
>
>Funny that - the fans seem a bit disappointed about them going dance, and
>dance fans don't seem to like it either.
A change of direction is always a risk - but it's in album sales, rather
than singles, where you can tell if the gamble has paid off. Their last
two went T3, but if the lead single doesn't impress, they may very well
struggle to match that.
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 at 21:48:00, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>Of course not - but then you can't claim the nostalgia as a selling
>>>>point.
>>>
>>> But you only have to invoke the *feeling* of nostalgia for it to work.
>>
>>In commercial terms, I'm sure that's true but I don't think it's something
>>I'd be proud of.
>
> Not proud of having a #1, after never exceeding #25 before?
I meant of the way he did it.
Having said which, I can imagine he might not be that bothered anyway. He
doesn't seem to me like a man who's that interested in the world outside the
USA.
> About the only thing he was known for in the UK before this, was nailing
> the top Baywatch babe. :)
Really? I bet Pamela Anderson was jealous. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> Cascada
>>>
>>> All I could find on 7 Digital was the album track, but the remixes must
>>> be
>>> available on-line somewhere?
>>
>>Possibly, although that would explain why it's selling so much better on
>>CDs...
>
> Given that it's had virtually zero airplay, a R1 chart-show appearance
> could possibly help it significantly.
Only if people who hear it on there like it though.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Top 10 : Verve
>>>>>
>>>>>I see it's #2 on iTunes now, but I'd be very surprised if it
>>>>> overtook Katy Perry.
>>>>
>>>>Bearing in mind her presence, this could be one of those tracks that has
>>>>no
>>>>realistic chance of Number One even if it does become hugely popular.
>>>
>>> If a 'hugely popular' song missed out on #1, then an even greater
>>> superlative would necessarily apply to Katy Perry...
>>
>>In theory, yes. In practice, of course, things can be more complicated
>>than
>>that.
>
> I see they're still #2 on iTunes, but I suspect that they're using up a
> considerable proportion of their download sales this week, so sales of
> that format may slip back next week, even as CD sales begin.
They might. Or they might not - I think it may be too early to judge.
>>>>>>>>>>Bloc Party
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>new album
>
>>>>> it's listed as 'tba [Oct]'
>>>>
>>>>Still not saying a lot.
>>>
>>> Other than releasing in October greatly lessens its chance of being #1.
>>
>>Although that's a fairly meaningless concept before we know what those
>>chances are likely to be. What I really meant was that saying at this
>>stage
>>that an album might be coming out in October isn't very specific. Who
>>knows
>>whether they've even finished recording it yet?
>
> Surely most albums are finished being recorded months before they are >
> actually released?
Some are, some aren't. There's some evidence that record companies are
realising the risks involved in sitting on new material for too long.
Two months is a plausible gap nowadays - but if the album isn't finished yet
it doesn't really matter when the label want to release it.
>>> New at #97 on airplay, per C+
>>>
>>> Not exactly impressive just a few days before release, but then again,
>>> as
>>> a fanbase act that probably won't matter that much.
>>
>>And of course that won't be accounting for the A-listing.
>
> But even an A-listing doesn't mean much if DJ's don't like a song - they >
> will only play it the absolute minimum number of times they are obliged
> to, and probably hide it away in the least-listened-to part of their show.
The whole point of the playlist system is that the DJs aren't deciding that
on a day-to-day basis (at least not officially - sometimes they can sneak it
a bit). And barring exceptional circumstances the normal rotation for an
A-list track is 20 per week, not including non-playlist shows; it's probably
just as well they're not allowed to add any more than that.
>>> BTW, I just listened to it on Youtube, and its bloody awful! No wonder
>>> radio has been wary about picking it up.
>>
>>Funny that - the fans seem a bit disappointed about them going dance, and
>>dance fans don't seem to like it either.
>
> A change of direction is always a risk - but it's in album sales, rather
> than singles, where you can tell if the gamble has paid off. Their last
> two went T3, but if the lead single doesn't impress, they may very well
> struggle to match that.
This is true up to a point - but the debut position of the album doesn't
really tell you a lot more.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>In commercial terms, I'm sure that's true but I don't think it's something
>>>I'd be proud of.
>>
>> Not proud of having a #1, after never exceeding #25 before?
>
>I meant of the way he did it.
>Having said which, I can imagine he might not be that bothered anyway. He
>doesn't seem to me like a man who's that interested in the world outside the
>USA.
Maybe because he's never been able to sell records outside of America
before?
>
>> About the only thing he was known for in the UK before this, was nailing
>> the top Baywatch babe. :)
>
>Really? I bet Pamela Anderson was jealous. :-)
Grin.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cascada
>>>>
>>>> All I could find on 7 Digital was the album track, but the remixes must
>>>> be
>>>> available on-line somewhere?
>>>
>>>Possibly, although that would explain why it's selling so much better on
>>>CDs...
>>
>> Given that it's had virtually zero airplay, a R1 chart-show appearance
>> could possibly help it significantly.
>
>Only if people who hear it on there like it though.
Well, duh! :)
I don't see why they wouldn't though - it's very catchy, and it has a
very good writing pedigree.
Also, the local HMV finally had it in today.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>
>> I see they're still #2 on iTunes, but I suspect that they're using up a
>> considerable proportion of their download sales this week, so sales of
>> that format may slip back next week, even as CD sales begin.
>
>They might. Or they might not - I think it may be too early to judge.
Downloads aren't *usually* front-loaded, but I think this may be an
exception, given the anticipation & hype surrounding their comeback.
>>
>> But even an A-listing doesn't mean much if DJ's don't like a song - they >
>> will only play it the absolute minimum number of times they are obliged
>> to, and probably hide it away in the least-listened-to part of their show.
>
>The whole point of the playlist system is that the DJs aren't deciding that
>on a day-to-day basis (at least not officially - sometimes they can sneak it
>a bit).
Hence my above comment about obligation.
>And barring exceptional circumstances the normal rotation for an
>A-list track is 20 per week, not including non-playlist shows; it's probably
>just as well they're not allowed to add any more than that.
I would assume that, while they are under orders to play it, they can
still choose what part of their show they play it in?
>>
>> A change of direction is always a risk - but it's in album sales, rather
>> than singles, where you can tell if the gamble has paid off. Their last
>> two went T3, but if the lead single doesn't impress, they may very well
>> struggle to match that.
>
>This is true up to a point - but the debut position of the album doesn't
>really tell you a lot more.
But indie/rock albums virtually never exceed their debut position. If
this is the best they could come up with for a single, it doesn't
inspire confidence of an extended run.
Jan Buxton
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 at 10:33:37, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>> they >
>>> will only play it the absolute minimum number of times they are obliged
>>> to, and probably hide it away in the least-listened-to part of their
>>> show.
>>
>> The whole point of the playlist system is that the DJs aren't deciding
>> that
>> on a day-to-day basis (at least not officially - sometimes they can
>> sneak it
>> a bit).
>
> Hence my above comment about obligation.
>
>> And barring exceptional circumstances the normal rotation for an
>> A-list track is 20 per week, not including non-playlist shows; it's
>> probably
>> just as well they're not allowed to add any more than that.
>
> I would assume that, while they are under orders to play it, they can
> still choose what part of their show they play it in?
Well, R1 is heavily formatted. Even in "The Nation's Favourite", Simon
Garfield's book, in a discussion of Mark 'n' Lard's brief stint on the
breakfast show (and their refusal to stick to the playlist), Jeff Smith,
in charge of the playlist then says,
"...and I guess it is a bit mathematical and precise because we do use a
computer and we do rotate the list, and programme in certain criteria."
And thats back in 1997!
Mark 'n' Lard were disrespectful of the playlist, but not really typical
of most DJs.
As it is, apart from the computer, its normally the producers who call
the shots in terms of what goes where, not DJs. After all of daytime,
only Jo Whiley (and to an extent Edith Bowman) would really have a keen
interest in the music she played.
Interestingly, back then, as well as the published A, B, C list, they
actually operated to a secret Super A, A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, and C list.
--
Jan
Chris Brown
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 at 10:33:37, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>In commercial terms, I'm sure that's true but I don't think it's
>>>>something
>>>>I'd be proud of.
>>>
>>> Not proud of having a #1, after never exceeding #25 before?
>>
>>I meant of the way he did it.
>>Having said which, I can imagine he might not be that bothered anyway. He
>>doesn't seem to me like a man who's that interested in the world outside
>>the
>>USA.
>
> Maybe because he's never been able to sell records outside of America
> before?
Or possibly the other way round?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cascada
>>>>>
>>>>> All I could find on 7 Digital was the album track, but the remixes
>>>>> must
>>>>> be
>>>>> available on-line somewhere?
>>>>
>>>>Possibly, although that would explain why it's selling so much better on
>>>>CDs...
>>>
>>> Given that it's had virtually zero airplay, a R1 chart-show appearance
>>> could possibly help it significantly.
>>
>>Only if people who hear it on there like it though.
>
> Well, duh! :)
Can't be taken as read though.
> I don't see why they wouldn't though - it's very catchy, and it has a very
> good writing pedigree.
The reason it has a good writing pedigree is because it's a cover version -
indeed of a song that's been covered several times before.
Anyhow, on a more general note there's not much sign of that effect ever
having happened before. I'm sure people have done it individually, but not
in large enough numbers to affect chart positions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>>
>>> I see they're still #2 on iTunes, but I suspect that they're using up a
>>> considerable proportion of their download sales this week, so sales of
>>> that format may slip back next week, even as CD sales begin.
>>
>>They might. Or they might not - I think it may be too early to judge.
>
> Downloads aren't *usually* front-loaded, but I think this may be an
> exception, given the anticipation & hype surrounding their comeback.
