Chart Commentary 5/7/08
Paul Hyett
-------
After an 8 week climb, Ne-Yo claims his 2nd #1, but on such low sales
that he's unlikely to last long.
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Jordin Sparks ft CB #3, Chris Brown #4, Busta Rhymes/Linkin
Park #10
Top 20 : Ironik #11, Jonas Brothers #13, Glasvegas #16,
Flo-Rida/Timbaland #20
Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24, Nickelback #26, Mariah Carey #30
Top 40 : MGMT #31, Weezer #33, Freemasons #34, Courteeners #35, Black
Kids #36
* This is a re-entry of course, but a new peak position trumps that.
Re-entries T40 : see above.
New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Eliott Minor #47,
Estelle #52, Dirty Pretty Things #54, Buy Now #55, Kooks (SO) #63, Usher
(MM) #67
Re-entries : Jay-Z/Linkin Park #64, MR & AW #65, Snow Patrol (CC) #69
(its 79th week in the T75!), Bon Jovi (LOAP) #75
Albums
------
Coldplay easily hold on for a 3rd week at the top.
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5, Jonas Brothers #9
Top 20 : none
New outside the top 20 : Herman's Hermits #24, Cage The Elephant #38
Re-entries : Chris Brown #6, Wombats #66, Flo Rida #68, Mark Ronson #69,
Timbland #71, Kaiser Chiefs #72
Next Week
---------
Singles
-------
I'd like to think *someone* could overtake Ne-Yo, but I see nothing in
the new releases in the way of strong challengers, so he could retain
spot with only 20k-ish sales.
A sparse week for new releases.
Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2) Busta Rhymes, Ironik
Top 10 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)
Top 20 : Basshunter
Top 30 : Goldfrapp
Top 40 : Estelle, Ultrabeat/Darren Styles
Any other possibilities?
AIUI, Dizzee Rascal is out on downloads, and some people seem to think
it'll do really well. As always with rap though, I am totally unable to
fathom the appeal, so I can't predict it going any higher than T20.
Albums
------
Still can't see anything to challenge Coldplay.
Top 10 NE : Dirty Pretty Things
Top 20 NE : Motley Crue, MCR (Live), Subways
Others : 3 Doors Down, David Bowie, Eddie Grant, Seth Lakeman, Toyah,
X-Press 2
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
Ian F.
news:jwOh26tm...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Singles
Not sure when it's released, but if "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock doesn't
get to number one, I'll eat my shorts.
Ian
Chris Brown
> -------
> After an 8 week climb, Ne-Yo claims his 2nd #1, but on such low sales that
> he's unlikely to last long.
Although, of course, something has to do it.
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Jordin Sparks ft CB #3,
I'd be tempted to ask what the point was of making this a duet, but I
suppose it's obvious.
>Chris Brown #4,
Which means that four of the acts in the Top 5 can be connected: Chris Brown
is obviously on two of the tracks, and he's allegedly been dating Rihanna,
who has of course worked extensively with NeYo. If Jordin Sparks had snogged
one of Coldplay we'd have a full set.
>Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #10
So you were right the first time.
> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
Out on CDs tomorrow.
> Jonas Brothers #13,
I wonder whether this has sold any better?
> Glasvegas #16,
When I first became aware of this band, I naturally assumed they would be
awful - they're called Glasvegas for one thing, and the singer looks like
he's on his way home from coming third in a Joe Strummer lookalike contest.
But I saw them doing this on the telly and I thought it was alright
actually. They're also unusual in having a female stand-up drummer.
> Flo-Rida/Timbaland #20
Physical release gives this track the expected lift, but it's still not a
lot higher than 'Low'.
Mind you, nobody involved in this record seems to have been very interested,
with Timbaland seemingly recycling the backing track from '4 Minutes' and
hoping nobody notices.
> Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24,
Out on 12" on the 28th.
>Nickelback #26,
If this is how Chad Kroeger sounds when something's making him laugh, let's
hope we never hear him being a bit whiny.
> Mariah Carey #30
Her lowest-charting single since 2001 and the Glitter fiasco.In her entire
career, singles missing out on the Top 20 have been the exception rather
than the rule.
> Top 40 : MGMT #31,
I was trying to remember who this sounded like, until somebody mentioned the
Bee Gees. Yes of course!
>Weezer #33,
Another song reportedly directed at a record company, which is about as
interesting as this sort of thing usually is.
It doesn't seem like very many people have bought the physical formats, but
if they did they'd have got a selection of cover versions, including 'Are
Friends Electric?'.
> Freemasons #34,
I think they're rereleasing the album now.
> Courteeners #35,
Admittedly, they've never been massive, but this has every hallmark of a
single that fans rush out to get on day one for the cover versions
(Sugababes, Mama Cass and the Velvet Underground) but nobody else was fussed
about.
>Black Kids #36
Rather lacking in the "novelty" appeal of their first hit, as the
underwhelmed public response seems to suggest.
Still it is another success for Bernard Butler as producer.
> * This is a re-entry of course, but a new peak position trumps that.
Fair enough.
> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Eliott Minor #47,
Obviously, there wasn't a lot of demand for the 'Mental Piano Version',
then. It was always dubious how much mileage there was going to be in
dredging yet another single from this album.
> Estelle #52,
Perhaps they've timed this wrong.
>Dirty Pretty Things #54,
With a single called 'Tired Of England'. Add your own punchlines here,
people.
Perhaps Carl Barat's recent illness was a disadvantage where promotion was
concerned.
>Buy Now #55,
A single that assaults 'Let's All Chant' with the violence it deserves, and
is all the better for it.
>Kooks (SO) #63,
Out on CD & 7" on the 7th.
>Usher (MM) #67
R1 are apparently playing a remix version, but I presume this is just the
album track.
> Re-entries : Jay-Z/Linkin Park #64,
Presumably because both acts are in people's minds at the moment.
> MR & AW #65,
Was this used on some big TV show?
> Albums
> ------
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5,
Fifth album proper for the Icelanders, who seeming to be moving slightly
closer to the mainstream. This is their first work with an outside producer
(Flood, no less) and one of the songs is even in English.
A rare occurence of two albums with foreign-language titles in the Top 5.
>Jonas Brothers #9
UK album debut of the young trio.
> New outside the top 20 : Herman's Hermits #24,
Their first album to hit the chart since 1977, and like that one it's a
compilation.
26 tracks include all the Top 30 hits, plus Peter Noone's solo 'Oh You
Pretty Things!', their cover of the Kinks' 'Dandy' and some others.
>Cage The Elephant #38
Debut disc from this American act, though they now live in Leytonstone of
all places. They're so awful they even claim Jet as an influence.
No new entries between 40 and 75, so it was a waste of my time drafting the
bits about Ry Cooder, Eliza Carthy and The Rascals.
> Re-entries : Chris Brown #6,
So doesn't this new peak trump the re-entry element?
Anyway, the Exclusive album was threatening to live up (or rather down) to
its title, so now we get the Forever Edition with three bonus tracks
including the eponymous single. Those are at least added to the three bonus
tracks on the original version, so they're not expecting you to buy it
twice.
>Wombats #66,
Up from 78, so probably not a big sales gain. But they seem to be
re-releasing 'Kill The Director' as the follow up to the last two re-issues.
>Flo Rida #68,
Obviously helped a bit by the single. But you don't get a free McFly album.
> Mark Ronson #69, Timbland #71, Kaiser Chiefs #72
These must be on special offer somewhere.
> Next Week
> ---------
> Singles
> -------
> I'd like to think *someone* could overtake Ne-Yo, but I see nothing in >
> the new releases in the way of strong challengers, so he could retain spot
> with only 20k-ish sales.
This seems believable.
> A sparse week for new releases.
>
> Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2)
Any particular reason to be so specific?
>Busta Rhymes,
It's possible, but I don't know if there'll be massive demand for the
physical.
>Ironik
You would have thought so, but who knows?
> Top 10 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)
That would be two big jumps in a row.
> Top 20 : Basshunter
I know 'Now You're Gone' went Top 20 on downloads, but can this really be as
big?
> Top 30 : Goldfrapp
Again, that matches the previous one, but I've only heard this twice. And I
didn't think much of it then.
> Top 40 : Estelle,
Hard to tell.
> Ultrabeat/Darren Styles
Isn't this already on physicals, and still only at 77?
> Any other possibilities?
Where did my list go?
Right, it's not a very big week. But did you forget the Freemasons?
Also, that awful Operator Please record is coming out again, but I can't
tell why.
> AIUI, Dizzee Rascal is out on downloads, and some people seem to think
> it'll do really well.
HMV say it's out on physicals as well, but I suspect that's not actually
true.
>As always with rap though, I am totally unable to fathom the appeal, so I
>can't predict it going any higher than T20.
Are you telling me you do like all the records you've predicted hitgher
then? ;-)
Seriously, I don't buy all this talk about it as a possible Number One but
it is one of his more obviously hit-friendly tracks, and what I'd consider
its greatest flaw (ie Calvin Harris) might sell it to some people.
> Albums
> ------
> Still can't see anything to challenge Coldplay.
Me neither, as they seem to be selling fairly strongly.
> Top 10 NE : Dirty Pretty Things
Hmm... perhaps not if the single's any guide. They should still be able to
pull off Top 20 though.
> Top 20 NE : Motley Crue,
Er, has anyone mentioned that the 1980s are over?
> MCR (Live),
Seems plausible.
>Subways
Just about, in a quiet week.
> Others : 3 Doors Down,
Why?
> David Bowie,
FWIW, this peaked at 74 the previous time it was released.
>Eddie Grant,
I'd be tempted to mention the Eighties again, but he actually had a Top 3
compilation in 2001.
> Seth Lakeman,
Could do well.
> Toyah,
Remember what I said about the Eighties?
> X-Press 2
It may be tough to sell a hits collection from an act with only one major
hit, though.
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 an 8 week climb, Ne-Yo claims his 2nd #1, but on such low sales that
>> he's unlikely to last long.
>
>Although, of course, something has to do it.
And having just checked the iTunes T100, I see the abysmal Dizzee Rascal
'Dance Wiv Me' is #1. :( For me the combination of a rapper, and the
talentless Calvin Harris, is a match made in hell...
>
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Jordin Sparks ft CB #3,
>
>I'd be tempted to ask what the point was of making this a duet, but I
>suppose it's obvious.
Because CB needed the support of a *good* singer? :)
>
>>Chris Brown #4,
>
>Which means that four of the acts in the Top 5 can be connected: Chris Brown
>is obviously on two of the tracks
I wonder when an artist last had two concurrent T4 singles?
>, and he's allegedly been dating Rihanna,
>who has of course worked extensively with NeYo. If Jordin Sparks had snogged
>one of Coldplay we'd have a full set.
For a second, I thought you were going to suggest that your *namesake*
snog one of Coldplay! :)
>
>>Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #10
>
>So you were right the first time.
Adding weight to the pent-up-demand theory for this track.
>
>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>
>Out on CDs tomorrow.
When updating my spreadsheet, I noticed that it first charted back in
February, peaking at #170 on 16/2. I don't know if this is the same
version, though.
>
>> Jonas Brothers #13,
>
>I wonder whether this has sold any better?
The climb surely suggests it did.
>
>> Glasvegas #16,
>
>When I first became aware of this band, I naturally assumed they would be
>awful - they're called Glasvegas for one thing, and the singer looks like
>he's on his way home from coming third in .
Grin.
>But I saw them doing this on the telly and I thought it was alright
>actually. They're also unusual in having a female stand-up drummer.
But would *she* finish better than 3rd in a Joe Strummer lookalike
contest?
Checking their website, probably not even 3rd in a Beth Ditto lookalike
contest! :)
>> Flo-Rida/Timbaland #20
>
>Physical release gives this track the expected lift, but it's still not a
>lot higher than 'Low'.
Like minus 18 places you mean, since Low reached #2...
>
>> Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24,
>
>Out on 12" on the 28th.
I have it listed for physical release on 21/7, with nothing about it
being vinyl-only?
>
>>Nickelback #26,
>
>If this is how Chad Kroeger sounds when something's making him laugh, let's
>hope we never hear him being a bit whiny.
On a side issue, it looks like you may finally be rid of Rockstar next
week.