But then a high-profile act like this will presumbly be selling records to
people who don't follow the music scene in a lot of detail, won't be
completely certain of release dates, etc etc.
I don't really get why you're so determined that this single will be so
short-lived, that's all.
>>> But even an A-listing doesn't mean much if DJ's don't like a song - they
>>> >
>>> will only play it the absolute minimum number of times they are obliged
>>> to, and probably hide it away in the least-listened-to part of their
>>> show.
>>
>>The whole point of the playlist system is that the DJs aren't deciding
>>that
>>on a day-to-day basis (at least not officially - sometimes they can sneak
>>it
>>a bit).
>
> Hence my above comment about obligation.
Only up to a point, though - the records will be scheduled already - and if
you think about it, that'd make it impossible to play anything more often
without dropping something else.
R1 at least will allow some DJs to get away with dropping the odd track if a
feature over-runs, or fading it early or "accidentally" playing something
else; but there'd have to be a limit somewhere. Most commerical stations,
AIUI, would consider it a much more serious offence.
>>And barring exceptional circumstances the normal rotation for an
>>A-list track is 20 per week, not including non-playlist shows; it's
>>probably
>>just as well they're not allowed to add any more than that.
>
> I would assume that, while they are under orders to play it, they can
> still choose what part of their show they play it in?
Nope. Although I doubt they mind that - trying to choose what order to play
tracks in sounds even less fun than trying to choose them in the first
place. Also, R1 occasionally has certain tracks that can't be played at
certain times of day.
>>> A change of direction is always a risk - but it's in album sales, rather
>>> than singles, where you can tell if the gamble has paid off. Their last
>>> two went T3, but if the lead single doesn't impress, they may very well
>>> struggle to match that.
>>
>>This is true up to a point - but the debut position of the album doesn't
>>really tell you a lot more.
>
> But indie/rock albums virtually never exceed their debut position.
They tend not to, but that isn't exactly the point. If Bloc Party released
their next album in the same week as, say, Dido and Westlife they couldn't
reasonably be expected to chart higher than 3, but that wouldn't prove that
it was less popular than A Weekend In The City that happened to get to
Number 2 in February. To use an analogy, I'm pretty sure Dark Side Of The
Moon is more popular than The Division Bell.
> If this
> is the best they could come up with for a single, it doesn't inspire
> confidence of an extended run.
But that's a big "if" - since the album is at least two months away there
may very well be another single around the time of release. Or "they" (by
which I really mean the record company) could be planning to save the more
commercial material for after the album release as they tried last time
around.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> Not proud of having a #1, after never exceeding #25 before?
>>>
>>>I meant of the way he did it.
>>>Having said which, I can imagine he might not be that bothered anyway. He
>>>doesn't seem to me like a man who's that interested in the world outside
>>>the
>>>USA.
>>
>> Maybe because he's never been able to sell records outside of America
>> before?
>
>Or possibly the other way round?
He's never been able to sell records *inside* America before?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>
>> I don't see why they wouldn't though - it's very catchy, and it has a very
>> good writing pedigree.
>
>The reason it has a good writing pedigree is because it's a cover version -
>indeed of a song that's been covered several times before.
Hasn't hurt Unchained Melody...
>
>Anyhow, on a more general note there's not much sign of that effect ever
>having happened before. I'm sure people have done it individually, but not
>in large enough numbers to affect chart positions.
I think Nickelback's Rockstar is a good counter-example!
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>
>> Downloads aren't *usually* front-loaded, but I think this may be an
>> exception, given the anticipation & hype surrounding their comeback.
>
>But then a high-profile act like this will presumbly be selling records to
>people who don't follow the music scene in a lot of detail, won't be
>completely certain of release dates, etc etc.
ISTM that 90%+ of its sales will be to their fanbase, who certainly will
be savvy.
>
>I don't really get why you're so determined that this single will be so
>short-lived, that's all.
I think I'm being realistic, rather than 'determined'.
>> Hence my above comment about obligation.
>
>Only up to a point, though - the records will be scheduled already - and if
>you think about it, that'd make it impossible to play anything more often
>without dropping something else.
>R1 at least will allow some DJs to get away with dropping the odd track if a
>feature over-runs, or fading it early or "accidentally" playing something
>else; but there'd have to be a limit somewhere. Most commerical stations,
>AIUI, would consider it a much more serious offence.
That's why I could never work as a DJ - if they tried to get me to play
a song i hated, I'd tell them where to shove it - sideways! :)
>>
>> I would assume that, while they are under orders to play it, they can
>> still choose what part of their show they play it in?
>
>Nope. Although I doubt they mind that - trying to choose what order to play
>tracks in sounds even less fun than trying to choose them in the first
>place. Also, R1 occasionally has certain tracks that can't be played at
>certain times of day.
The way they censor, I'm surprised there's ever any 'questionable'
lyrics left in any song...
>>
>> But indie/rock albums virtually never exceed their debut position.
>
>They tend not to, but that isn't exactly the point. If Bloc Party released
>their next album in the same week as, say, Dido and Westlife they couldn't
>reasonably be expected to chart higher than 3, but that wouldn't prove that
>it was less popular than A Weekend In The City that happened to get to
>Number 2 in February.
That's why sales are a better measure than chart position.
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 at 13:48:20, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>> Not proud of having a #1, after never exceeding #25 before?
>>>>
>>>>I meant of the way he did it.
>>>>Having said which, I can imagine he might not be that bothered anyway.
>>>>He
>>>>doesn't seem to me like a man who's that interested in the world outside
>>>>the
>>>>USA.
>>>
>>> Maybe because he's never been able to sell records outside of America
>>> before?
>>
>>Or possibly the other way round?
>
> He's never been able to sell records *inside* America before?
Quite the contrary. What I mean is, perhaps he's never been successful
outside the USA because he didn't care about the rest of the world and, by
extension, didn't make the sort of music that would interest audiences
elsewhere in the world.
Of course, I haven't researched this in detail so for all I know he might
have had 17 consecutive Number One singles in Bangladesh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>
>>> I don't see why they wouldn't though - it's very catchy, and it has a
>>> very
>>> good writing pedigree.
>>
>>The reason it has a good writing pedigree is because it's a cover
>>version -
>>indeed of a song that's been covered several times before.
>
> Hasn't hurt Unchained Melody...
But the point is that it's not the writers of that song that people even
care about (I don't know who they were offhand) but the popularity of the
song itself. And obviously most of the people who've had hits with
'Unchained Melody' recently haven't been dependant on radio for their
success.
>>Anyhow, on a more general note there's not much sign of that effect ever
>>having happened before. I'm sure people have done it individually, but not
>>in large enough numbers to affect chart positions.
>
> I think Nickelback's Rockstar is a good counter-example!
Really? You don't think there might have been one or two other factors
involved there?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>>
>>> Downloads aren't *usually* front-loaded, but I think this may be an
>>> exception, given the anticipation & hype surrounding their comeback.
>>
>>But then a high-profile act like this will presumbly be selling records to
>>people who don't follow the music scene in a lot of detail, won't be
>>completely certain of release dates, etc etc.
>
> ISTM that 90%+ of its sales will be to their fanbase, who certainly will
> be savvy.
Yeah, but why are you so sure of that?
I could understand if this was a new Iron Maiden single we were talking
about - but with the Verve it's far more complicated.
>>I don't really get why you're so determined that this single will be so
>>short-lived, that's all.
>
> I think I'm being realistic, rather than 'determined'.
It just seems to me like you've started out with some absolute conviction
that this is to be the case. That's fine as long as you justify it.
>>> Hence my above comment about obligation.
>>
>>Only up to a point, though - the records will be scheduled already - and
>>if
>>you think about it, that'd make it impossible to play anything more often
>>without dropping something else.
>>R1 at least will allow some DJs to get away with dropping the odd track if
>>a
>>feature over-runs, or fading it early or "accidentally" playing something
>>else; but there'd have to be a limit somewhere. Most commerical stations,
>>AIUI, would consider it a much more serious offence.
>
> That's why I could never work as a DJ - if they tried to get me to play a
> song i hated, I'd tell them where to shove it - sideways! :)
It's only fair to point out that R1 is more tolerant than any other station
I've encountered of Djs criticising music policy on-air.
But personally, I think I could only be comfortable on some sort of
specialist show.
>>> I would assume that, while they are under orders to play it, they can
>>> still choose what part of their show they play it in?
>>
>>Nope. Although I doubt they mind that - trying to choose what order to
>>play
>>tracks in sounds even less fun than trying to choose them in the first
>>place. Also, R1 occasionally has certain tracks that can't be played at
>>certain times of day.
>
> The way they censor, I'm surprised there's ever any 'questionable' lyrics
> left in any song...
I'm not saying I agree with this. But you have to bear in mind that the
morning school run is the time parents and children are most likely to be
hearing the radio together.
>>> But indie/rock albums virtually never exceed their debut position.
>>
>>They tend not to, but that isn't exactly the point. If Bloc Party released
>>their next album in the same week as, say, Dido and Westlife they couldn't
>>reasonably be expected to chart higher than 3, but that wouldn't prove
>>that
>>it was less popular than A Weekend In The City that happened to get to
>>Number 2 in February.
>
> That's why sales are a better measure than chart position.
Right, but even first week sales aren't hugely informative, because the
follow-up to a successful album will usually come with a head-start. We've
seen a lot of that this year.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because he's never been able to sell records outside of America
>>>> before?
>>>
>>>Or possibly the other way round?
>>
>> He's never been able to sell records *inside* America before?
>
>Quite the contrary. What I mean is, perhaps he's never been successful
>outside the USA because he didn't care about the rest of the world and, by
>extension, didn't make the sort of music that would interest audiences
>elsewhere in the world.