>
>> Mariah Carey #30
>
>Her lowest-charting single since 2001 and the Glitter fiasco.
Surely she would have been about 20 years too old for him? :)
>In her entire
>career, singles missing out on the Top 20 have been the exception rather
>than the rule.
In recent years her output has been very inconsistent, though.
>
>> Top 40 : MGMT #31,
>
>I was trying to remember who this sounded like, until somebody mentioned the
>Bee Gees. Yes of course!
Big teeth & falsetto voices, you mean? :)
>
>>Weezer #33,
>
>Another song reportedly directed at a record company, which is about as
>interesting as this sort of thing usually is.
>It doesn't seem like very many people have bought the physical formats, but
>if they did they'd have got a selection of cover versions, including 'Are
>Friends Electric?'.
No surprise that they didn't sell, then. :)
>
>> Freemasons #34,
>
>I think they're rereleasing the album now.
Single out on CD this week.
>
>> Courteeners #35,
>
>Admittedly, they've never been massive, but this has every hallmark of a
>single that fans rush out to get on day one for the cover versions
>(Sugababes, Mama Cass and the Velvet Underground) but nobody else was fussed
>about.
Not even the band.
>
>>Black Kids #36
>
>Rather lacking in the "novelty" appeal of their first hit, as the
>underwhelmed public response seems to suggest.
Except for Fearne & Reggie, apparently...
>
>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) :
>
>> Estelle #52,
>
>Perhaps they've timed this wrong.
Or it's just crap?
>
>>Dirty Pretty Things #54,
>
>With a single called 'Tired Of England'. Add your own punchlines here,
>people.
Another very front-loaded single too, judging by where it started the
week.
>
>>Buy Now #55,
>
>A single that assaults 'Let's All Chant' with the violence it deserves, and
>is all the better for it.
I don't know what that means.
>
>>Kooks (SO) #63,
>
>Out on CD & 7" on the 7th.
If they think it's worth bothering...
>
>>Usher (MM) #67
>
>R1 are apparently playing a remix version, but I presume this is just the
>album track.
If the lead track could only struggle to #4, then what hope is there for
this?
>
>> MR & AW #65,
>
>Was this used on some big TV show?
No idea, but isn't it amazing how seemingly endless extra sales can be
scraped out of former hits...
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5,
>
>Fifth album proper for the Icelanders, who seeming to be moving slightly
>closer to the mainstream. This is their first work with an outside producer
>(Flood, no less) and one of the songs is even in English.
>A rare occurence of two albums with foreign-language titles in the Top 5.
I see Fearne & Reggie even had an attempt at the title - wonder how long
they spent practising? :)
>
>>Jonas Brothers #9
>
>UK album debut of the young trio.
I guess album track downloads helped the single with that 3 place climb.
>
>> New outside the top 20 : Herman's Hermits #24,
>
>Their first album to hit the chart since 1977, and like that one it's a
>compilation.
Another late-week climber.
>
>>Cage The Elephant #38
>
>Debut disc from this American act, though they now live in Leytonstone of
>all places. They're so awful they even claim Jet as an influence.
Grin.
>
>No new entries between 40 and 75, so it was a waste of my time drafting the
>bits about Ry Cooder, Eliza Carthy and The Rascals.
Me2.
>
>> Re-entries : Chris Brown #6,
>
>So doesn't this new peak trump the re-entry element?
Technically, yes - but unlike the Ting Tings, I don't care about him...
>
>>Wombats #66,
>
>Up from 78, so probably not a big sales gain. But they seem to be
>re-releasing 'Kill The Director' as the follow up to the last two re-issues.
'Kill the Record Company Boss' might be a better title. :)
>
>>Flo Rida #68,
>
>Obviously helped a bit by the single. But you don't get a free McFly album.
And that's a bad thing? :)
>
>> Mark Ronson #69, Timbland #71, Kaiser Chiefs #72
>
>These must be on special offer somewhere.
Not necessarily - they each only climbed about a dozen places.
>
>> Next Week
>> ---------
>> Singles
>> -------
>> I'd like to think *someone* could overtake Ne-Yo, but I see nothing in >
>> the new releases in the way of strong challengers, so he could retain spot
>> with only 20k-ish sales.
>
>This seems believable.
See my earlier comment.
>
>> A sparse week for new releases.
>>
>> Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2)
>
>Any particular reason to be so specific?
Well, #2 is the only place below #1 where she would have qualified on my
list as a climber...
>
>>Busta Rhymes,
>
>It's possible, but I don't know if there'll be massive demand for the
>physical.
Is there ever, nowadays?
>
>> Top 10 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)
>
>That would be two big jumps in a row.
Why not - it's a great song!
>
>> Top 20 : Basshunter
>
>I know 'Now You're Gone' went Top 20 on downloads, but can this really be as
>big?
IMO it's better than NYG.
>
>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp
>
>Again, that matches the previous one, but I've only heard this twice. And I
>didn't think much of it then.
I haven't even seen the video.
>
>> Top 40 :
>
>> Ultrabeat/Darren Styles
>
>Isn't this already on physicals, and still only at 77?
Are you confusing it with N-Force v Darren Styles 'Right By Your Side',
by any chance?
This one is 'Discolights' due for release on 28/7 (making my prediction
perhaps premature, in retrospect).
>
>> Any other possibilities?
>
>Where did my list go?
>
>Right, it's not a very big week. But did you forget the Freemasons?
I prefer to, unless they are mixing for someone else. :)
>Also, that awful Operator Please record is coming out again, but I can't
>tell why.
When did it come out before??
>
>> AIUI, Dizzee Rascal is out on downloads, and some people seem to think
>> it'll do really well.
>
>HMV say it's out on physicals as well, but I suspect that's not actually
>true.
Next Monday, it should be.
>
>>As always with rap though, I am totally unable to fathom the appeal, so I
>>can't predict it going any higher than T20.
>
>Are you telling me you do like all the records you've predicted hitgher
>then? ;-)
I can understand *why* they chart higher, even if I don't them.
>Seriously, I don't buy all this talk about it as a possible Number One
Famous last words? :)
> but
>it is one of his more obviously hit-friendly tracks, and what I'd consider
>its greatest flaw (ie Calvin Harris) might sell it to some people.
CH's family? :)
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Still can't see anything to challenge Coldplay.
>
>Me neither, as they seem to be selling fairly strongly.
>
>> Top 20 NE : Motley Crue,
>
>Er, has anyone mentioned that the 1980s are over?
Not to anyone in charge of releasing various GH albums, that's for sure!
>
>> Others : 3 Doors Down,
>
>Why?
Low overall sales?
>
>> Seth Lakeman,
>
>Could do well.
Define 'well'.
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>> Singles
>
>Not sure when it's released, but if "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock doesn't
>get to number one, I'll eat my shorts.
You may regret that comment! :)
AIUI, it will not be available on iTunes, thereby reducing its potential
download sales dramatically...
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 at 22:16:33, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> After an 8 week climb, Ne-Yo claims his 2nd #1, but on such low sales
>>> that
>>> he's unlikely to last long.
>>
>>Although, of course, something has to do it.
>
> And having just checked the iTunes T100, I see the abysmal Dizzee Rascal
> 'Dance Wiv Me' is #1. :( For me the combination of a rapper, and the
> talentless Calvin Harris, is a match made in hell...
Looking at the other possibilities, it's actually pretty good.
>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>> Top 10 : Jordin Sparks ft CB #3,
>>
>>I'd be tempted to ask what the point was of making this a duet, but I
>>suppose it's obvious.
>
> Because CB needed the support of a *good* singer? :)
And until they can find one, some talent show fool will have to do?
Actually I'd struggle to work out which one was singing which part.
>>>Chris Brown #4,
>>
>>Which means that four of the acts in the Top 5 can be connected: Chris
>>Brown
>>is obviously on two of the tracks
>
> I wonder when an artist last had two concurrent T4 singles?
Someone's bound to tell us soon.
>>, and he's allegedly been dating Rihanna,
>>who has of course worked extensively with NeYo. If Jordin Sparks had
>>snogged
>>one of Coldplay we'd have a full set.
>
> For a second, I thought you were going to suggest that your *namesake*
> snog one of Coldplay! :)
The connection would still work but I've already mentioned him once.
>>>Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #10
>>
>>So you were right the first time.
>
> Adding weight to the pent-up-demand theory for this track.
Surely the opposite?
>>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>>
>>Out on CDs tomorrow.
>
> When updating my spreadsheet, I noticed that it first charted back in
> February, peaking at #170 on 16/2. I don't know if this is the same
> version, though.
IIRC it was released on 12" a while. But it presumably hasn't been available
on download all along, judging by that sudden chart emergence.
>>> Jonas Brothers #13,
>>
>>I wonder whether this has sold any better?
>
> The climb surely suggests it did.
Suggests it, but it may have been flattered by a slip in overall sales.
That said, the appearance of another song in the mids suggest fairly
intensive promotional efforts.
>>> Glasvegas #16,
>>
>>When I first became aware of this band, I naturally assumed they would be
>>awful - they're called Glasvegas for one thing, and the singer looks like
>>he's on his way home from coming third in .
>
> Grin.
Any particular reason you dropped the punchline there?
>>But I saw them doing this on the telly and I thought it was alright
>>actually. They're also unusual in having a female stand-up drummer.
>
> But would *she* finish better than 3rd in a Joe Strummer lookalike
> contest?
Would she want to?
> Checking their website, probably not even 3rd in a Beth Ditto lookalike
> contest! :)
Not a bad look for a drummer though.
>>> Flo-Rida/Timbaland #20
>>
>>Physical release gives this track the expected lift, but it's still not a
>>lot higher than 'Low'.
>
> Like minus 18 places you mean, since Low reached #2...
I mean it's not much higher in this week's chart than 'Low' even though
that's already been in the Top 40 for weeks.
>>> Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24,
>>
>>Out on 12" on the 28th.
>
> I have it listed for physical release on 21/7, with nothing about it being
> vinyl-only?
That's HMV's info, which may not be entirely accurate - but I normally
believe the later date in such situations.
>>>Nickelback #26,
>>
>>If this is how Chad Kroeger sounds when something's making him laugh,
>>let's
>>hope we never hear him being a bit whiny.
>
> On a side issue, it looks like you may finally be rid of Rockstar next
> week.
I wouldn't want to speak too soon on that, though - it looked like it was
going to go this week.
>>> Mariah Carey #30
>>
>>Her lowest-charting single since 2001 and the Glitter fiasco.
>
> Surely she would have been about 20 years too old for him? :)
Boo!
>>In her entire
>>career, singles missing out on the Top 20 have been the exception rather
>>than the rule.
>
> In recent years her output has been very inconsistent, though.
Artistically, you mean? I'm not sure it was ever otherwise.
>>> Top 40 : MGMT #31,
>>
>>I was trying to remember who this sounded like, until somebody mentioned
>>the
>>Bee Gees. Yes of course!
>
> Big teeth & falsetto voices, you mean? :)
Well, you can't actually hear the teeth, but otherwise yeah.
>>>Weezer #33,
>>
>>Another song reportedly directed at a record company, which is about as
>>interesting as this sort of thing usually is.
>>It doesn't seem like very many people have bought the physical formats,
>>but
>>if they did they'd have got a selection of cover versions, including 'Are
>>Friends Electric?'.
>
> No surprise that they didn't sell, then. :)
Presumably all the people who think Rivers Cuomo is a genius will have
lapped it up. Personally, I heard their big hit 'Buddy Holly' on the radio
the other day and that just showed this up.
>>> Freemasons #34,
>>
>>I think they're rereleasing the album now.
>
> Single out on CD this week.
Correct.
>>> Courteeners #35,
>>
>>Admittedly, they've never been massive, but this has every hallmark of a
>>single that fans rush out to get on day one for the cover versions
>>(Sugababes, Mama Cass and the Velvet Underground) but nobody else was
>>fussed
>>about.
>
> Not even the band.
Well, as you can see I was so fussed I didn't even finish that sentence. ;-)
I suspect the band think they're making some very important statement
though.
>>>Black Kids #36
>>
>>Rather lacking in the "novelty" appeal of their first hit, as the
>>underwhelmed public response seems to suggest.
>
> Except for Fearne & Reggie, apparently...
And Fearne's brother, apparently.
>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) :
>>
>>> Estelle #52,
>>
>>Perhaps they've timed this wrong.
>
> Or it's just crap?
Didn't stop a lot of other records.
>>>Dirty Pretty Things #54,
>>
>>With a single called 'Tired Of England'. Add your own punchlines here,
>>people.
>
> Another very front-loaded single too, judging by where it started the
> week.
I never saw it listed any higher than "Top 50" so it can't have fallen
exceptionally far. Nonethless, that doesn't compare brilliantly with the
lead single from their first album going straight in at 5.
>>>Buy Now #55,
>>
>>A single that assaults 'Let's All Chant' with the violence it deserves,
>>and
>>is all the better for it.
>
> I don't know what that means.
Well, there's a record called 'Let's All Chant' which is a bit rubbish, and
this uses a sample (actually a recreation, because they couldn't clear the
original) but smashes it up a bit and sounds like they're almost angry with
it. Presumably that's why it's called 'Body Crash'.
>>>Kooks (SO) #63,
>>
>>Out on CD & 7" on the 7th.
>
> If they think it's worth bothering...
Well, it's Top 70 a couple of weeks ahead of the street date, so that
suggests it won't be a Feeling-style flop.
>>>Usher (MM) #67
>>
>>R1 are apparently playing a remix version, but I presume this is just the
>>album track.
>
> If the lead track could only struggle to #4, then what hope is there for
> this?
Hence the remix, presumably.
>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>> Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5,
>>
>>Fifth album proper for the Icelanders, who seeming to be moving slightly
>>closer to the mainstream. This is their first work with an outside
>>producer
>>(Flood, no less) and one of the songs is even in English.
>>A rare occurence of two albums with foreign-language titles in the Top 5.
>
> I see Fearne & Reggie even had an attempt at the title - wonder how long
> they spent practising? :)
Possibly because Fearne is covering some of Edith Bowman's maternity leave
so she'll have had to say it again today.
>>>Jonas Brothers #9
>>
>>UK album debut of the young trio.
>
> I guess album track downloads helped the single with that 3 place climb.
That's very possible.
>>> New outside the top 20 : Herman's Hermits #24,
>>
>>Their first album to hit the chart since 1977, and like that one it's a
>>compilation.
>
> Another late-week climber.
A fairly typical one.
>>No new entries between 40 and 75, so it was a waste of my time drafting
>>the
>>bits about Ry Cooder, Eliza Carthy and The Rascals.
>
> Me2.
It transpires that they're at 84, 87 and 100 respectively - the former and
latter of those looking a bit low by previous standards. That said, some
copies of the Cooder album come with a free book so perhaps those aren't
counted.
Also, a double pack of the first two Kings Of Leon albums appears at 91.
>>>Flo Rida #68,
>>
>>Obviously helped a bit by the single. But you don't get a free McFly
>>album.
>
> And that's a bad thing? :)
I'd rather have a McFly album than a Flo Rida one.
>>> Mark Ronson #69, Timbland #71, Kaiser Chiefs #72
>>
>>These must be on special offer somewhere.
>
> Not necessarily - they each only climbed about a dozen places.
That'd still be something at this point though. Besides, I can't remember
the last time Yours Truly Angry Mob wasn't on special offer.
>>> Next Week
>>> ---------
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>
>>> A sparse week for new releases.
>>>
>>> Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2)
>>
>>Any particular reason to be so specific?
>
> Well, #2 is the only place below #1 where she would have qualified on my
> list as a climber...
Right, but considering that it's been so tight in these positions lately,
how can we be sure that it'll climb exactly one place?
>>>Busta Rhymes,
>>
>>It's possible, but I don't know if there'll be massive demand for the
>>physical.
>
> Is there ever, nowadays?
Fair point. But even in relative terms.
>>> Top 10 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)
>>
>>That would be two big jumps in a row.
>
> Why not - it's a great song!
Is it improving that fast though?
>>> Top 20 : Basshunter
>>
>>I know 'Now You're Gone' went Top 20 on downloads, but can this really be
>>as
>>big?
>
> IMO it's better than NYG.
I don't think that's the key point though.
>>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp
>>
>>Again, that matches the previous one, but I've only heard this twice. And
>>I
>>didn't think much of it then.
>
> I haven't even seen the video.
It is, of course, on YouTube. They're not in it.
>>> Top 40 :
>>
>>> Ultrabeat/Darren Styles
>>
>>Isn't this already on physicals, and still only at 77?
>
> Are you confusing it with N-Force v Darren Styles 'Right By Your Side', by
> any chance?
I may be. He does seem to be releasing a lot of records all at once.
>>> Any other possibilities?
>>
>>Where did my list go?
>>
>>Right, it's not a very big week. But did you forget the Freemasons?
>
> I prefer to, unless they are mixing for someone else. :)
It's much the same either way though.
>>Also, that awful Operator Please record is coming out again, but I can't
>>tell why.
>
> When did it come out before??
August 2007, I think.
>>> AIUI, Dizzee Rascal is out on downloads, and some people seem to think
>>> it'll do really well.
>>
>>HMV say it's out on physicals as well, but I suspect that's not actually
>>true.
>
> Next Monday, it should be.
So I thought.
>>>As always with rap though, I am totally unable to fathom the appeal, so I
>>>can't predict it going any higher than T20.
>>
>>Are you telling me you do like all the records you've predicted hitgher
>>then? ;-)
>
> I can understand *why* they chart higher, even if I don't them.
Really? They're not always clear to me.
>>Seriously, I don't buy all this talk about it as a possible Number One
>
> Famous last words? :)
By My Chemical Romance? No, that wasn't Number One either.
>> but
>>it is one of his more obviously hit-friendly tracks, and what I'd consider
>>its greatest flaw (ie Calvin Harris) might sell it to some people.
>
> CH's family? :)
Only if they're very fertile!
I was thinking of the people who bought 'Girls' and 'Acceptable in the
Eighties'.
>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> Top 20 NE : Motley Crue,
>>
>>Er, has anyone mentioned that the 1980s are over?
>
> Not to anyone in charge of releasing various GH albums, that's for sure!
Surely they keep releasing them because nobody wants to buy new Crue albums?
>>> Others : 3 Doors Down,
>>
>>Why?
>
> Low overall sales?
Who cares how many work clothes are selling?
This is still a boring AOR band who always flop in the UK.
>>> Seth Lakeman,
>>
>>Could do well.
>
> Define 'well'.
Near Top 20?
Chris
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 at 20:39:46, Ian F. <wowfab...@googlemail.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>>> Singles
>>
>>Not sure when it's released, but if "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock doesn't
>>get to number one, I'll eat my shorts.
>
> You may regret that comment! :)
>
> AIUI, it will not be available on iTunes, thereby reducing its potential
> download sales dramatically...
Assuming that's true, it'd be difficult for him (or anyone really) to get to
the top just from physical sales. I don't quite get all the fuss here
anyway, he's been making records for donkey's years.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>"Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:0C7EqHD+...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 at 20:39:46, Ian F. <wowfab...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>> Singles
>>>
>>>Not sure when it's released, but if "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock doesn't
>>>get to number one, I'll eat my shorts.
>>
>> You may regret that comment! :)
>>
>> AIUI, it will not be available on iTunes, thereby reducing its potential
>> download sales dramatically...
>
>Assuming that's true, it'd be difficult for him (or anyone really) to get to
>the top just from physical sales.
<Cough>Katie Melua<cough>
Besides, if people really like a song but can't get it on iTunes, they
will look on other download sites, or even buy a physical copy.
>I don't quite get all the fuss here
>anyway, he's been making records for donkey's years.
But this is his very first good one (IMO). :)
Paul Hyett
>>
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>
>> 'Dance Wiv Me' is #1. :( For me the combination of a rapper, and the
>> talentless Calvin Harris, is a match made in hell...
>
>Looking at the other possibilities, it's actually pretty good.
I think you've redefined 'faint praise' there. :)
However, given the weakness of the current/forthcoming competition, it's
looking more likely that McFly will be able to sneak their usual 1 week
at #1 in a several weeks time.
>
>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>> ---------------------
>
>>>>Chris Brown #4,
>>>
>>>Which means that four of the acts in the Top 5 can be connected: Chris
>>>Brown
>>>is obviously on two of the tracks
>>
>> I wonder when an artist last had two concurrent T4 singles?
>
>Someone's bound to tell us soon.
Does JM still do his chart commentaries?
>
>>>>Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #10
>>>
>>>So you were right the first time.
>>
>> Adding weight to the pent-up-demand theory for this track.
>
>Surely the opposite?
No, because his previous week's #14 position will have been the
accumulation of several week's demand. Last week's modest climb was due
to growing promo as the physical release date approaches, offset by the
loss of the previous week's pent-up demand..
Had the download release been delayed another week, he might well have
debuted in the T5.
>
>>>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>>>
>>>Out on CDs tomorrow.
>>
>> When updating my spreadsheet, I noticed that it first charted back in
>> February, peaking at #170 on 16/2. I don't know if this is the same
>> version, though.
>
>IIRC it was released on 12" a while. But it presumably hasn't been available
>on download all along, judging by that sudden chart emergence.
Most likely the original release was hard to find on-line.
>
>>>> Jonas Brothers #13,
>>>
>>>I wonder whether this has sold any better?
>>
>> The climb surely suggests it did.
>
>Suggests it, but it may have been flattered by a slip in overall sales.
That in itself doesn't normally produce a climb as big as 3 places.
>That said, the appearance of another song in the mids suggest fairly
>intensive promotional efforts.
Well, the album was released last week...
>
>>>> Glasvegas #16,
>>>
>>>When I first became aware of this band, I naturally assumed they would be
>>>awful - they're called Glasvegas for one thing, and the singer looks like
>>>he's on his way home from coming third in .
>>
>> Grin.
>
>Any particular reason you dropped the punchline there?
Yes - it's known as an accident... :)
>
>>>But I saw them doing this on the telly and I thought it was alright
>>>actually. They're also unusual in having a female stand-up drummer.
>>
>> But would *she* finish better than 3rd in a Joe Strummer lookalike
>> contest?
>
>Would she want to?
>
>> Checking their website, probably not even 3rd in a Beth Ditto lookalike
>> contest! :)
>
>Not a bad look for a drummer though.
Admittedly the competition isn't strong. :)
There is this one though, from around Xmas 2004 : '100% feat. Jennifer
John' - Just Cant Wait (Saturday)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgpiqjstgpc
Though I doubt she needs to bother with *drumsticks*! :)
>
>>>> Flo-Rida/Timbaland #20
>
>I mean it's not much higher in this week's chart than 'Low' even though
>that's already been in the Top 40 for weeks.
OK.
>
>>>> Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24,
>>>
>>>Out on 12" on the 28th.
>>
>> I have it listed for physical release on 21/7, with nothing about it being
>> vinyl-only?
>
>That's HMV's info, which may not be entirely accurate - but I normally
>believe the later date in such situations.
ISTM any later than 21/7 would be too late.
BTW, have you seen the video? Part of it seems to steal conceptually
from '7 Nation Army'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r23cm7bL9E
>
>>>> Mariah Carey
>
>>>In her entire
>>>career, singles missing out on the Top 20 have been the exception rather
>>>than the rule.
>>
>> In recent years her output has been very inconsistent, though.
>
>Artistically, you mean?
In terms of chart position - if she really lets her voice rip, she can
make almost any record sound great (just as Christina can).
> I'm not sure it was ever otherwise.
In the mid-90's her singles rarely, if ever, missed the T10 - and even
those from 'Emancipation...' performed pretty consistently chartwise.
>
>>>>Black Kids #36
>>>
>>>Rather lacking in the "novelty" appeal of their first hit, as the
>>>underwhelmed public response seems to suggest.
>>
>> Except for Fearne & Reggie, apparently...
>
>And Fearne's brother, apparently.
Is he in the band, then? :)
>
>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) :
>>>
>>>>Kooks (SO) #63,
>>>
>>>Out on CD & 7" on the 7th.
>>
>> If they think it's worth bothering...