Are you therefore suggesting that All Summer Long was an 'accidental'
hit outside America?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>>The reason it has a good writing pedigree is because it's a cover
>>>version -
>>>indeed of a song that's been covered several times before.
>>
>> Hasn't hurt Unchained Melody...
>
>But the point is that it's not the writers of that song that people even
>care about (I don't know who they were offhand) but the popularity of the
>song itself. And obviously most of the people who've had hits with
>'Unchained Melody' recently haven't been dependant on radio for their
>success.
Radio 2, surely? :)
>
>>>Anyhow, on a more general note there's not much sign of that effect ever
>>>having happened before. I'm sure people have done it individually, but not
>>>in large enough numbers to affect chart positions.
>>
>> I think Nickelback's Rockstar is a good counter-example!
>
>Really? You don't think there might have been one or two other factors
>involved there?
Of course, but none as strong as belated airplay pick-up.
To a less extent that applies to GC's 'Sweet About Me' too - although
the advert was presumably the main factor there.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>
>> ISTM that 90%+ of its sales will be to their fanbase, who certainly will
>> be savvy.
>
>Yeah, but why are you so sure of that?
Because for them to differ from the usual pattern of frontloaded fanbase
sales for returning/veteran rock acts, would be almost unique.
They've now slipped to #4 on iTunes, so either my front-loading theory
is correct, or the remaining fans are waiting for the CD tomorrow.
We already know there is a 3 for £3 CD offer, so they will undoubtedly
sell like hotcakes tomorrow - maybe even enough for them to start the
week at #1 - but like all such offers, will rapidly run out of steam.
>
>>>I don't really get why you're so determined that this single will be so
>>>short-lived, that's all.
>>
>> I think I'm being realistic, rather than 'determined'.
>
>It just seems to me like you've started out with some absolute conviction
>that this is to be the case. That's fine as long as you justify it.
I *have* been, from my perspective...
Apart from anything else though, I just don't think 'Love Is Noise' is
some of their best work. IMO, if it was anything other than their first
new material for 10 years, it would struggle to go T5.
>>>Most commerical stations,
>>>AIUI, would consider it a much more serious offence.
>>
>> That's why I could never work as a DJ - if they tried to get me to play a
>> song i hated, I'd tell them where to shove it - sideways! :)
>
>It's only fair to point out that R1 is more tolerant than any other station
>I've encountered of Djs criticising music policy on-air.
>But personally, I think I could only be comfortable on some sort of
>specialist show.
"Hello, this is No-Rap radio - you're on the air with Paul Hyett!" :)
>>
>> The way they censor, I'm surprised there's ever any 'questionable' lyrics
>> left in any song...
>
>I'm not saying I agree with this. But you have to bear in mind that the
>morning school run is the time parents and children are most likely to be
>hearing the radio together.
Of course, teenage kids are likely to rush out and buy the uncut records
just to piss off their parents... :)
>>
>> That's why sales are a better measure than chart position.
>
>Right, but even first week sales aren't hugely informative, because the
>follow-up to a successful album will usually come with a head-start. We've
>seen a lot of that this year.
ISTM we've seen a lot of under-performing head-starts, though.
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 at 21:43:17, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe because he's never been able to sell records outside of America
>>>>> before?
>>>>
>>>>Or possibly the other way round?
>>>
>>> He's never been able to sell records *inside* America before?
>>
>>Quite the contrary. What I mean is, perhaps he's never been successful
>>outside the USA because he didn't care about the rest of the world and, by
>>extension, didn't make the sort of music that would interest audiences
>>elsewhere in the world.
>
> Are you therefore suggesting that All Summer Long was an 'accidental' hit
> outside America?
Well, obviously a lot of promotional effort was put in by the record
company. But it certainly doesn't sound like the sort of thing made in a
conscious effort to attract a European audience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>>The reason it has a good writing pedigree is because it's a cover
>>>>version -
>>>>indeed of a song that's been covered several times before.
>>>
>>> Hasn't hurt Unchained Melody...
>>
>>But the point is that it's not the writers of that song that people even
>>care about (I don't know who they were offhand) but the popularity of the
>>song itself. And obviously most of the people who've had hits with
>>'Unchained Melody' recently haven't been dependant on radio for their
>>success.
>
> Radio 2, surely? :)
They did play the Gareth Gates version, but then they played all his other
ones too. The point is that neither he nor Robson & Jerome had to rely on
radio play to publicise their records, because they were in their different
ways TV stars. It's surely not coincidental that they both had very short
runs of very big success. Or that they were both signed by Simon Cowell.
>>>>Anyhow, on a more general note there's not much sign of that effect ever
>>>>having happened before. I'm sure people have done it individually, but
>>>>not
>>>>in large enough numbers to affect chart positions.
>>>
>>> I think Nickelback's Rockstar is a good counter-example!
>>
>>Really? You don't think there might have been one or two other factors
>>involved there?
>
> Of course, but none as strong as belated airplay pick-up.
Exactly! It was a big video hit and it was being played on the radio in
normal output - eventually. I don't see any sign that it was climbing just
because people were hearing it as part of the Top 40.
> To a less extent that applies to GC's 'Sweet About Me' too - although the
> advert was presumably the main factor there.
Well, quite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>>
>>> ISTM that 90%+ of its sales will be to their fanbase, who certainly will
>>> be savvy.
>>
>>Yeah, but why are you so sure of that?
>
> Because for them to differ from the usual pattern of frontloaded fanbase
> sales for returning/veteran rock acts, would be almost unique.
But then, where are the comparisons?
What other act that had a massive breakthrough well into their career, sold
well over two million albums and then split for a decade before they could
follow it up has released anything recently enough to be relevant?
I can't think of anyone similar enough to give me much to go on either way.
> They've now slipped to #4 on iTunes, so either my front-loading theory is
> correct, or the remaining fans are waiting for the CD tomorrow.
>
> We already know there is a 3 for £3 CD offer, so they will undoubtedly
> sell like hotcakes tomorrow - maybe even enough for them to start the week
> at #1 - but like all such offers, will rapidly run out of steam.
At least in relative terms.
>>>>I don't really get why you're so determined that this single will be so
>>>>short-lived, that's all.
>>>
>>> I think I'm being realistic, rather than 'determined'.
>>
>>It just seems to me like you've started out with some absolute conviction
>>that this is to be the case. That's fine as long as you justify it.
>
> I *have* been, from my perspective...
Not really - all you seem to be saying, at long last, is that The Verve are
a band with guitarists and thus the same as every other.
> Apart from anything else though, I just don't think 'Love Is Noise' is
> some of their best work.
Well, neither do I. But that wasn't the question. ;-)
>IMO, if it was anything other than their first
> new material for 10 years, it would struggle to go T5.
Certainly it would have done worse if it had come out as a Richard Ashcroft
single. It's hard to guess what would have happened had they continued as a
band all along, but I suspect it would be less of a hit than it's now going
to be.
>>>>Most commerical stations,
>>>>AIUI, would consider it a much more serious offence.
>>>
>>> That's why I could never work as a DJ - if they tried to get me to play
>>> a
>>> song i hated, I'd tell them where to shove it - sideways! :)
>>
>>It's only fair to point out that R1 is more tolerant than any other
>>station
>>I've encountered of Djs criticising music policy on-air.
>>But personally, I think I could only be comfortable on some sort of
>>specialist show.
>
> "Hello, this is No-Rap radio - you're on the air with Paul Hyett!" :)
Well, Smooth FM et all aren't big on the hip-hop beats. But then they're not
big on trance either. Maybe you should apply to Gaydar.
>>> The way they censor, I'm surprised there's ever any 'questionable'
>>> lyrics
>>> left in any song...
>>
>>I'm not saying I agree with this. But you have to bear in mind that the
>>morning school run is the time parents and children are most likely to be
>>hearing the radio together.
>
> Of course, teenage kids are likely to rush out and buy the uncut records
> just to piss off their parents... :)
But not if they don't hear them, which was the original point.
>>> That's why sales are a better measure than chart position.
>>
>>Right, but even first week sales aren't hugely informative, because the
>>follow-up to a successful album will usually come with a head-start. We've
>>seen a lot of that this year.
>
> ISTM we've seen a lot of under-performing head-starts, though.
Yes and that was the point I was making.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>> Are you therefore suggesting that All Summer Long was an 'accidental' hit
>> outside America?
>
>Well, obviously a lot of promotional effort was put in by the record
>company. But it certainly doesn't sound like the sort of thing made in a
>conscious effort to attract a European audience.
I don't suppose he'll mind the extra royalties, though. :)
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>>>
>>>> ISTM that 90%+ of its sales will be to their fanbase, who certainly will
>>>> be savvy.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but why are you so sure of that?
>>
>> Because for them to differ from the usual pattern of frontloaded fanbase
>> sales for returning/veteran rock acts, would be almost unique.
>
>But then, where are the comparisons?
But that'd only be an issue if they *didn't* follow the normal pattern.
>What other act that had a massive breakthrough well into their career, sold
>well over two million albums and then split for a decade before they could
>follow it up has released anything recently enough to be relevant?
Take That?
>>>
>>>It just seems to me like you've started out with some absolute conviction
>>>that this is to be the case. That's fine as long as you justify it.
>>
>> I *have* been, from my perspective...
>
>Not really - all you seem to be saying, at long last, is that The Verve are
>a band with guitarists and thus the same as every other.
I remain to be convinced otherwise.
>
>> Apart from anything else though, I just don't think 'Love Is Noise' is
>> some of their best work.
>
>Well, neither do I. But that wasn't the question. ;-)
And no doubt you'll buy it anyway...
>>>I've encountered of Djs criticising music policy on-air.