>
>Well, it's Top 70 a couple of weeks ahead of the street date, so that
>suggests it won't be a Feeling-style flop.
But if it doesn't jump well into the T40 *this* week...
>
>>>>Usher (MM) #67
>>>
>>>R1 are apparently playing a remix version, but I presume this is just the
>>>album track.
>>
>> If the lead track could only struggle to #4, then what hope is there for
>> this?
>
>Hence the remix, presumably.
Remixes work better when the performers are attractive, though - from my
POV anyway. :)
>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5,
>>
>> I see Fearne & Reggie even had an attempt at the title - wonder how long
>> they spent practising? :)
>
>Possibly because Fearne is covering some of Edith Bowman's maternity leave
>so she'll have had to say it again today.
How come?
I mean : why would the album title come up in the show, not how come EB
is pregnant. :)
>
>>>No new entries between 40 and 75, so it was a waste of my time drafting
>>>the
>>>bits about Ry Cooder, Eliza Carthy and The Rascals.
>>
>> Me2.
>
>It transpires that they're at 84, 87 and 100 respectively - the former and
>latter of those looking a bit low by previous standards. That said, some
>copies of the Cooder album come with a free book so perhaps those aren't
>counted.
Riiight, *that's* why they didn't go T10. :)
>Also, a double pack of the first two Kings Of Leon albums appears at 91.
So I noticed.
>
>>>>Flo Rida #68,
>>>
>>>Obviously helped a bit by the single. But you don't get a free McFly
>>>album.
>>
>> And that's a bad thing? :)
>
>I'd rather have a McFly album than a Flo Rida one.
You have a point there.
>
>
>>>> Next Week
>>>> ---------
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2)
>>>
>>>Any particular reason to be so specific?
>>
>> Well, #2 is the only place below #1 where she would have qualified on my
>> list as a climber...
>
>Right, but considering that it's been so tight in these positions lately,
>how can we be sure that it'll climb exactly one place?
Well, it's a 50/50 chance... :)
>
>>>>Busta Rhymes,
>>>
>>>It's possible, but I don't know if there'll be massive demand for the
>>>physical.
>>
>> Is there ever, nowadays?
>
>Fair point. But even in relative terms.
Scraped itself up to #63 on airplay last week - but urban tracks don't
seem to be as airplay-dependant as other genres - unfortunately.
>
>>>> Top 10 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)
>>>
>>>That would be two big jumps in a row.
>>
>> Why not - it's a great song!
>
>Is it improving that fast though?
It's airplay is picking up fast, at least.
>
>>>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp
>>>
>>>Again, that matches the previous one, but I've only heard this twice. And
>>>I
>>>didn't think much of it then.
>>
>> I haven't even seen the video.
>
>It is, of course, on YouTube. They're not in it.
Probably why I haven't spotted it on Sky then.
>
>>>> Top 40 :
>>>
>>>> Ultrabeat/Darren Styles
>>>
>>>Isn't this already on physicals, and still only at 77?
>>
>> Are you confusing it with N-Force v Darren Styles 'Right By Your Side', by
>> any chance?
>
>I may be. He does seem to be releasing a lot of records all at once.
Or maybe not, given that records don't need to be released as singles to
chart now.
>
>>>> Any other possibilities?
>>>
>>>Also, that awful Operator Please record is coming out again, but I can't
>>>tell why.
>>
>> When did it come out before??
>
>August 2007, I think.
If it did, it couldn't even manage T200.
>
>>>>Dizzee Rascal
>
>>>>As always with rap though, I am totally unable to fathom the appeal, so I
>>>>can't predict it going any higher than T20.
>>>
>>>Are you telling me you do like all the records you've predicted hitgher
>>>then? ;-)
>>
>> I can understand *why* they chart higher, even if I don't them.
'Don't *like* them' that should read, of course.
>
>Really? They're not always clear to me.
Well :
1. If it's a fanbase act, like Morrissey or Weller, you know they'll
chart high, whatever it sounds like.
2. The first single from any major artist is also pretty easy to predict
to do well.
>
>>> but
>>>it is one of his more obviously hit-friendly tracks, and what I'd consider
>>>its greatest flaw (ie Calvin Harris) might sell it to some people.
>>
>> CH's family? :)
>
>Only if they're very fertile!
>I was thinking of the people who bought 'Girls' and 'Acceptable in the
>Eighties'.
People with poor musical tastes, you mean? :)
>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>
>>>> Seth Lakeman,
>>>
>>>Could do well.
>>
>> Define 'well'.
>
>Near Top 20?
Well, my criterion does encompass everything from 21-75, and my list of
'others' is in alphabetic order, rather than where I think they'll
chart...
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 at 23:58:23, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>
>>"Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:0C7EqHD+...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 at 20:39:46, Ian F. <wowfab...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>> Singles
>>>>
>>>>Not sure when it's released, but if "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock
>>>>doesn't
>>>>get to number one, I'll eat my shorts.
>>>
>>> You may regret that comment! :)
>>>
>>> AIUI, it will not be available on iTunes, thereby reducing its potential
>>> download sales dramatically...
>>
>>Assuming that's true, it'd be difficult for him (or anyone really) to get
>>to
>>the top just from physical sales.
>
> <Cough>Katie Melua<cough>
Are you saying that wasn't difficult?
Anyway, that wasn't a physical-only release, although I suspect digital
sales were fairly small. And each of the acts involved presumably had more
longstanding fans in the UK than Kid Rick has.
> Besides, if people really like a song but can't get it on iTunes, they
> will look on other download sites, or even buy a physical copy.
Although only 7Digital can sell an iPod-compatible version in this country,
AFAIK.
As for physicals, it depends how many there actually are, and whether people
can find a shop that sells them. It's possible that the label are hoping to
sell some albums instead.
>>I don't quite get all the fuss here
>>anyway, he's been making records for donkey's years.
>
> But this is his very first good one (IMO). :)
Have you researched that?
Chris
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 at 23:37:26, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>
>>> And having just checked the iTunes T100, I see the abysmal Dizzee Rascal
>>> 'Dance Wiv Me' is #1. :( For me the combination of a rapper, and the
>>> talentless Calvin Harris, is a match made in hell...
>>
>>Looking at the other possibilities, it's actually pretty good.
>
> I think you've redefined 'faint praise' there. :)
Well, yes, that was what I meant. Although I do think it's a tolerable pop
record.
> However, given the weakness of the current/forthcoming competition, it's
> looking more likely that McFly will be able to sneak their usual 1 week at
> #1 in a several weeks time.
It might, were it not for the odd formats they're releasing.
>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>> ---------------------
>>
>>>>>Chris Brown #4,
>>>>
>>>>Which means that four of the acts in the Top 5 can be connected: Chris
>>>>Brown
>>>>is obviously on two of the tracks
>>>
>>> I wonder when an artist last had two concurrent T4 singles?
>>
>>Someone's bound to tell us soon.
>
> Does JM still do his chart commentaries?
Yes:
http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chartwatch/303/week-ending-july-5th-2008
But he didn't know. A commenter suggests Elton John in 2005.
>>>>>Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #10
>>>>
>>>>So you were right the first time.
>>>
>>> Adding weight to the pent-up-demand theory for this track.
>>
>>Surely the opposite?
>
> No, because his previous week's #14 position will have been the
> accumulation of several week's demand. Last week's modest climb was due to
> growing promo as the physical release date approaches, offset by the loss
> of the previous week's pent-up demand..
Ah, you mean it's the smallness of the climb? I was thinking that was a
slightly large climb for those circumstances.
>
> Had the download release been delayed another week, he might well have
> debuted in the T5.
Agreed.
>>>>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>>>>
>>>>Out on CDs tomorrow.
>>>
>>> When updating my spreadsheet, I noticed that it first charted back in
>>> February, peaking at #170 on 16/2. I don't know if this is the same
>>> version, though.
>>
>>IIRC it was released on 12" a while. But it presumably hasn't been
>>available
>>on download all along, judging by that sudden chart emergence.
>
> Most likely the original release was hard to find on-line.
Well, that would tend to suggest it wasn't there at all - if the label
intentionally gave it a limited release for the clubs, they might prefer to
hold back the digital release for maximum impact.
>>>>> Jonas Brothers #13,
>>>>
>>>>I wonder whether this has sold any better?
>>>
>>> The climb surely suggests it did.
>>
>>Suggests it, but it may have been flattered by a slip in overall sales.
>
> That in itself doesn't normally produce a climb as big as 3 places.
Not this far up, anyway.
>>That said, the appearance of another song in the mids suggest fairly
>>intensive promotional efforts.
>
> Well, the album was released last week...
Well yeah, but presumably the one track that charted was one they did on a
TV show somewhere, or something like that.
>>>>> Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24,
>>>>
>>>>Out on 12" on the 28th.
>>>
>>> I have it listed for physical release on 21/7, with nothing about it
>>> being
>>> vinyl-only?
>>
>>That's HMV's info, which may not be entirely accurate - but I normally
>>believe the later date in such situations.
>
> ISTM any later than 21/7 would be too late.
Back luck Ting Tings then! Although if it's 12" only it's probably not going
to sell a lot of physicals whenever they release it - for that matter,
'That's Not My Name' didn't anyway.
IIRC, it was originally supposed to be out about now, but presumably held
back because of their other successes.
> BTW, have you seen the video? Part of it seems to steal conceptually from
> '7 Nation Army'...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r23cm7bL9E
I saw a bit at my Mum's house, then ran out of patience.
>>>>> Mariah Carey
>>
>>>>In her entire
>>>>career, singles missing out on the Top 20 have been the exception rather
>>>>than the rule.
>>>
>>> In recent years her output has been very inconsistent, though.
>>
>>Artistically, you mean?
>
> In terms of chart position - if she really lets her voice rip, she can
> make almost any record sound great (just as Christina can).
Apart from anything else, though, it doesn't sound to me like she can
anymore.
>> I'm not sure it was ever otherwise.
...I was referring to quailty rather than chart position there, of course...
> In the mid-90's her singles rarely, if ever, missed the T10 - and even
> those from 'Emancipation...' performed pretty consistently chartwise.
Hang on - how are you defining "recent years" if you're not including that
Emancipation era? Aside from the re-entry at Christmas, this is only her
second single since then.
>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) :
>>>>
>>>>>Kooks (SO) #63,
>>>>
>>>>Out on CD & 7" on the 7th.
>>>
>>> If they think it's worth bothering...
>>
>>Well, it's Top 70 a couple of weeks ahead of the street date, so that
>>suggests it won't be a Feeling-style flop.
>
> But if it doesn't jump well into the T40 *this* week...
...It'll probably still chart higher than the second single from the Feeling
album.
>>>>>Usher (MM) #67
>>>>
>>>>R1 are apparently playing a remix version, but I presume this is just
>>>>the
>>>>album track.
>>>
>>> If the lead track could only struggle to #4, then what hope is there for
>>> this?
>>
>>Hence the remix, presumably.
>
> Remixes work better when the performers are attractive, though - from my
> POV anyway. :)
Huh?
Should I tell you about the Dolly Parton remix then?
>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>> Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5,
>>>
>>> I see Fearne & Reggie even had an attempt at the title - wonder how long
>>> they spent practising? :)
>>
>>Possibly because Fearne is covering some of Edith Bowman's maternity leave
>>so she'll have had to say it again today.
>
> How come?
> I mean : why would the album title come up in the show, not how come EB is
> pregnant. :)
Not that she is anymore, having had the baby a couple of weeks ago.
They do a brief Top 10 album rundown on the Monday show. I missed it
yesterday, but apparently they played tracks by Darren Styles and Coldplay.
>>>>No new entries between 40 and 75, so it was a waste of my time drafting
>>>>the
>>>>bits about Ry Cooder, Eliza Carthy and The Rascals.
>>>
>>> Me2.
>>
>>It transpires that they're at 84, 87 and 100 respectively - the former and
>>latter of those looking a bit low by previous standards. That said, some
>>copies of the Cooder album come with a free book so perhaps those aren't
>>counted.
>
> Riiight, *that's* why they didn't go T10. :)
In all seriousness, though, it is the third part of a trilogy and the first
two volumes of which did considerably better, and amid low overall sales
that's slightly surprising.
>>Also, a double pack of the first two Kings Of Leon albums appears at 91.