Just before being spotted at the local job centre, you mean? :)
>>>But personally, I think I could only be comfortable on some sort of
>>>specialist show.
>>
>> "Hello, this is No-Rap radio - you're on the air with Paul Hyett!" :)
>
>Well, Smooth FM et all aren't big on the hip-hop beats. But then they're not
>big on trance either. Maybe you should apply to Gaydar.
Do they play lots of Elton John, George Michael & Scissor Sisters, by
any chance? :)
>>
>> Of course, teenage kids are likely to rush out and buy the uncut records
>> just to piss off their parents... :)
>
>But not if they don't hear them, which was the original point.
In my experience, censoring a song makes it all the *more* appealing to
youngsters...
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 at 22:18:18, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> Are you therefore suggesting that All Summer Long was an 'accidental'
>>> hit
>>> outside America?
>>
>>Well, obviously a lot of promotional effort was put in by the record
>>company. But it certainly doesn't sound like the sort of thing made in a
>>conscious effort to attract a European audience.
>
> I don't suppose he'll mind the extra royalties, though. :)
To be sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>>>>
>>>>> ISTM that 90%+ of its sales will be to their fanbase, who certainly
>>>>> will
>>>>> be savvy.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, but why are you so sure of that?
>>>
>>> Because for them to differ from the usual pattern of frontloaded fanbase
>>> sales for returning/veteran rock acts, would be almost unique.
>>
>>But then, where are the comparisons?
>
> But that'd only be an issue if they *didn't* follow the normal pattern.
Surely you need to know what the normal pattern is first?
>>What other act that had a massive breakthrough well into their career,
>>sold
>>well over two million albums and then split for a decade before they could
>>follow it up has released anything recently enough to be relevant?
>
> Take That?
That's not a bad shout - except that it seems to undermine your argument a
bit.
>>>>It just seems to me like you've started out with some absolute
>>>>conviction
>>>>that this is to be the case. That's fine as long as you justify it.
>>>
>>> I *have* been, from my perspective...
>>
>>Not really - all you seem to be saying, at long last, is that The Verve
>>are
>>a band with guitarists and thus the same as every other.
>
> I remain to be convinced otherwise.
>>
>>> Apart from anything else though, I just don't think 'Love Is Noise' is
>>> some of their best work.
>>
>>Well, neither do I. But that wasn't the question. ;-)
>
> And no doubt you'll buy it anyway...
If I was going to, I would have already.
>>>>I've encountered of Djs criticising music policy on-air.
>
> Just before being spotted at the local job centre, you mean? :)
In most stations they would - but R1 seems to let (some of) them get away
with it.
>>>>But personally, I think I could only be comfortable on some sort of
>>>>specialist show.
>>>
>>> "Hello, this is No-Rap radio - you're on the air with Paul Hyett!" :)
>>
>>Well, Smooth FM et all aren't big on the hip-hop beats. But then they're
>>not
>>big on trance either. Maybe you should apply to Gaydar.
>
> Do they play lots of Elton John, George Michael & Scissor Sisters, by any
> chance? :)
It's meant to be music that gay people actually like - and whenever I hear
it that's house and trance stuff, although their website says they're also
having a poll for your favourite Madonna track.
>>> Of course, teenage kids are likely to rush out and buy the uncut records
>>> just to piss off their parents... :)
>>
>>But not if they don't hear them, which was the original point.
>
> In my experience, censoring a song makes it all the *more* appealing to
> youngsters...
But what if they don't get to hear any of it?
That's what I was talking about - stuff like that Streets record they
couldn't play before 9am.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>>>
>>>> Because for them to differ from the usual pattern of frontloaded fanbase
>>>> sales for returning/veteran rock acts, would be almost unique.
>>>
>>>But then, where are the comparisons?
>>
>> But that'd only be an issue if they *didn't* follow the normal pattern.
>
>Surely you need to know what the normal pattern is first?
Which I do...
>
>>>What other act that had a massive breakthrough well into their career,
>>>sold
>>>well over two million albums and then split for a decade before they could
>>>follow it up has released anything recently enough to be relevant?
>>
>> Take That?
>
>That's not a bad shout - except that it seems to undermine your argument a
>bit.
Not really - they've changed from a boyband into an MOR ballad act,
whereas the Verve seem to have remained indie/rock.
>>>
>>>Well, Smooth FM et all aren't big on the hip-hop beats. But then they're
>>>not
>>>big on trance either. Maybe you should apply to Gaydar.
>>
>> Do they play lots of Elton John, George Michael & Scissor Sisters, by any
>> chance? :)
>
>It's meant to be music that gay people actually like - and whenever I hear
>it that's house and trance stuff
Gays like that stuff?
>, although their website says they're also
>having a poll for your favourite Madonna track.
I guess 'Me Against The Music' might be one of their preferred ones...
:)
On a related subject, from yesterday's Mirror, Britney is looking back
close to her fittest - at least in body... :)
>>
>> In my experience, censoring a song makes it all the *more* appealing to
>> youngsters...
>
>But what if they don't get to hear any of it?
>That's what I was talking about - stuff like that Streets record they
>couldn't play before 9am.
You mean that wasn't simply because it was utter shite? :)
BTW, I see he has another album out this autumn.
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 at 21:28:32, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Verve
>>>>>
>>>>> Because for them to differ from the usual pattern of frontloaded
>>>>> fanbase
>>>>> sales for returning/veteran rock acts, would be almost unique.
>>>>
>>>>But then, where are the comparisons?
>>>
>>> But that'd only be an issue if they *didn't* follow the normal pattern.
>>
>>Surely you need to know what the normal pattern is first?
>
> Which I do...
Only on the assumption that it's the same as The Kooks or somebody like
that.
>>>>What other act that had a massive breakthrough well into their career,
>>>>sold
>>>>well over two million albums and then split for a decade before they
>>>>could
>>>>follow it up has released anything recently enough to be relevant?
>>>
>>> Take That?
>>
>>That's not a bad shout - except that it seems to undermine your argument a
>>bit.
>
> Not really - they've changed from a boyband into an MOR ballad act,
> whereas the Verve seem to have remained indie/rock.
But if you believe that then surely they're not a very valid comparison?
Personally, I disagree anyway.
>>>>Well, Smooth FM et all aren't big on the hip-hop beats. But then they're
>>>>not
>>>>big on trance either. Maybe you should apply to Gaydar.
>>>
>>> Do they play lots of Elton John, George Michael & Scissor Sisters, by
>>> any
>>> chance? :)
>>
>>It's meant to be music that gay people actually like - and whenever I hear
>>it that's house and trance stuff
>
> Gays like that stuff?
Er, yes. I can hardly believe you even asked that.
>>, although their website says they're also
>>having a poll for your favourite Madonna track.
>
> I guess 'Me Against The Music' might be one of their preferred ones... :)
It's a station aimed at gay people, not deaf ones!
>>> In my experience, censoring a song makes it all the *more* appealing to
>>> youngsters...
>>
>>But what if they don't get to hear any of it?
>>That's what I was talking about - stuff like that Streets record they
>>couldn't play before 9am.
>
> You mean that wasn't simply because it was utter shite? :)
On other evidence, it couldn't really have been.
Actually, it was 'Blinded By The Lights' which is probably one of his better
ones.
> BTW, I see he has another album out this autumn.
Indeed so. At one point it was supposed to be coming out now, but that seems
to have been moved.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>Surely you need to know what the normal pattern is first?
>>
>> Which I do...
>
>Only on the assumption that it's the same as The Kooks or somebody like
>that.
Until I see something that suggests otherwise...
>
>>>>>What other act that had a massive breakthrough well into their career,
>>>>>sold
>>>>>well over two million albums and then split for a decade before they
>>>>>could
>>>>>follow it up has released anything recently enough to be relevant?
>>>>
>>>> Take That?
>>>
>>>That's not a bad shout - except that it seems to undermine your argument a
>>>bit.
>>
>> Not really - they've changed from a boyband into an MOR ballad act,
>> whereas the Verve seem to have remained indie/rock.
>
>But if you believe that then surely they're not a very valid comparison?
But I was referring to the nature of their comeback, which is more
relevant than the kind of music.
>>>
>>>It's meant to be music that gay people actually like - and whenever I hear
>>>it that's house and trance stuff
>>
>> Gays like that stuff?
>
>Er, yes. I can hardly believe you even asked that.
But why would I be expected to know what sort of music they favour,
other than that of gay artists?
>
Re Mike Skinner
>
>> BTW, I see he has another album out this autumn.
>
>Indeed so. At one point it was supposed to be coming out now, but that seems
>to have been moved.
>
If he releases it in October he's likely to be lost in the crowd,
though.
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 at 20:12:01, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>Surely you need to know what the normal pattern is first?
>>>
>>> Which I do...
>>
>>Only on the assumption that it's the same as The Kooks or somebody like
>>that.
>
> Until I see something that suggests otherwise...
Haven't you?
Anyway, my point is that even if this single performs the same way as
'Always Where I Need To Be' that wasn't directly predictable.
>>>>>>What other act that had a massive breakthrough well into their career,
>>>>>>sold
>>>>>>well over two million albums and then split for a decade before they
>>>>>>could
>>>>>>follow it up has released anything recently enough to be relevant?
>>>>>
>>>>> Take That?
>>>>
>>>>That's not a bad shout - except that it seems to undermine your argument
>>>>a
>>>>bit.
>>>
>>> Not really - they've changed from a boyband into an MOR ballad act,
>>> whereas the Verve seem to have remained indie/rock.
>>
>>But if you believe that then surely they're not a very valid comparison?
>
> But I was referring to the nature of their comeback, which is more
> relevant than the kind of music.
Right - but if you claim that TT came back with a different sort of music
from the sort they'd done before, and that the Verve didn't change, then
it's not a valid comparison, irrespective of the types of music involved.
And anyway, you don't really want to encourage that parallel do you?
>>>>It's meant to be music that gay people actually like - and whenever I
>>>>hear
>>>>it that's house and trance stuff
>>>
>>> Gays like that stuff?
>>
>>Er, yes. I can hardly believe you even asked that.
>
> But why would I be expected to know what sort of music they favour,
Because it's a world-famous stereotype? Because there are lots of gay clubs
and they have to play something in there? Because disco was always
associated with the gay audience?
> other than that of gay artists?
Er, what? Do you really believe that a gay man will walk into a record shop
and think "This album is probably quite good, but I'm not going to buy it
unless I know the people who made it have sex with people who have similar
genitalia"? What do think they do about bands with one gay person and three
breeders?
> Re Mike Skinner
>>
>>> BTW, I see he has another album out this autumn.
>>
>>Indeed so. At one point it was supposed to be coming out now, but that
>>seems
>>to have been moved.
>>
> If he releases it in October he's likely to be lost in the crowd, though.
Maybe that's deliberate?
Anyway, if he didn't finish it in time to release it now, they wouldn't have
had any choice.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>Only on the assumption that it's the same as The Kooks or somebody like
>>>that.
>>
>> Until I see something that suggests otherwise...
>
>Haven't you?
Obviously not, in the Verve's case, since this is the first single
they've released in the download era.
>Anyway, my point is that even if this single performs the same way as
>'Always Where I Need To Be' that wasn't directly predictable.
Well, the precise release date of the download single can make quite a
difference (not to mention the issue of album-track downloads for
post-album releases).
>>
>> But I was referring to the nature of their comeback, which is more
>> relevant than the kind of music.
>
>Right - but if you claim that TT came back with a different sort of music
>from the sort they'd done before, and that the Verve didn't change, then
>it's not a valid comparison, irrespective of the types of music involved.
>And anyway, you don't really want to encourage that parallel do you?
Err... I've lost track of the original point now! :)
>>
>> But why would I be expected to know what sort of music they favour,
>
>Because it's a world-famous stereotype?
I thought the 'world-famous gay music stereotype' was of liking the
music of Elton John, George Michael, etc?
> Because there are lots of gay clubs
>and they have to play something in there? Because disco was always
>associated with the gay audience?
Most of the disco music in its 'golden era' of the late 70's, wasn't
seen that way - at least not at the time, just later revisionism.
There were exceptions of course - the Village People probably being the
main one, but in those more conservative times the gay aspect was still
downplayed as much as possible.
>
>> other than that of gay artists?
>
>Er, what? Do you really believe that a gay man will walk into a record shop
>and think "This album is probably quite good, but I'm not going to buy it
>unless I know the people who made it have sex with people who have similar
>genitalia"?
Very droll. IMO it's more a question of peer groups though.
In general, people tend to hang out with others who share similar
interests & musical tastes. That's not to say that individual members
don't have their own musical tastes, but in order to fit in, they keep
their atypical preferences to themselves. If over the course of time,
they find they have increasingly less in common with other members of
their peer group, they will switch to another.
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 at 22:25:14, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>Only on the assumption that it's the same as The Kooks or somebody like
>>>>that.
>>>
>>> Until I see something that suggests otherwise...
>>
>>Haven't you?
>
> Obviously not, in the Verve's case, since this is the first single they've
> released in the download era.
I guess that's a fair enough point.
>>Anyway, my point is that even if this single performs the same way as
>>'Always Where I Need To Be' that wasn't directly predictable.
>
> Well, the precise release date of the download single can make quite a >
> difference (not to mention the issue of album-track downloads for
> post-album releases).
Yes, and in that context perhaps the Kooks weren't a perfect example.
>>> But I was referring to the nature of their comeback, which is more
>>> relevant than the kind of music.
>>
>>Right - but if you claim that TT came back with a different sort of music
>>from the sort they'd done before, and that the Verve didn't change, then
>>it's not a valid comparison, irrespective of the types of music involved.
>>And anyway, you don't really want to encourage that parallel do you?
>
> Err... I've lost track of the original point now! :)
Maybe it's for the best...
>>> But why would I be expected to know what sort of music they favour,
>>
>>Because it's a world-famous stereotype?
>
> I thought the 'world-famous gay music stereotype' was of liking the music
> of Elton John, George Michael, etc?
Er, no. Not least because that stereotype predates either of those men
coming out.
>> Because there are lots of gay clubs
>>and they have to play something in there? Because disco was always
>>associated with the gay audience?
>
> Most of the disco music in its 'golden era' of the late 70's, wasn't seen
> that way - at least not at the time, just later revisionism.
>
> There were exceptions of course - the Village People probably being the
> main one, but in those more conservative times the gay aspect was still
> downplayed as much as possible.
I think you've answered your own point there - in order to make the music
acceptable to a mainstream audience, particularly in America, a lot of the
gay background was played down, and that might be how the Bee Gees ended up
being the biggest disco act in the world.
But that doesn't mean it wasn't there - not just the Village People (who
weren't all gay anyway) but people like Sylvester. And the influence on
Jimmy Somerville, Soft Cell et all was obvious.
>>> other than that of gay artists?
>>
>>Er, what? Do you really believe that a gay man will walk into a record
>> >>shop
>>and think "This album is probably quite good, but I'm not going to buy it
>>unless I know the people who made it have sex with people who have similar
>>genitalia"?
>
> Very droll.
But that is *exactly* what the reference to gay artists implies.
> IMO it's more a question of peer groups though.
>
> In general, people tend to hang out with others who share similar
> interests & musical tastes. That's not to say that individual members
> don't have their own musical tastes, but in order to fit in, they keep
> their atypical preferences to themselves. If over the course of time, they
> find they have increasingly less in common with other members of their
> peer group, they will switch to another.
That's largely true (apart from the fact that people are unlikely to change
their sexuality because they don't like a particular record) and that's
reason why there even is an identifiable "gay" musical taste. But that
doesn't really have anything to do with the personal lives of the people
singing the songs - which is why Gaydar is more interested in Kylie than
Melissa Etheridge.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> Until I see something that suggests otherwise...
>>>
>>>Haven't you?
>>
>> Obviously not, in the Verve's case, since this is the first single they've
>> released in the download era.
>
>I guess that's a fair enough point.
But we now know that they gained minimal benefit from the physical
release, although that suggests they may be selling sufficient downloads
that they won't drop too quickly.
>
>>>> But why would I be expected to know what sort of music they favour,
>>>
>>>Because it's a world-famous stereotype?
>>
>> I thought the 'world-famous gay music stereotype' was of liking the music
>> of Elton John, George Michael, etc?
>
>Er, no. Not least because that stereotype predates either of those men
>coming out.
I thought Elton had been out since the 70's - or at very least, it was
an open secret.
>>
>> Most of the disco music in its 'golden era' of the late 70's, wasn't seen
>> that way - at least not at the time, just later revisionism.
>>
>> There were exceptions of course - the Village People probably being the
>> main one, but in those more conservative times the gay aspect was still
>> downplayed as much as possible.
>
>I think you've answered your own point there - in order to make the music
>acceptable to a mainstream audience, particularly in America, a lot of the
>gay background was played down, and that might be how the Bee Gees ended up
>being the biggest disco act in the world.
Of course, the Bee Gee's had been around since the 60's...
>But that doesn't mean it wasn't there - not just the Village People (who
>weren't all gay anyway) but people like Sylvester.
I don't remember him.
> And the influence on
>Jimmy Somerville, Soft Cell et all was obvious.
There were lots of urban legends floating around about Marc Almond when
I was at school.
>
>> IMO it's more a question of peer groups though.
>>
>> In general, people tend to hang out with others who share similar
>> interests & musical tastes. That's not to say that individual members
>> don't have their own musical tastes, but in order to fit in, they keep
>> their atypical preferences to themselves. If over the course of time, they
>> find they have increasingly less in common with other members of their
>> peer group, they will switch to another.
>
>That's largely true (apart from the fact that people are unlikely to change
>their sexuality because they don't like a particular record)
Not that I implied that - I was careful to avoid specifics.
IMO sexuality *cannot* be changed anyway - it is a genetic
predisposition. The only random factor is whether someone comes out or
not.
> and that's
>reason why there even is an identifiable "gay" musical taste.
Are you sure? Many straight people like 'gay' music...
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 at 15:39:30, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>> Until I see something that suggests otherwise...
>>>>
>>>>Haven't you?
>>>
>>> Obviously not, in the Verve's case, since this is the first single
>>> they've
>>> released in the download era.
>>
>>I guess that's a fair enough point.
>
> But we now know that they gained minimal benefit from the physical
> release, although that suggests they may be selling sufficient downloads >
> that they won't drop too quickly.
Or possibly that fans weren't too happy to have three B-sides spread over as
many formats.
Of course the other complication is that (taking more or less as read that
it's largely fans who buy physical singles now) we can't easily get a handle
on how big a fanbase there actually is. To be sure they sold a lot of
physical singles in 1997, but those were the only kind you could get then.
>>>>> But why would I be expected to know what sort of music they favour,
>>>>
>>>>Because it's a world-famous stereotype?
>>>
>>> I thought the 'world-famous gay music stereotype' was of liking the
>>> music
>>> of Elton John, George Michael, etc?
>>
>>Er, no. Not least because that stereotype predates either of those men
>>coming out.
>
> I thought Elton had been out since the 70's - or at very least, it was an
> open secret.
For obvious reasons I don't remember a lot about the 70s. But I do remember
that time in the 80s when he was married to a woman.