>
> So I noticed.
It's been out for a while, but I suppose the Glastonbury publicity helped.
>>>>> Next Week
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2)
>>>>
>>>>Any particular reason to be so specific?
>>>
>>> Well, #2 is the only place below #1 where she would have qualified on my
>>> list as a climber...
>>
>>Right, but considering that it's been so tight in these positions lately,
>>how can we be sure that it'll climb exactly one place?
>
> Well, it's a 50/50 chance... :)
Not really, because it could fail to climb altogether.
>>>>>Busta Rhymes,
>>>>
>>>>It's possible, but I don't know if there'll be massive demand for the
>>>>physical.
>>>
>>> Is there ever, nowadays?
>>
>>Fair point. But even in relative terms.
>
> Scraped itself up to #63 on airplay last week - but urban tracks don't
> seem to be as airplay-dependant as other genres - unfortunately.
Or at least they are, but within a limited market.
>>>>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp
>>>>
>>>>Again, that matches the previous one, but I've only heard this twice.
>>>>And
>>>>I
>>>>didn't think much of it then.
>>>
>>> I haven't even seen the video.
>>
>>It is, of course, on YouTube. They're not in it.
>
> Probably why I haven't spotted it on Sky then.
Those channels must get really repetitive if they only show videos with
members of Goldfrapp in them! ;-)
>>>>> Top 40 :
>>>>
>>>>> Ultrabeat/Darren Styles
>>>>
>>>>Isn't this already on physicals, and still only at 77?
>>>
>>> Are you confusing it with N-Force v Darren Styles 'Right By Your Side',
>>> by
>>> any chance?
>>
>>I may be. He does seem to be releasing a lot of records all at once.
>
> Or maybe not, given that records don't need to be released as singles to
> chart now.
But the N-Force one was very recent though.
>>>>> Any other possibilities?
>>>>
>>>>Also, that awful Operator Please record is coming out again, but I can't
>>>>tell why.
>>>
>>> When did it come out before??
>>
>>August 2007, I think.
>
> If it did, it couldn't even manage T200.
Understandably. It's like the Ting Tings, only worse.
>>>>>Dizzee Rascal
>>
>>>>>As always with rap though, I am totally unable to fathom the appeal, so
>>>>>I
>>>>>can't predict it going any higher than T20.
>>>>
>>>>Are you telling me you do like all the records you've predicted hitgher
>>>>then? ;-)
>>>
>>> I can understand *why* they chart higher, even if I don't them.
>
> 'Don't *like* them' that should read, of course.
>>
>>Really? They're not always clear to me.
>
> Well :
>
> 1. If it's a fanbase act, like Morrissey or Weller, you know they'll chart
> high, whatever it sounds like.
As proved by Mozzer's last one going in at 24, right?
> 2. The first single from any major artist is also pretty easy to predict
> to do well.
As long as you can decide who's a major artist, of course.
>>>> but
>>>>it is one of his more obviously hit-friendly tracks, and what I'd
>>>>consider
>>>>its greatest flaw (ie Calvin Harris) might sell it to some people.
>>>
>>> CH's family? :)
>>
>>Only if they're very fertile!
>>I was thinking of the people who bought 'Girls' and 'Acceptable in the
>>Eighties'.
>
> People with poor musical tastes, you mean? :)
You said it.
But there's got to be some reason why this is suddenly so much more popular
than anything else Mr Rascal has released.
>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>
>>>>> Seth Lakeman,
>>>>
>>>>Could do well.
>>>
>>> Define 'well'.
>>
>>Near Top 20?
>
> Well, my criterion does encompass everything from 21-75, and my list of
> 'others' is in alphabetic order, rather than where I think they'll
> chart...
I wasn't actuallly disagreeing. I just didn't want to keep going "Yup" "Yup"
at everything.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>>>
>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> And having just checked the iTunes T100, I see the abysmal Dizzee Rascal
>>>> 'Dance Wiv Me' is #1. :( For me the combination of a rapper, and the
>>>> talentless Calvin Harris, is a match made in hell...
>>>
>>>Looking at the other possibilities, it's actually pretty good.
>>
>> I think you've redefined 'faint praise' there. :)
>
>Well, yes, that was what I meant. Although I do think it's a tolerable pop
>record.
I assume you mean 'pop' as in the sense of popular v classical, since
it's hardly could be used in the 'Steps' or 'S Club 7' sense!
>
>> However, given the weakness of the current/forthcoming competition, it's
>> looking more likely that McFly will be able to sneak their usual 1 week at
>> #1 in a several weeks time.
>
>It might, were it not for the odd formats they're releasing.
You mean this :
**********
CD1 (1.99) - Album version of "The Heart Never Lies" plus Umbrella.
CD2 ( 2.99) - Radio edit of 'The Heart Never Lies', Ignorance (new
Dougie track), Interview with questions submitted by fans, 'Sofa,
Hyundai, Administration' from Top Gear, the video and Mcfly stickers.
7' Heart Shaped Picture Disc (3.99) - photo on one side, lyrics on the
other.
[And not bothering to put the actual song on there?? :) ]
Plus downloads of course, for what little difference they'll make.
**********
Except for the picture disc, doesn't sound like anything unusual?
>
>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>>>>>Chris Brown #4,
>>>>>
>>>> I wonder when an artist last had two concurrent T4 singles?
>
>A commenter suggests Elton John in 2005.
Sounds plausible.
>
>>>>>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>>>
>>>IIRC it was released on 12" a while. But it presumably hasn't been
>>>available
>>>on download all along, judging by that sudden chart emergence.
>>
>> Most likely the original release was hard to find on-line.
>
>Well, that would tend to suggest it wasn't there at all - if the label
>intentionally gave it a limited release for the clubs, they might prefer to
>hold back the digital release for maximum impact.
But why *only* release it to clubs initially?
>
>>>>>> Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24,
>>>>>
>>>>>Out on 12" on the 28th.
>>
>> ISTM any later than 21/7 would be too late.
>
>Back luck Ting Tings then! Although if it's 12" only it's probably not going
>to sell a lot of physicals whenever they release it - for that matter,
>'That's Not My Name' didn't anyway.
Not that they needed them.
>
>> BTW, have you seen the video? Part of it seems to steal conceptually from
>> '7 Nation Army'...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r23cm7bL9E
>
>I saw a bit at my Mum's house, then ran out of patience.
Maybe you were actually watching Take That, then? :)
>
>>>>>> Mariah Carey
>> if she really lets her voice rip, she can
>> make almost any record sound great (just as Christina can).
>
>Apart from anything else, though, it doesn't sound to me like she can
>anymore.
I suspect she can, but has sold out like so many others to pander to the
US urban market.
>
>>> I'm not sure it was ever otherwise.
>
>...I was referring to quailty rather than chart position there, of course...
I don't know all of her 90's recordings though, so can't really comment.
>
>> In the mid-90's her singles rarely, if ever, missed the T10 - and even
>> those from 'Emancipation...' performed pretty consistently chartwise.
>
>Hang on - how are you defining "recent years" if you're not including that
>Emancipation era?
I *do* include that album in 'recent years'.
> Aside from the re-entry at Christmas, this is only her
>second single since then.
Even the first from the current album didn't do that well, and the album
itself nose-dived!
>
>>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) :
>>>>>
>>>>>>Kooks (SO) #63,
>>>
>>>Well, it's Top 70 a couple of weeks ahead of the street date, so that
>>>suggests it won't be a Feeling-style flop.
>>
>> But if it doesn't jump well into the T40 *this* week...
>
>...It'll probably still chart higher than the second single from the Feeling
>album.
So?
>
>>>>>>Usher (MM) #67
>>
>> Remixes work better when the performers are attractive, though - from my
>> POV anyway. :)
>
>Huh?
>Should I tell you about the Dolly Parton remix then?
Well, there are a pair of reasons I prefer her to him... :)
>
>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>> Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5,
>>>Fearne is covering some of Edith Bowman's maternity leave
>>>so she'll have had to say it again today.
>>
>> How come?
>
>> I mean : why would the album title come up in the show, not how come EB is
>> pregnant. :)
>
>Not that she is anymore, having had the baby a couple of weeks ago.
>They do a brief Top 10 album rundown on the Monday show. I missed it
>yesterday, but apparently they played tracks by Darren Styles and Coldplay.
If they cut out most of the inane crap from the chart show, they
wouldn't have to wait until Monday to do an album T10 rundown...
>>>some
>>>copies of the Cooder album come with a free book so perhaps those aren't
>>>counted.
>>
>> Riiight, *that's* why they didn't go T10. :)
>
>In all seriousness, though, it is the third part of a trilogy and the first
>two volumes of which did considerably better, and amid low overall sales
>that's slightly surprising.
Did they bother telling anyone it was out, though?
>
>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2)
>>>>>
>>>>>Any particular reason to be so specific?
>>>>
>>>> Well, #2 is the only place below #1 where she would have qualified on my
>>>> list as a climber...
>>>
>>>Right, but considering that it's been so tight in these positions lately,
>>>how can we be sure that it'll climb exactly one place?
>>
>> Well, it's a 50/50 chance... :)
>
>Not really, because it could fail to climb altogether.
But then it wouldn't qualify for a mention...
>
>>>>>>Busta Rhymes,
>>
>> Scraped itself up to #63 on airplay last week - but urban tracks don't
>> seem to be as airplay-dependant as other genres - unfortunately.
>
>Or at least they are, but within a limited market.
Makes sense, I guess - given that those national stations who rely on a
wider audience age range would likely *lose* listeners if they played
too much of it. Without the big stations though, you'd need a lot of
spins for a respectable position - and it hadn't even been getting many.
>
>>>>>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, that matches the previous one, but I've only heard this twice.
>>>>>And
>>>>>I
>>>>>didn't think much of it then.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't even seen the video.
>>>
>>>It is, of course, on YouTube. They're not in it.
>>
>> Probably why I haven't spotted it on Sky then.
>
>Those channels must get really repetitive if they only show videos with
>members of Goldfrapp in them! ;-)
Would be less repetitive than the 4 urban-only channels...
The most irritating aspect is that the channel that started as B4 has
now turned urban (called Flava). It used to be the best one for new
videos, but now it's fucked. :(
Needless to say, I deleted it from Digiguide in disgust.
>
>>>>>> Top 40 :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ultrabeat/Darren Styles
>>>>>
>>>>>Isn't this already on physicals, and still only at 77?
>>>He does seem to be releasing a lot of records all at once.
>>
>> Or maybe not, given that records don't need to be released as singles to
>> chart now.
>
>But the N-Force one was very recent though.
And this next one isn't due out on CD for a while.
>
>>>>>> Any other possibilities?
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, that awful Operator Please record is coming out again
>>>>
>>>> When did it come out before??
>>>
>>>August 2007, I think.
>>
>> If it did, it couldn't even manage T200.
>
>Understandably. It's like the Ting Tings, only worse.
Nothing wrong with the Ting Tings...
>
>>>>
>>>> I can understand *why* they chart higher, even if I don't them.
>>
>> 'Don't *like* them' that should read, of course.
>>>
>>>Really? They're not always clear to me.
>>
>> Well :
>>
>> 1. If it's a fanbase act, like Morrissey or Weller, you know they'll chart
>> high, whatever it sounds like.
>
>As proved by Mozzer's last one going in at 24, right?
Ah, but where would it have charted without his normal front-loading...
:)
>
>> 2. The first single from any major artist is also pretty easy to predict
>> to do well.
>
>As long as you can decide who's a major artist, of course.
Not usually hard to guess.
>You said it.
>But there's got to be some reason why this is suddenly so much more popular
>than anything else Mr Rascal has released.
Many people still stoned out of their minds from Glastonbury, perhaps?
:)
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> AIUI, it will not be available on iTunes, thereby reducing its potential
>>>> download sales dramatically...
>>>
>>>Assuming that's true, it'd be difficult for him (or anyone really) to get
>>>to
>>>the top just from physical sales.
>>
>> <Cough>Katie Melua<cough>
>
>Are you saying that wasn't difficult?
Well, she managed it from just one shop chain - and not one that
normally sold singles in the first place.
>Anyway, that wasn't a physical-only release, although I suspect digital
>sales were fairly small.
Microscopic in fact - 1% of the overall total, if that.
>
>> Besides, if people really like a song but can't get it on iTunes, they
>> will look on other download sites, or even buy a physical copy.
>
>Although only 7Digital can sell an iPod-compatible version in this country,
>AFAIK.
>As for physicals, it depends how many there actually are, and whether people
>can find a shop that sells them.
HMV, Amazon.
>It's possible that the label are hoping to
>sell some albums instead.
A pretty forlorn hope, given his previous record in the UK.
>>
>> But this is his very first good one (IMO). :)
>
>Have you researched that?
Does Guinness Hit Singles count? :)
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 22:34:51, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> And having just checked the iTunes T100, I see the abysmal Dizzee
>>>>> Rascal
>>>>> 'Dance Wiv Me' is #1. :( For me the combination of a rapper, and the
>>>>> talentless Calvin Harris, is a match made in hell...
>>>>
>>>>Looking at the other possibilities, it's actually pretty good.
>>>
>>> I think you've redefined 'faint praise' there. :)
>>
>>Well, yes, that was what I meant. Although I do think it's a tolerable pop
>>record.
>
> I assume you mean 'pop' as in the sense of popular v classical, since it's
> hardly could be used in the 'Steps' or 'S Club 7' sense!
Well, I don't think those acts own the adjective, since there was such a
thing as pop music before any of them was born. IMO it only makes sense as
an evolving term.
What I mean in this case, though, is that it's a pop record in the sense
that it's only trying to entertain without any effort to be meaningful or
significant. Records can be pop in that way from almost any genre.
>>> However, given the weakness of the current/forthcoming competition, it's
>>> looking more likely that McFly will be able to sneak their usual 1 week
>>> at
>>> #1 in a several weeks time.
>>
>>It might, were it not for the odd formats they're releasing.
>
> You mean this :
>
> **********
>
> CD1 (1.99) - Album version of "The Heart Never Lies" plus Umbrella.
>
> CD2 ( 2.99) - Radio edit of 'The Heart Never Lies', Ignorance (new Dougie
> track), Interview with questions submitted by fans, 'Sofa, Hyundai,
> Administration' from Top Gear, the video and Mcfly stickers.
>
> 7' Heart Shaped Picture Disc (3.99) - photo on one side, lyrics on the
> other.
>
> [And not bothering to put the actual song on there?? :) ]
>
> Plus downloads of course, for what little difference they'll make.
>
> **********
>
> Except for the picture disc, doesn't sound like anything unusual?
Actually, those are very unusual in the sense that they're all formats of an
entirely different single they released a few months ago. That'd be a pretty
weird thing to do. ;-)
These are the formats of the new single, according to HMV:
Disc One
a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
b.. 2. Do Ya [Acoustic Version]
Disc Two
a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
b.. 2. Falling In Love [Acoustic Version]
Disc Three
a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
b.. 2. POV [Acoustic Version]
**************
That's three two-track CDs, and as I read the chart rules that won't count.
>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>>>>>Chris Brown #4,
>>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder when an artist last had two concurrent T4 singles?
>>
>>A commenter suggests Elton John in 2005.
>
> Sounds plausible.
With 'Ghetto Gospel' and 'Electricity' of course. I can't think of anyone
who's been credited on two simultaneous Top 5 hits since then, although some
people might have appeared on more than one.
>>>>>>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>>>>
>>>>IIRC it was released on 12" a while. But it presumably hasn't been
>>>>available
>>>>on download all along, judging by that sudden chart emergence.
>>>
>>> Most likely the original release was hard to find on-line.
>>
>>Well, that would tend to suggest it wasn't there at all - if the label
>>intentionally gave it a limited release for the clubs, they might prefer
>>to
>>hold back the digital release for maximum impact.
>
> But why *only* release it to clubs initially?
So that DJs spin it and and create more demand for it, so it's a really big
hit when it gets the full-scale release. It's common practice for some types
of music.
>>>>>>> Top 30 : Ting Tings (SUALMG)* #24,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Out on 12" on the 28th.
>>>
>>> ISTM any later than 21/7 would be too late.
>>
>>Back luck Ting Tings then! Although if it's 12" only it's probably not
>>going
>>to sell a lot of physicals whenever they release it - for that matter,
>>'That's Not My Name' didn't anyway.
>
> Not that they needed them.
No, but it makes it seem less worthwhile to release more CD singles.
>>> BTW, have you seen the video? Part of it seems to steal conceptually
>>> from
>>> '7 Nation Army'...
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r23cm7bL9E
>>
>>I saw a bit at my Mum's house, then ran out of patience.
>
> Maybe you were actually watching Take That, then? :)
I did actually see a TT video as well. And the start of the Gabriella Cilmi
one a couple of times.
>>>>>>> Mariah Carey
>
>>> if she really lets her voice rip, she can
>>> make almost any record sound great (just as Christina can).
>>
>>Apart from anything else, though, it doesn't sound to me like she can
>>anymore.
>
> I suspect she can, but has sold out like so many others to pander to the >
> US urban market.
Yes, how dare these American singers make records that appeal to the
American market?
It doesn't sound to me like she has a lot of voice left now, anyway?
>>>> I'm not sure it was ever otherwise.
>>
>>...I was referring to quailty rather than chart position there, of
>>course...
>
> I don't know all of her 90's recordings though, so can't really comment.
Some of them were OK. And at least there was no Westlife.
>>> In the mid-90's her singles rarely, if ever, missed the T10 - and even
>>> those from 'Emancipation...' performed pretty consistently chartwise.
>>
>>Hang on - how are you defining "recent years" if you're not including that
>>Emancipation era?
>
> I *do* include that album in 'recent years'.
So how can you say that she's been inconsistent in recent years, and then
talk about all the consistent stuff she's done?
>>>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Kooks (SO) #63,
>>>>
>>>>Well, it's Top 70 a couple of weeks ahead of the street date, so that
>>>>suggests it won't be a Feeling-style flop.
>>>
>>> But if it doesn't jump well into the T40 *this* week...
>>
>>...It'll probably still chart higher than the second single from the
>>Feeling
>>album.
>
> So?
So it won't be the worst flop of the year.
>>>>>>>Usher (MM) #67
>>>
>>> Remixes work better when the performers are attractive, though - from my
>>> POV anyway. :)
>>
>>Huh?
>>Should I tell you about the Dolly Parton remix then?
>
> Well, there are a pair of reasons I prefer her to him... :)
I wouldn't tell Usher though, just in case he tried to make amends.
It is a really awful mix though. But it might possibly explain why 'Jolene'
is in the Swedish Top 40.
>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>> Top 10 : Sigur Ros #5,
>
>>>>Fearne is covering some of Edith Bowman's maternity leave
>>>>so she'll have had to say it again today.
>>>
>>> How come?
>>
>>> I mean : why would the album title come up in the show, not how come EB
>>> is
>>> pregnant. :)
>>
>>Not that she is anymore, having had the baby a couple of weeks ago.
>>They do a brief Top 10 album rundown on the Monday show. I missed it
>>yesterday, but apparently they played tracks by Darren Styles and
>>Coldplay.
>
> If they cut out most of the inane crap from the chart show, they wouldn't
> have to wait until Monday to do an album T10 rundown...
I think they were already doing that feature when the Chart had the full Top
10 though.
>>>>some
>>>>copies of the Cooder album come with a free book so perhaps those aren't
>>>>counted.
>>>
>>> Riiight, *that's* why they didn't go T10. :)
>>
>>In all seriousness, though, it is the third part of a trilogy and the
>>first
>>two volumes of which did considerably better, and amid low overall sales
>>that's slightly surprising.
>
> Did they bother telling anyone it was out, though?
Presumably the people who bought the previous two instalments were aware of
it though. BTW, you do realise Ry Cooder's only one person?
>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Top 5 : Jordin Sparks (#2)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any particular reason to be so specific?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, #2 is the only place below #1 where she would have qualified on
>>>>> my
>>>>> list as a climber...
>>>>
>>>>Right, but considering that it's been so tight in these positions
>>>>lately,
>>>>how can we be sure that it'll climb exactly one place?
>>>
>>> Well, it's a 50/50 chance... :)
>>
>>Not really, because it could fail to climb altogether.
>
> But then it wouldn't qualify for a mention...
Not in a commentary.
>>>>>>>Busta Rhymes,
>>>
>>> Scraped itself up to #63 on airplay last week - but urban tracks don't
>>> seem to be as airplay-dependant as other genres - unfortunately.
>>
>>Or at least they are, but within a limited market.
>
> Makes sense, I guess - given that those national stations who rely on a
> wider audience age range would likely *lose* listeners if they played too
> much of it.
Not that there actually are very many national stations. But I'd say the
same applied to local stations too.
>Without the big stations though, you'd need a lot of spins for a
>respectable position - and it hadn't even been getting many.
However, that's presumably an audience that buys more singles than average.
>>>>>>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, that matches the previous one, but I've only heard this twice.
>>>>>>And
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>didn't think much of it then.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't even seen the video.
>>>>
>>>>It is, of course, on YouTube. They're not in it.
>>>
>>> Probably why I haven't spotted it on Sky then.
>>
>>Those channels must get really repetitive if they only show videos with
>>members of Goldfrapp in them! ;-)
>
> Would be less repetitive than the 4 urban-only channels...
Seriously, I actually find them all pretty repetitive.
>>>>>>> Any other possibilities?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, that awful Operator Please record is coming out again
>>>>>
>>>>> When did it come out before??
>>>>
>>>>August 2007, I think.
>>>
>>> If it did, it couldn't even manage T200.
>>
>>Understandably. It's like the Ting Tings, only worse.
>
> Nothing wrong with the Ting Tings...
Well add some wrongness and you've got this:
http://www.7digital.com/artists/operator-please/just-a-song-about-ping-pong-1/
>>>>> I can understand *why* they chart higher, even if I don't them.
>>>
>>> 'Don't *like* them' that should read, of course.
>>>>
>>>>Really? They're not always clear to me.
>>>
>>> Well :
>>>
>>> 1. If it's a fanbase act, like Morrissey or Weller, you know they'll
>>> chart
>>> high, whatever it sounds like.
>>
>>As proved by Mozzer's last one going in at 24, right?
>
> Ah, but where would it have charted without his normal front-loading... :)
124?
>>> 2. The first single from any major artist is also pretty easy to predict
>>> to do well.
>>
>>As long as you can decide who's a major artist, of course.
>
> Not usually hard to guess.
People come and go from that category though.
>>You said it.
>>But there's got to be some reason why this is suddenly so much more
>>popular
>>than anything else Mr Rascal has released.
>
> Many people still stoned out of their minds from Glastonbury, perhaps? >
> :)
Not if they were buying it on Sunday, before the festival finished.
Chris
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 21:48:25, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>> AIUI, it will not be available on iTunes, thereby reducing its
>>>>> potential
>>>>> download sales dramatically...
>>>>
>>>>Assuming that's true, it'd be difficult for him (or anyone really) to
>>>>get
>>>>to
>>>>the top just from physical sales.
>>>
>>> <Cough>Katie Melua<cough>
>>
>>Are you saying that wasn't difficult?
>
> Well, she managed it from just one shop chain - and not one that normally
> sold singles in the first place.
If those are disadvantages. And we mustn't forget that it was in the name of
charidee.
I'd certainly call it difficult inasmuch as neither of them had come all
that close before, even on a physical-only chart.
>>> Besides, if people really like a song but can't get it on iTunes, they
>>> will look on other download sites, or even buy a physical copy.
>>
>>Although only 7Digital can sell an iPod-compatible version in this
>>country,
>>AFAIK.
>
>>As for physicals, it depends how many there actually are, and whether
>>people
>>can find a shop that sells them.
>
> HMV, Amazon.
If they're that patient.
>>It's possible that the label are hoping to
>>sell some albums instead.
>
> A pretty forlorn hope, given his previous record in the UK.
Hence the incentive to give this one a leg-up.
>>> But this is his very first good one (IMO). :)
>>
>>Have you researched that?
>
> Does Guinness Hit Singles count? :)
No.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>>Assuming that's true, it'd be difficult for him (or anyone really) to
>>>>>get
>>>>>to
>>>>>the top just from physical sales.