>>> Most of the disco music in its 'golden era' of the late 70's, wasn't
>>> seen
>>> that way - at least not at the time, just later revisionism.
>>>
>>> There were exceptions of course - the Village People probably being the
>>> main one, but in those more conservative times the gay aspect was still
>>> downplayed as much as possible.
>>
>>I think you've answered your own point there - in order to make the music
>>acceptable to a mainstream audience, particularly in America, a lot of the
>>gay background was played down, and that might be how the Bee Gees ended
>>up
>>being the biggest disco act in the world.
>
> Of course, the Bee Gee's had been around since the 60's...
Indeed - but obviously not making disco music all along.
>>But that doesn't mean it wasn't there - not just the Village People (who
>>weren't all gay anyway) but people like Sylvester.
>
> I don't remember him.
Very high voice. Had a hit with '(You Make Me Feel) Mighty Real'.
>> And the influence on
>>Jimmy Somerville, Soft Cell et all was obvious.
>
> There were lots of urban legends floating around about Marc Almond when I
> was at school.
There seems to be a very pervasive rumour that he's a good singer.
>>> IMO it's more a question of peer groups though.
>>>
>>> In general, people tend to hang out with others who share similar
>>> interests & musical tastes. That's not to say that individual members
>>> don't have their own musical tastes, but in order to fit in, they keep
>>> their atypical preferences to themselves. If over the course of time,
>>> they
>>> find they have increasingly less in common with other members of their
>>> peer group, they will switch to another.
>>
>>That's largely true (apart from the fact that people are unlikely to
>>change
>>their sexuality because they don't like a particular record)
>
> Not that I implied that - I was careful to avoid specifics.
Right, but I thought it was worth spelling out the change in emphasis.
> IMO sexuality *cannot* be changed anyway - it is a genetic predisposition.
> The only random factor is whether someone comes out or not.
Obviously, that's a highly contentious and off-topic debate so perhaps we'll
give it a miss for now.
>> and that's
>>reason why there even is an identifiable "gay" musical taste.
>
> Are you sure? Many straight people like 'gay' music...
Obviously - but the fact that there even is a concept of "gay" music
reflects that sort of peer-group dynamic. You don't get people talking about
"dark-haired" musical taste or "tall" musical taste (and "blue-eyed soul"
isn't the same thing!) because people who have those things in common don't
normally have a particular drive to socialise together.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>> But we now know that they gained minimal benefit from the physical
>> release, although that suggests they may be selling sufficient downloads >
>> that they won't drop too quickly.
>
>Or possibly that fans weren't too happy to have three B-sides spread over as
>many formats.
But at just 3 for £3, it still wouldn't exactly break the bank...
>Of course the other complication is that (taking more or less as read that
>it's largely fans who buy physical singles now) we can't easily get a handle
>on how big a fanbase there actually is. To be sure they sold a lot of
>physical singles in 1997, but those were the only kind you could get then.
Besides, that quality (or not) of a song is the decisive matter, not the
format.
>>
>> I thought Elton had been out since the 70's - or at very least, it was an
>> open secret.
>
>For obvious reasons I don't remember a lot about the 70s. But I do remember
>that time in the 80s when he was married to a woman.
Which everyone know, even back then, was a total sham...
>
>>>
>>>I think you've answered your own point there - in order to make the music
>>>acceptable to a mainstream audience, particularly in America, a lot of the
>>>gay background was played down, and that might be how the Bee Gees ended
>>>up
>>>being the biggest disco act in the world.
>>
>> Of course, the Bee Gee's had been around since the 60's...
>
>Indeed - but obviously not making disco music all along.
Now I'm confused, was this supposed to be about gay artists, or 'gay'
music?
>
>>>But that doesn't mean it wasn't there - not just the Village People (who
>>>weren't all gay anyway) but people like Sylvester.
>>
>> I don't remember him.
>
>Very high voice. Had a hit with '(You Make Me Feel) Mighty Real'.
I Youtube'd it, and it jogged my memory a bit - though from what little
I recalled, I thought the artist was female. :)
Since he wasn't, I have to agree that is a definite 'gay' song.
>
>>> And the influence on
>>>Jimmy Somerville, Soft Cell et all was obvious.
>>
>> There were lots of urban legends floating around about Marc Almond when I
>> was at school.
>
>There seems to be a very pervasive rumour that he's a good singer.
Grin.
The 'stomach pump' rumour is the one most people have heard of. :)
>
>>> and that's
>>>reason why there even is an identifiable "gay" musical taste.
>>
>> Are you sure? Many straight people like 'gay' music...
>
>Obviously - but the fact that there even is a concept of "gay" music
>reflects that sort of peer-group dynamic. You don't get people talking about
>"dark-haired" musical taste or "tall" musical taste (and "blue-eyed soul"
>isn't the same thing!) because people who have those things in common don't
>normally have a particular drive to socialise together.
The groupings tend to fall into the traditional minority categories -
hence we have such events as the MOBO awards.
Funny how the above is not seen as racist, but woe betide anyone who
suggested a MOWO award... :)
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 at 22:28:15, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> But we now know that they gained minimal benefit from the physical
>>> release, although that suggests they may be selling sufficient downloads
>>> >
>>> that they won't drop too quickly.
>>
>>Or possibly that fans weren't too happy to have three B-sides spread over
>>as
>>many formats.
>
> But at just 3 for £3, it still wouldn't exactly break the bank...
Plus postage, if it's an online-only offer.
Besides, they could have put all four tracks onto one format (or equally,
squeezed more onto three of them).
>>Of course the other complication is that (taking more or less as read that
>>it's largely fans who buy physical singles now) we can't easily get a
>>handle
>>on how big a fanbase there actually is. To be sure they sold a lot of
>>physical singles in 1997, but those were the only kind you could get then.
>
> Besides, that quality (or not) of a song is the decisive matter, not the
> format.
We're back to 'Mull Of Kintyre' being the best song ever, then...
What I was driving at was that more casual sales have heavily migrated to
downloads in the last couple of years. Therefore success on the physical
singles market depends mostly on the fans, and we don't really know how many
of that kind of fans they have. Particularly since the real old guard might
not be all that interested in what they do nowadays.
>>> I thought Elton had been out since the 70's - or at very least, it was
>>> an
>>> open secret.
>>
>>For obvious reasons I don't remember a lot about the 70s. But I do
>>remember
>>that time in the 80s when he was married to a woman.
>
> Which everyone know, even back then, was a total sham...
Of course - but the point is that it wasn't the act of a man making it clear
that he was gay.
>>>>I think you've answered your own point there - in order to make the
>>>>music
>>>>acceptable to a mainstream audience, particularly in America, a lot of
>>>>the
>>>>gay background was played down, and that might be how the Bee Gees ended
>>>>up
>>>>being the biggest disco act in the world.
>>>
>>> Of course, the Bee Gee's had been around since the 60's...
>>
>>Indeed - but obviously not making disco music all along.
>
> Now I'm confused, was this supposed to be about gay artists, or 'gay'
> music?
Well, since the Bee Gees were all heterosexual AFAIK, it can only be the
music, can't it? My point was that part of the reason they were able to
become the marketable face of disco was because they were a known name and
weren't obviously gay or black or anything like that.
>>>>But that doesn't mean it wasn't there - not just the Village People (who
>>>>weren't all gay anyway) but people like Sylvester.
>>>
>>> I don't remember him.
>>
>>Very high voice. Had a hit with '(You Make Me Feel) Mighty Real'.
>
> I Youtube'd it, and it jogged my memory a bit - though from what little I
> recalled, I thought the artist was female. :)
You may also have heard Jimmy Somerville's version of the song, which is not
dissimilar.
> Since he wasn't, I have to agree that is a definite 'gay' song.
Well, there's a bit more to it than a high voice.
>>>> And the influence on
>>>>Jimmy Somerville, Soft Cell et all was obvious.
>>>
>>> There were lots of urban legends floating around about Marc Almond when
>>> I
>>> was at school.
>>
>>There seems to be a very pervasive rumour that he's a good singer.
>
> Grin.
>
> The 'stomach pump' rumour is the one most people have heard of. :)
Also applied to many another singer.
>>>> and that's
>>>>reason why there even is an identifiable "gay" musical taste.
>>>
>>> Are you sure? Many straight people like 'gay' music...
>>
>>Obviously - but the fact that there even is a concept of "gay" music
>>reflects that sort of peer-group dynamic. You don't get people talking
>>about
>>"dark-haired" musical taste or "tall" musical taste (and "blue-eyed soul"
>>isn't the same thing!) because people who have those things in common
>>don't
>>normally have a particular drive to socialise together.
>
> The groupings tend to fall into the traditional minority categories -
> hence we have such events as the MOBO awards.
Erm, I don't actually think that's the reason though.
> Funny how the above is not seen as racist, but woe betide anyone who >
> suggested a MOWO award... :)
Who says it's not seen as racist?
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
Re : The Verve
>>>
>>>Or possibly that fans weren't too happy to have three B-sides spread over
>>>as
>>>many formats.
>>
>> But at just 3 for £3, it still wouldn't exactly break the bank...
>
>Plus postage, if it's an online-only offer.
I didn't realise that - that makes a significant difference then.
>Besides, they could have put all four tracks onto one format (or equally,
>squeezed more onto three of them).
But they no doubt figured they could milk their fans better by spreading
them across several formats...
Were all the b-sides available to download, BTW?
>>
>> Besides, that quality (or not) of a song is the decisive matter, not the
>> format.
>
>We're back to 'Mull Of Kintyre' being the best song ever, then...
You have a thing about that one, don't you. :)
It sold >2m & was #1 for 9 weeks - end of story.
>
>What I was driving at was that more casual sales have heavily migrated to
>downloads in the last couple of years.