>>>>
>>>> <Cough>Katie Melua<cough>
>>>
>>>Are you saying that wasn't difficult?
>>
>> Well, she managed it from just one shop chain - and not one that normally
>> sold singles in the first place.
>
>If those are disadvantages.
I'd have said so - that's generally the case with 'limited' editions.
>And we mustn't forget that it was in the name of
>charidee.
But for most charity records, who can remember, even a week after they
bought it, what the charity was?
Anyway, in my case, whether a single is a charity one is totally
irrelevant - if I like the song, I'll buy it, if I don't, I won't.
>I'd certainly call it difficult inasmuch as neither of them had come all
>that close before, even on a physical-only chart.
Katie Melua reached #5 with '9 Million Bicycles', and they'd both had
*album* #1's...
>
Re : Kid Rock - All Summer Long
>>>>if people really like a song but can't get it on iTunes, they
>>>> will look on other download sites, or even buy a physical copy.
>
>>>It's possible that the label are hoping to
>>>sell some albums instead.
>>
>> A pretty forlorn hope, given his previous record in the UK.
>
>Hence the incentive to give this one a leg-up.
But that almost certainly will not happen - people will simply download
that one album track, rather than risk forking out £10 for the album,
especially given his previous lack of success.
The album is due on the 21st, one week after the single, so it could
well be another post-CD-release climber. That's even more likely if the
album *is* released on iTunes - unless he foolishly decides not to allow
tracks to be sold individually...
>
>>>> But this is his very first good one (IMO). :)
>>>
>>>Have you researched that?
>>
>> Does Guinness Hit Singles count? :)
>
>No.
>
How is that any different from using an on-line reference source?
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And having just checked the iTunes T100, I see the abysmal Dizzee
>>>>>> Rascal
>>>>>> 'Dance Wiv Me' is #1.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you've redefined 'faint praise' there. :)
>>>
>>>Well, yes, that was what I meant. Although I do think it's a tolerable pop
>>>record.
>>
>> I assume you mean 'pop' as in the sense of popular v classical, since it's
>> hardly could be used in the 'Steps' or 'S Club 7' sense!
>
>Well, I don't think those acts own the adjective, since there was such a
>thing as pop music before any of them was born.
What I think of as 'pop' is the kind of ultra-peppy Stock, Aitken &
Waterman songs that Kylie started her career with.
There were songs like that before then, of course - like various Bucks
Fizz ones - but most of them are utterly forgettable so it's hard to
remember when I first heard a song I'd define that way.
>What I mean in this case, though, is that it's a pop record in the sense
>that it's only trying to entertain without any effort to be meaningful or
>significant. Records can be pop in that way from almost any genre.
That's a useful alternative definition.
>
>>>> However, given the weakness of the current/forthcoming competition, it's
>>>> looking more likely that McFly will be able to sneak their usual 1 week
>>>> at
>>>> #1 in a several weeks time.
>>>
>>>It might, were it not for the odd formats they're releasing.
>>
<Snip>
>
>Actually, those are very unusual in the sense that they're all formats of an
>entirely different single they released a few months ago. That'd be a pretty
>weird thing to do. ;-)
D'oh!
I guess that shows how much attention I pay to new McFly releases. :)
>
>These are the formats of the new single, according to HMV:
>
>Disc One
> a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
> b.. 2. Do Ya [Acoustic Version]
>Disc Two
> a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
> b.. 2. Falling In Love [Acoustic Version]
>Disc Three
> a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
> b.. 2. POV [Acoustic Version]
>**************
>
>That's three two-track CDs, and as I read the chart rules that won't count.
As I interpret the rules though, they don't have to be three *different*
physical formats - three separate "1 track+" CD's are OK.
No doubt there'll be a '3 for £5' offer though, to entice the suck...
err, encourage the groups dedicated fans - but, then again, maybe I was
right the first time. :)
>
>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>
>>>>>>>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>>
>> But why *only* release it to clubs initially?
>
>So that DJs spin it and and create more demand for it, so it's a really big
>hit when it gets the full-scale release.
But ISTM that *one* play on R1 would have more people hearing it than 3
months play in a club...
>
>I did actually see a TT video as well. And the start of the Gabriella Cilmi
>one a couple of times.
Only the start?
Was the thought of being tied up & filmed by an attractive 16yo girl too
disturbing? :)
>
>>>>>>>> Mariah Carey
>>
>>>> if she really lets her voice rip, she can
>>>> make almost any record sound great (just as Christina can).
>>>
>>>Apart from anything else, though, it doesn't sound to me like she can
>>>anymore.
>>
>> I suspect she can, but has sold out like so many others to pander to the >
>> US urban market.
>
>Yes, how dare these American singers make records that appeal to the
>American market?
Grin.
I wonder how many of her MOR fanbase has followed her to her new R&B
style though.
>
>It doesn't sound to me like she has a lot of voice left now, anyway?
Are you suggesting it is diminishing at the same rate as her clothing in
her videos? I guess in a couple of years time she will be totally naked
(drool) & croaking like a frog, then. :)
>>
>> I don't know all of her 90's recordings though, so can't really comment.
>
>Some of them were OK. And at least there was no Westlife.
'Without You' is the only one on my MP3 player - probably the best
example for her really letting rip with her voice!
>>>
>>>Hang on - how are you defining "recent years" if you're not including that
>>>Emancipation era?
>>
>> I *do* include that album in 'recent years'.
>
>So how can you say that she's been inconsistent in recent years, and then
>talk about all the consistent stuff she's done?
You do know what inconsistent means? :)
The albums before & after 'Emancipation' bombed, that what I call
inconsistent...
>
>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>
>> If they cut out most of the inane crap from the chart show, they wouldn't
>> have to wait until Monday to do an album T10 rundown...
>
>I think they were already doing that feature when the Chart had the full Top
>10 though.
Much as I hate to admit it, JK & Joel weren't as bad as the current
pair.
>
>>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>>> -------
>
>>>>>>>>Busta Rhymes,
>>>>
>>>> Scraped itself up to #63 on airplay last week - but urban tracks don't
>>>> seem to be as airplay-dependant as other genres - unfortunately.
>>>
>>>Or at least they are, but within a limited market.
>>
>> Makes sense, I guess - given that those national stations who rely on a
>> wider audience age range would likely *lose* listeners if they played too
>> much of it.
>
>Not that there actually are very many national stations. But I'd say the
>same applied to local stations too.
Well, local stations can't really afford to specialise - their audience
is already limited, with further self-imposed restrictions.
That's not true of America though, which is partly why airplay has such
a big influence on their music. If they *had* national stations, their
advertisers would have to be too mindful of the middle-class WASP's &
rednecks, for urban music to dominate there as it currently does.
>
>>Without the big stations though, you'd need a lot of spins for a
>>respectable position - and it hadn't even been getting many.
>
>However, that's presumably an audience that buys more singles than average.
BTW, Busta increased to a massive 99 spins last week...
In contrast, Dizzee managed a much more respectable 598 spins in 14th
place - though some of them may well have been due more to Calvin
Harris.
BTW, Kylie's new single got 564 spins, but was only in 56th place -
which clearly demonstrates that *where* you get played is more important
than how often.
>
>>>
>>>Those channels must get really repetitive if they only show videos with
>>>members of Goldfrapp in them! ;-)
>>
>> Would be less repetitive than the 4 urban-only channels...
>
>Seriously, I actually find them all pretty repetitive.
That's why a willingness to channel hop is a prerequisite for watching
them.
>
>>>You said it.
>>>But there's got to be some reason why this is suddenly so much more
>>>popular
>>>than anything else Mr Rascal has released.
>>
>> Many people still stoned out of their minds from Glastonbury, perhaps? >
>> :)
>
>Not if they were buying it on Sunday, before the festival finished.
But they didn't have to wait for the festival to finish before getting
stoned...
Chris Brown
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 at 21:48:47, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And having just checked the iTunes T100, I see the abysmal Dizzee
>>>>>>> Rascal
>>>>>>> 'Dance Wiv Me' is #1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looking at the other possibilities, it's actually pretty good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you've redefined 'faint praise' there. :)
>>>>
>>>>Well, yes, that was what I meant. Although I do think it's a tolerable
>>>>pop
>>>>record.
>>>
>>> I assume you mean 'pop' as in the sense of popular v classical, since
>>> it's
>>> hardly could be used in the 'Steps' or 'S Club 7' sense!
>>
>>Well, I don't think those acts own the adjective, since there was such a
>>thing as pop music before any of them was born.
>
> What I think of as 'pop' is the kind of ultra-peppy Stock, Aitken &
> Waterman songs that Kylie started her career with.
>
> There were songs like that before then, of course - like various Bucks
> Fizz ones - but most of them are utterly forgettable so it's hard to
> remember when I first heard a song I'd define that way.
And people have been talking about "pop" music since before the Bucks Fizz
days (obviously - 'Pop Muzik' and 'This Is Pop?' came out in the
Seventies) - this is why I prefer not to use the word "pop" as a genre term,
because the meaning has changed so much over the years.
>>What I mean in this case, though, is that it's a pop record in the sense
>>that it's only trying to entertain without any effort to be meaningful or
>>significant. Records can be pop in that way from almost any genre.
>
> That's a useful alternative definition.
Of course, it's not perfect.
>>>>> However, given the weakness of the current/forthcoming competition,
>>>>> it's
>>>>> looking more likely that McFly will be able to sneak their usual 1
>>>>> week
>>>>> at
>>>>> #1 in a several weeks time.
>>>>
>>>>It might, were it not for the odd formats they're releasing.
>>>
> <Snip>
>>
>>Actually, those are very unusual in the sense that they're all formats of
>>an
>>entirely different single they released a few months ago. That'd be a
>>pretty
>>weird thing to do. ;-)
>
> D'oh!
>
> I guess that shows how much attention I pay to new McFly releases. :)
And of course that's one of their few that missed the Top 2.
>>These are the formats of the new single, according to HMV:
>>
>>Disc One
>> a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
>> b.. 2. Do Ya [Acoustic Version]
>>Disc Two
>> a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
>> b.. 2. Falling In Love [Acoustic Version]
>>Disc Three
>> a.. 1. One For The Radio [Radio Edit]
>> b.. 2. POV [Acoustic Version]
>>**************
>>
>>That's three two-track CDs, and as I read the chart rules that won't
>>count.
>
> As I interpret the rules though, they don't have to be three *different*
> physical formats - three separate "1 track+" CD's are OK.
Yes, this is right actually. That's changed since the last set of rules,
which specifically precluded more than one two-track.
So I stand corrected. But you'd still think they could do better with more
B-sides.
> No doubt there'll be a '3 for £5' offer though, to entice the suck... err,
> encourage the groups dedicated fans - but, then again, maybe I was right
> the first time. :)
You're close - 3 for £4.
>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>
>>>>>>>>> Top 20 : Ironik #11,
>>>
>>> But why *only* release it to clubs initially?
>>
>>So that DJs spin it and and create more demand for it, so it's a really
>>big
>>hit when it gets the full-scale release.
>
> But ISTM that *one* play on R1 would have more people hearing it than 3
> months play in a club...
Absolutely - but if a record is a recognised club hit, that can help
stimulate radio play (especially on the appropriate specialist shows). When
I say they release tracks to clubs, I don't mean that they forbid anyone to
listen to it outside a club, just that they release it in a DJ-friendly
format first, rather than ploughing straight into a full-scale release.
>>I did actually see a TT video as well. And the start of the Gabriella
>>Cilmi
>>one a couple of times.
>
> Only the start?
>
> Was the thought of being tied up & filmed by an attractive 16yo girl too
> disturbing? :)
Well, it does sound wrong on at least a couple of levels. But I didn't get
that far - as soon as a saw that slappable backing group I switched over.
>>>>>>>>> Mariah Carey
>>>
>>>>> if she really lets her voice rip, she can
>>>>> make almost any record sound great (just as Christina can).
>>>>
>>>>Apart from anything else, though, it doesn't sound to me like she can
>>>>anymore.
>>>
>>> I suspect she can, but has sold out like so many others to pander to the
>>> >
>>> US urban market.