More so than fanbase sales, certainly.
>Therefore success on the physical
>singles market depends mostly on the fans, and we don't really know how many
>of that kind of fans they have. Particularly since the real old guard might
>not be all that interested in what they do nowadays.
Is that just speculation, or have old Verve fans specifically said that?
>>
>> Which everyone know, even back then, was a total sham...
>
>Of course - but the point is that it wasn't the act of a man making it clear
>that he was gay.
He was hardly the first gay man to marry, though...
>>
>> Now I'm confused, was this supposed to be about gay artists, or 'gay'
>> music?
>
>Well, since the Bee Gees were all heterosexual AFAIK, it can only be the
>music, can't it? My point was that part of the reason they were able to
>become the marketable face of disco was because they were a known name and
>weren't obviously gay or black or anything like that.
The latter characteristic would have been more obvious than the former,
of course. :)
>
>
>> Since he wasn't, I have to agree that is a definite 'gay' song.
>
>Well, there's a bit more to it than a high voice.
So now we have to define what makes a song 'gay'?
>
>>
>> The groupings tend to fall into the traditional minority categories -
>> hence we have such events as the MOBO awards.
>
>Erm, I don't actually think that's the reason though.
>
>> Funny how the above is not seen as racist, but woe betide anyone who
>> suggested a MOWO award... :)
>
>Who says it's not seen as racist?
Ah, but it's not considered PC to describe the MOBO awards as racist...
The salient point of course is : while blacks *are* under-represented in
some sectors of society - popular music is definitely *not* one of them.
Therefore, why should they have a special award to recognise their
contribution, when white bands/artists don't?
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 at 22:39:11, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
> Re : The Verve
>>>>
>>>>Or possibly that fans weren't too happy to have three B-sides spread
>>>>over
>>>>as
>>>>many formats.
>>>
>>> But at just 3 for £3, it still wouldn't exactly break the bank...
>>
>>Plus postage, if it's an online-only offer.
>
> I didn't realise that - that makes a significant difference then.
Probably about £1 - £1:50; but that's statistically significant got an item
at that price.
>>Besides, they could have put all four tracks onto one format (or equally,
>>squeezed more onto three of them).
>
> But they no doubt figured they could milk their fans better by spreading
> them across several formats...
Er, yeah, that was exactly the point I was making.
> Were all the b-sides available to download, BTW?
They're all on HMV Digital - which is probably my least favourite of the
download sites I've used, but I'll give them credit for being well-stocked.
>>> Besides, that quality (or not) of a song is the decisive matter, not the
>>> format.
>>
>>We're back to 'Mull Of Kintyre' being the best song ever, then...
>
> You have a thing about that one, don't you. :)
Funnily enough, I did actually download it a while ago, and it's not as bad
as I remembered it.
> It sold >2m & was #1 for 9 weeks - end of story.
What story?
>>What I was driving at was that more casual sales have heavily migrated to
>>downloads in the last couple of years.
>
> More so than fanbase sales, certainly.
Right.
>>Therefore success on the physical
>>singles market depends mostly on the fans, and we don't really know how
>>many
>>of that kind of fans they have. Particularly since the real old guard
>>might
>>not be all that interested in what they do nowadays.
>
> Is that just speculation, or have old Verve fans specifically said that?
Well, I've seen some negative comments on their website, but I suppose those
are a self-selecting sample. People who'd completely lost interest wouldn't
even be going there.
Anyway, it seems fairly plausible that people who were into them when they
were still called Verve could have gone off the sort of music they make
nowadays: here's the video for their third single, and bear in mind it's
only the radio edit:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTOtCQ2djo
>>> Which everyone know, even back then, was a total sham...
>>
>>Of course - but the point is that it wasn't the act of a man making it
>>clear
>>that he was gay.
>
> He was hardly the first gay man to marry, though...
Well, that's true.
>>> Since he wasn't, I have to agree that is a definite 'gay' song.
>>
>>Well, there's a bit more to it than a high voice.
>
> So now we have to define what makes a song 'gay'?
We don't have to. It might be safer not to.
>>> The groupings tend to fall into the traditional minority categories -
>>> hence we have such events as the MOBO awards.
>>
>>Erm, I don't actually think that's the reason though.
>>
>>> Funny how the above is not seen as racist, but woe betide anyone who
>>> suggested a MOWO award... :)
>>
>>Who says it's not seen as racist?
>
> Ah, but it's not considered PC to describe the MOBO awards as racist...
Depends whom you ask.
> The salient point of course is : while blacks *are* under-represented in >
> some sectors of society - popular music is definitely *not* one of them.
Well, not as performers, no.
> Therefore, why should they have a special award to recognise their
> contribution, when white bands/artists don't?
I think that slightly misses the point. After all, it's not like they
restrict winners to people of any one ethnic group.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>
>> Re : The Verve
>>>>
>>>
>>>Plus postage, if it's an online-only offer.
>>
>> I didn't realise that - that makes a significant difference then.
>
>Probably about £1 - £1:50; but that's statistically significant got an item
>at that price.
Well, I was thinking of numbers sold, rather than cost.
A 3 for £3 on the high street will surely sell many times better than
one exclusive to one website, given that people who prefer physical
singles will visit record shops far more often than someone who prefers
downloads.
>
>Funnily enough, I did actually download it a while ago, and it's not as bad
>as I remembered it.
>
>> It sold >2m & was #1 for 9 weeks - end of story.
>
>What story?
The story about it being massively unpopular?
>
>
>>>Particularly since the real old guard
>>>might
>>>not be all that interested in what they do nowadays.
>>
>> Is that just speculation, or have old Verve fans specifically said that?
>
>Well, I've seen some negative comments on their website, but I suppose those
>are a self-selecting sample. People who'd completely lost interest wouldn't
>even be going there.
But those would presumably just be casual buyers anyway.
>Anyway, it seems fairly plausible that people who were into them when they
>were still called Verve could have gone off the sort of music they make
>nowadays: here's the video for their third single, and bear in mind it's
>only the radio edit:
>www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTOtCQ2djo
Yes, it is pretty dire.
>
>>>>MOBO awards.
>>>
>>>> Funny how the above is not seen as racist, but woe betide anyone who
>>>> suggested a MOWO award... :)
>>>
>>>Who says it's not seen as racist?
>>
>> Ah, but it's not considered PC to describe the MOBO awards as racist...
>
>Depends whom you ask.
Well, as long as they're not a BNP member... :)
>
>> The salient point of course is : while blacks *are* under-represented in >
>> some sectors of society - popular music is definitely *not* one of them.
>
>Well, not as performers, no.
That's the only category that matters.
I did a quick survey of this week's T40 :
13 acts were exclusively black, and 3 others partly - and that excludes
Pharrell's uncredited contribution to 'Give It 2 Me'.
>
>> Therefore, why should they have a special award to recognise their
>> contribution, when white bands/artists don't?
>
>I think that slightly misses the point. After all, it's not like they
>restrict winners to people of any one ethnic group.
How many white MOBO award winners can you name, though (without checking
the web)?
Chris Brown
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 at 21:03:24, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> Re : The Verve
>>>>>
>>>>> But at just 3 for £3, it still wouldn't exactly break the bank...
>>>>
>>>>Plus postage, if it's an online-only offer.
>>>
>>> I didn't realise that - that makes a significant difference then.
>>
>>Probably about £1 - £1:50; but that's statistically significant got an
>>item
>>at that price.
>
> Well, I was thinking of numbers sold, rather than cost.
But that cost could itself put people off.
> A 3 for £3 on the high street will surely sell many times better than one
> exclusive to one website, given that people who prefer physical singles
> will visit record shops far more often than someone who prefers downloads.
To be fair, I don't know for certain that it wasn't on the high street - but
that's because there isn't a high street round here where you could get all
three physical formats of the single anyway. I did spot that the CD only
retailed for 99p anyway though.
>>Funnily enough, I did actually download it a while ago, and it's not as
>>bad
>>as I remembered it.
>>
>>> It sold >2m & was #1 for 9 weeks - end of story.
>>
>>What story?
>
> The story about it being massively unpopular?
I've never heard that one. It's the biggest selling profit-making single
ever in this country.
>>>>Particularly since the real old guard
>>>>might
>>>>not be all that interested in what they do nowadays.
>>>
>>> Is that just speculation, or have old Verve fans specifically said that?
>>
>>Well, I've seen some negative comments on their website, but I suppose
>>those
>>are a self-selecting sample. People who'd completely lost interest
>>wouldn't
>>even be going there.
>
> But those would presumably just be casual buyers anyway.
Surely people who used to like The Verve (or more to the point, Verve) and
now don't like them are the exact opposite of that?
>>Anyway, it seems fairly plausible that people who were into them when they
>>were still called Verve could have gone off the sort of music they make
>>nowadays: here's the video for their third single, and bear in mind it's
>>only the radio edit:
>
>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTOtCQ2djo
>
> Yes, it is pretty dire.
I needn't give you the link to the full 8:21 version then?
I was referring more to the difference in style though, really.
>>>>>MOBO awards.
>>>>
>>>>> Funny how the above is not seen as racist, but woe betide anyone who
>>>>> suggested a MOWO award... :)
>>>>
>>>>Who says it's not seen as racist?
>>>
>>> Ah, but it's not considered PC to describe the MOBO awards as racist...
>>
>>Depends whom you ask.
>
> Well, as long as they're not a BNP member... :)
>>
>>> The salient point of course is : while blacks *are* under-represented in
>>> >
>>> some sectors of society - popular music is definitely *not* one of them.
>>
>>Well, not as performers, no.
>
> That's the only category that matters.
Well, in the context of awards ceremonies I suppose it is.
>>
>>> Therefore, why should they have a special award to recognise their
>>> contribution, when white bands/artists don't?
>>
>>I think that slightly misses the point. After all, it's not like they
>>restrict winners to people of any one ethnic group.
>
> How many white MOBO award winners can you name, though (without checking
> the web)?
Well, how many MOBO award winners of any ethnicity can you remember?
Mick Hucknall has definitely got one, and IIRC so has The Streets. I think
Joss Stone and Eminem must have some too somewhere.
Anyway, I think the idea is actually to say (entirely accurately) that
certain types of music wouldn't exist without the input of black people.
Which doesn't really go far enough, IMO.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>>>
>>>> Re : The Verve
>>>>
>>>
>>>Probably about £1 - £1:50; but that's statistically significant got an
>>>item
>>>at that price.
>>
>> Well, I was thinking of numbers sold, rather than cost.
>
>But that cost could itself put people off.
Also, if you have to go on-line to buy a physical single, you might as
well just download it *anyway*...
I only buy singles on-line when I can use them to bring an Amazon order
up to the £15 free-delivery limit. :)
>
>To be fair, I don't know for certain that it wasn't on the high street - but
>that's because there isn't a high street round here where you could get all
>three physical formats of the single anyway. I did spot that the CD only
>retailed for 99p anyway though.
Same here.
>
>>>
>>>> It sold >2m & was #1 for 9 weeks - end of story.
>>>
>>>What story?
>>
>> The story about it being massively unpopular?
>
>I've never heard that one. It's the biggest selling profit-making single
>ever in this country.
I thought the combined sales of Bohemian Rhapsody were higher?
>>
>> But those would presumably just be casual buyers anyway.
>
>Surely people who used to like The Verve (or more to the point, Verve) and
>now don't like them are the exact opposite of that?
How many people do you think that would be, though?
>
>>
>>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTOtCQ2djo
>>
>> Yes, it is pretty dire.
>
>I needn't give you the link to the full 8:21 version then?
>I was referring more to the difference in style though, really.
Oh, right.
>>
>> How many white MOBO award winners can you name, though (without checking
>> the web)?
>
>Well, how many MOBO award winners of any ethnicity can you remember?
I don't watch them, for several reasons :
1. I don't agree with awards that aren't open to all.
2. By their nature, a lot of the music will of genres I don't like.
>
>Mick Hucknall has definitely got one, and IIRC so has The Streets. I think
>Joss Stone and Eminem must have some too somewhere.
Joss Stone won a Brit award in an urban category, but I don't think she
has a MOBO award?
>Anyway, I think the idea is actually to say (entirely accurately) that
>certain types of music wouldn't exist without the input of black people.
Some might claim that *no* music would exist without them...
Jan Buxton
>>> How many white MOBO award winners can you name, though (without checking
>>> the web)?
>>
>> Well, how many MOBO award winners of any ethnicity can you remember?
>
> I don't watch them, for several reasons :
>
> 1. I don't agree with awards that aren't open to all.
Its surely fairer to compare apples with apples, rather than oranges?
The Mercury prize for instance whilst commendable has the unenviable
task of comparing different genres.
> 2. By their nature, a lot of the music will of genres I don't like.
>>
>> Mick Hucknall has definitely got one, and IIRC so has The Streets. I
>> think
>> Joss Stone and Eminem must have some too somewhere.
>
> Joss Stone won a Brit award in an urban category, but I don't think she
> has a MOBO award?
She hasn't.
Tim Westwood, Amy Winehouse, Jamie Cullum, Justin Timberlake, Christina
Aguilera, Norah Jones, Eminem, All Saints, Prodigy, Jamiroquai, Mick
Hucknall have though.
--
Jan
Paul Hyett
in uk.music.charts :
>>>>MOBO award winners
>
>> 2. By their nature, a lot of the music will of genres I don't like.
>>>
>>> Mick Hucknall has definitely got one, and IIRC so has The Streets. I
>>>think
>>> Joss Stone and Eminem must have some too somewhere.
>> Joss Stone won a Brit award in an urban category, but I don't think
>>she has a MOBO award?
>
>She hasn't.
>
>Tim Westwood, Amy Winehouse, Jamie Cullum, Justin Timberlake, Christina
>Aguilera, Norah Jones, Eminem, All Saints, Prodigy, Jamiroquai, Mick
>Hucknall have though.
>
You must have a very good memory if you recalled all those *without*
looking them up... :)
Jan Buxton
Yeah, I don't have a very good memory. :-)
--
Jan
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 at 22:35:44, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>> Re : The Verve
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't realise that - that makes a significant difference then.
>>>>
>>>>Probably about £1 - £1:50; but that's statistically significant got an
>>>>item
>>>>at that price.
>>>
>>> Well, I was thinking of numbers sold, rather than cost.
>>
>>But that cost could itself put people off.
>
> Also, if you have to go on-line to buy a physical single, you might as
> well just download it *anyway*...
>
> I only buy singles on-line when I can use them to bring an Amazon order up
> to the £15 free-delivery limit. :)
I did go through a phase of ordering 7" singles off the HMV website until
they put the prices up.
>>>>> It sold >2m & was #1 for 9 weeks - end of story.
>>>>
>>>>What story?
>>>
>>> The story about it being massively unpopular?
>>
>>I've never heard that one. It's the biggest selling profit-making single
>>ever in this country.
>
> I thought the combined sales of Bohemian Rhapsody were higher?
Just about, but the second release was for charity.
The day may come when sales of the original 45 plus downloads add up to more
than 'Mull...' which presumably doesn't do so well these days.
>>> But those would presumably just be casual buyers anyway.
>>
>>Surely people who used to like The Verve (or more to the point, Verve) and
>>now don't like them are the exact opposite of that?
>
> How many people do you think that would be, though?
As a proportion of the total population, not many of course. But they seem
worth mentioning if you're trying to judge fan reaction.
>>>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTOtCQ2djo
>>>
>>> Yes, it is pretty dire.
>>
>>I needn't give you the link to the full 8:21 version then?
>>I was referring more to the difference in style though, really.
>
> Oh, right.
To be fair, their next single 'Blue' was a bit more conventional - but there
are too many close-ups of scary Ashcroft in the video.
>>> How many white MOBO award winners can you name, though (without checking
>>> the web)?
>>
>>Well, how many MOBO award winners of any ethnicity can you remember?
>
> I don't watch them, for several reasons :
>
> 1. I don't agree with awards that aren't open to all.
Which would be pretty much all awards, wouldn't it? People who aren't in the
music business are pretty much excluded from any music awards.
> 2. By their nature, a lot of the music will of genres I don't like.
That's not quite the point I was making. Partly because I don't really watch
any awards ceremonies - but you don't have to watch them to find out who
wins. The real "problem" is that award-winners are so
tommorow's-chip-papers.
>>Mick Hucknall has definitely got one, and IIRC so has The Streets. I think
>>Joss Stone and Eminem must have some too somewhere.
>
> Joss Stone won a Brit award in an urban category, but I don't think she
> has a MOBO award?
Apparently not.
>>Anyway, I think the idea is actually to say (entirely accurately) that
>>certain types of music wouldn't exist without the input of black people.
>
> Some might claim that *no* music would exist without them...
Well, that's kind of my point here; for me the big problem with the MOBOs is
that they draw a borderline somewhere and say that *this* is black people's
music and *this* isn't; so in practice a black musician who choses to work
in a non-MOBO genre (eg Kele Okereke) is frozen out. Not that he personally
seems like the sort of person who's a big fan of awards anyway.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
Re : Wings - Mull Of Kintyre
>>>I've never heard that one. It's the biggest selling profit-making single
>>>ever in this country.
>>
>> I thought the combined sales of Bohemian Rhapsody were higher?
>
>Just about, but the second release was for charity.
What?!
I thought it was re-released because Freddy Mercury had just died?
>>>
>>>Well, how many MOBO award winners of any ethnicity can you remember?
>>
>> I don't watch them, for several reasons :
>>
>> 1. I don't agree with awards that aren't open to all.
>
>Which would be pretty much all awards, wouldn't it? People who aren't in the
>music business are pretty much excluded from any music awards.
Except X-Factor, perhaps - or maybe that's just for people who
*shouldn't* be in the music industry? :)
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 at 19:16:08, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
> Re : Wings - Mull Of Kintyre
>
>>>>I've never heard that one. It's the biggest selling profit-making single
>>>>ever in this country.
>>>
>>> I thought the combined sales of Bohemian Rhapsody were higher?
>>
>>Just about, but the second release was for charity.
>
> What?!
>
> I thought it was re-released because Freddy Mercury had just died?
Those two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Actually it came back out so
soon after he died that some cynics rather suspected it might have been
planned in advance.
That said, it may be that it could have sold almost or exactly as much had
Queen just pocketed the money themselves - but we don't know that. And of
course we don't know how many people bought both releases.
>>>>
>>>>Well, how many MOBO award winners of any ethnicity can you remember?
>>>
>>> I don't watch them, for several reasons :
>>>
>>> 1. I don't agree with awards that aren't open to all.
>>
>>Which would be pretty much all awards, wouldn't it? People who aren't in
>>the
>>music business are pretty much excluded from any music awards.
>
> Except X-Factor, perhaps - or maybe that's just for people who *shouldn't*
> be in the music industry? :)
Heh.
I wasn't really counting that as an awards ceremony though.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> I thought the combined sales of Bohemian Rhapsody were higher?
>>>
>>>Just about, but the second release was for charity.
>>
>> What?!
>>
>> I thought it was re-released because Freddy Mercury had just died?
>
>Those two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Actually it came back out so
>soon after he died that some cynics rather suspected it might have been
>planned in advance.
His death? Are you saying he was assassinated? :)