>>
>>Yes, how dare these American singers make records that appeal to the
>>American market?
>
> Grin.
>
> I wonder how many of her MOR fanbase has followed her to her new R&B style
> though.
How new do you think her R&B style is anyway? 'Fantasy' was in 1995.
>>> I don't know all of her 90's recordings though, so can't really comment.
>>
>>Some of them were OK. And at least there was no Westlife.
>
> 'Without You' is the only one on my MP3 player - probably the best example
> for her really letting rip with her voice!
It's easy to compare, at least.
>>>>Hang on - how are you defining "recent years" if you're not including
>>>>that
>>>>Emancipation era?
>>> I *do* include that album in 'recent years'.
>>
>>So how can you say that she's been inconsistent in recent years, and then
>>talk about all the consistent stuff she's done?
>
> You do know what inconsistent means? :)
>
> The albums before & after 'Emancipation' bombed, that what I call
> inconsistent...
But then you might be stretching "recent" a bit. And even that first album
for Mercury produced a couple of big singles, which is what we were talking
about to start with.
>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> If they cut out most of the inane crap from the chart show, they
>>> wouldn't
>>> have to wait until Monday to do an album T10 rundown...
>>
>>I think they were already doing that feature when the Chart had the full
>>Top
>>10 though.
>
> Much as I hate to admit it, JK & Joel weren't as bad as the current pair.
I disagree actually. And was reminded of such after hearing them the other
day.
>>>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>>>> -------
>>
>>>>>>>>>Busta Rhymes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Scraped itself up to #63 on airplay last week - but urban tracks don't
>>>>> seem to be as airplay-dependant as other genres - unfortunately.
>>>>
>>>>Or at least they are, but within a limited market.
>>>
>>> Makes sense, I guess - given that those national stations who rely on a
>>> wider audience age range would likely *lose* listeners if they played
>>> too
>>> much of it.
>>
>>Not that there actually are very many national stations. But I'd say the
>>same applied to local stations too.
>
> Well, local stations can't really afford to specialise - their audience is
> already limited, with further self-imposed restrictions.
But at the same time, they can't afford to be totally generalist either. And
even if they could they probably couldn't be bothered. In theory, they also
have their licences to worry about, but enforcement is pretty lame.
Nonetheless, there certainly are local stations that could be described as
specialised - by definition, though, they don't account for much audience
each.
> That's not true of America though, which is partly why airplay has such a
> big influence on their music. If they *had* national stations, their
> advertisers would have to be too mindful of the middle-class WASP's &
> rednecks, for urban music to dominate there as it currently does.
That would only apply if there was only one station in the entire country,
though. And can you be a middle-class redneck?
>>>Without the big stations though, you'd need a lot of spins for a
>>>respectable position - and it hadn't even been getting many.
>>
>>However, that's presumably an audience that buys more singles than
>>average.
>
> BTW, Busta increased to a massive 99 spins last week...
>
> In contrast, Dizzee managed a much more respectable 598 spins in 14th
> place - though some of them may well have been due more to Calvin Harris.
I wonder who's got the better, er, record in airplay charts?
> BTW, Kylie's new single got 564 spins, but was only in 56th place - which
> clearly demonstrates that *where* you get played is more important than
> how often.
Now R2 are on board, that'll presumably change.
>>>>Those channels must get really repetitive if they only show videos with
>>>>members of Goldfrapp in them! ;-)
>>>
>>> Would be less repetitive than the 4 urban-only channels...
>>
>>Seriously, I actually find them all pretty repetitive.
>
> That's why a willingness to channel hop is a prerequisite for watching
> them.
Yeah, I can't imagine there are many viewers who don't. Must be a pain for
advertisers.
>>>>You said it.
>>>>But there's got to be some reason why this is suddenly so much more
>>>>popular
>>>>than anything else Mr Rascal has released.
>>>
>>> Many people still stoned out of their minds from Glastonbury, perhaps? >
>>> :)
>>
>>Not if they were buying it on Sunday, before the festival finished.
>
> But they didn't have to wait for the festival to finish before getting
> stoned...
No, but if they're sitting stoned on the festival site on Sunday, they're
unlikely to be buying music.
Chris
Chris Brown
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 at 23:27:58, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Assuming that's true, it'd be difficult for him (or anyone really) to
>>>>>>get
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>the top just from physical sales.
>>>>>
>>>>> <Cough>Katie Melua<cough>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying that wasn't difficult?
>>>
>>> Well, she managed it from just one shop chain - and not one that
>>> normally
>>> sold singles in the first place.
>>
>>If those are disadvantages.
>
> I'd have said so - that's generally the case with 'limited' editions.
But this wasn't limited in that sense - there doesn't seem to have been any
shortage of copies around.
>>And we mustn't forget that it was in the name of
>>charidee.
>
> But for most charity records, who can remember, even a week after they
> bought it, what the charity was?
Some would say that was exactly the point.
> Anyway, in my case, whether a single is a charity one is totally
> irrelevant - if I like the song, I'll buy it, if I don't, I won't.
I try to follow that policy too. But it's an observable effect.
>>I'd certainly call it difficult inasmuch as neither of them had come all
>>that close before, even on a physical-only chart.
>
> Katie Melua reached #5 with '9 Million Bicycles',
Which is still four places away, and on a combined chart too. It's not like
she was Sash! or somebody like that.
>and they'd both had
> *album* #1's...
Of course, but that's partly my point - even a successful album act like Eva
Cassidy couldn't have a Top 40 single until then, so it would be anything
but easy for someone without a major fanbase to do it, on physicals alone.
BTW, did this re-chart at all when it appeared on iTunes?
> Re : Kid Rock - All Summer Long
>
>>>>>if people really like a song but can't get it on iTunes, they
>>>>> will look on other download sites, or even buy a physical copy.
>>
>>>>It's possible that the label are hoping to
>>>>sell some albums instead.
>>>
>>> A pretty forlorn hope, given his previous record in the UK.
>>
>>Hence the incentive to give this one a leg-up.
>
> But that almost certainly will not happen - people will simply download
> that one album track, rather than risk forking out £10 for the album,
> especially given his previous lack of success.
Unless they make it difficult to get the download, which was my point.
> The album is due on the 21st, one week after the single, so it could well
> be another post-CD-release climber. That's even more likely if the album
> *is* released on iTunes - unless he foolishly decides not to allow tracks
> to be sold individually...
Not that it's necessarily his personal decision.
>>>>> But this is his very first good one (IMO). :)
>>>>
>>>>Have you researched that?
>>>
>>> Does Guinness Hit Singles count? :)
>>
>>No.
>>
> How is that any different from using an on-line reference source?
Er, because it's a list of records that charted, not ones that were good.
For all you know, 'Bawitdaba' might be brilliant!
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>> What I think of as 'pop' is the kind of ultra-peppy Stock, Aitken &
>> Waterman songs that Kylie started her career with.
>>
>> There were songs like that before then, of course - like various Bucks
>> Fizz ones - but most of them are utterly forgettable so it's hard to
>> remember when I first heard a song I'd define that way.
>
>And people have been talking about "pop" music since before the Bucks Fizz
>days (obviously - 'Pop Muzik' and 'This Is Pop?' came out in the
>Seventies) - this is why I prefer not to use the word "pop" as a genre term,
>because the meaning has changed so much over the years.
I'm not sure it has - when someone talks about pop as a specific genre,
I think people have a better idea of what you mean than, say, AOR or
MOR.
>>
>>McFly
>
>>>These are the formats of the new single, according to HMV:
>>>
>>>three two-track CDs, and as I read the chart rules that won't
>>>count.
>>
>> As I interpret the rules though, they don't have to be three *different*
>> physical formats - three separate "1 track+" CD's are OK.
>
>Yes, this is right actually. That's changed since the last set of rules,
>which specifically precluded more than one two-track.
>
>So I stand corrected. But you'd still think they could do better with more
>B-sides.
I doubt it - their core fanbase will buy all 3 CD's, and would still do
so regardless of what the b-sides were.
OTOH, people who just like the main track will simply download *that*,
and are unlikely to be interested in the b-sides.
>
>> No doubt there'll be a '3 for £5' offer though, to entice the suck... err,
>> encourage the groups dedicated fans - but, then again, maybe I was right
>> the first time. :)
>
>You're close - 3 for £4.
AIUI that's as low as it can go without averaging less than the £1.20/CD
lower limit for qualifying 2-tracks.
In the end, we'll probably be talking about 60% CD sales, 40% downloads
in a 30k-ish sales figure - probably T3, but not #1.
>
>>>I did actually see a TT video as well. And the start of the Gabriella
>>>Cilmi
>>>one a couple of times.
>>
>> Only the start?
>>
>> Was the thought of being tied up & filmed by an attractive 16yo girl too
>> disturbing? :)
>
>Well, it does sound wrong on at least a couple of levels.
But intriguing on certain others? :)
>But I didn't get
>that far - as soon as a saw that slappable backing group I switched over.
But you must have heard it on that radio quite a bit - it's #2 on
airplay now, so must be playlisted on both R1 & R2.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Mariah Carey
>>
>> I wonder how many of her MOR fanbase has followed her to her new R&B style
>> though.
>
>How new do you think her R&B style is anyway? 'Fantasy' was in 1995.
Well, I only recall her more recent songs being consistently R&B.
>>
>> 'Without You' is the only one on my MP3 player - probably the best example
>> for her really letting rip with her voice!
>
>It's easy to compare, at least.
I bought its parent album 'Music Box' 2nd hand, but haven't really
bothered listening to any of the other tracks from it.
>>
>> The albums before & after 'Emancipation' bombed, that what I call
>> inconsistent...
>
>But then you might be stretching "recent" a bit.
Say the last 5-6 years.
>>>>
>>>> If they cut out most of the inane crap from the chart show, they
>>>> wouldn't
>>>> have to wait until Monday to do an album T10 rundown...
>>>
>>>I think they were already doing that feature when the Chart had the full
>>>Top
>>>10 though.
>>
>> Much as I hate to admit it, JK & Joel weren't as bad as the current pair.
>
>I disagree actually. And was reminded of such after hearing them the other
>day.
But at least they didn't ask people to text in about utter trivia
completely unconnected with the charts.
>
******
>>
>> Well, local stations can't really afford to specialise - their audience is
>> already limited, with further self-imposed restrictions.
>
>But at the same time, they can't afford to be totally generalist either. And
>even if they could they probably couldn't be bothered. In theory, they also
>have their licences to worry about, but enforcement is pretty lame.
>Nonetheless, there certainly are local stations that could be described as
>specialised - by definition, though, they don't account for much audience
>each.
Which is what I was saying - national audiences are large enough to
specialise & still get reasonable viewer numbers, but try that at a
local level...
>
>> That's not true of America though, which is partly why airplay has such a
>> big influence on their music. If they *had* national stations, their
>> advertisers would have to be too mindful of the middle-class WASP's &
>> rednecks, for urban music to dominate there as it currently does.
>
>That would only apply if there was only one station in the entire country,
>though.
But if the US had nationwide specialist radio stations, then no genre
would be able to dominate in the way urban does there, now.
>And can you be a middle-class redneck?
You know what I meant - I didn't think I *had* to put a comma in there!
>
>>
>> In contrast, Dizzee managed a much more respectable 598 spins in 14th
>> place - though some of them may well have been due more to Calvin Harris.
>
>I wonder who's got the better, er, record in airplay charts?
Definitely CH - before now, Dizzee has never had a T40 airplay single.
2nd string rappers almost never get playlisted on the big national
generalist stations.
>
>> BTW, Kylie's new single got 564 spins, but was only in 56th place - which
>> clearly demonstrates that *where* you get played is more important than
>> how often.
>
>Now R2 are on board, that'll presumably change.
She's C-listed on R1, B-listed on R2.
And A-listed at Buckingham Palace, judging by how long Prince Charles
talked to her yesterday when presenting her with her OBE...
>
>>>
>>>Seriously, I actually find them all pretty repetitive.
>>
>> That's why a willingness to channel hop is a prerequisite for watching
>> them.
>
>Yeah, I can't imagine there are many viewers who don't. Must be a pain for
>advertisers.
My heart bleeds for them... :)
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>If those are disadvantages.
>>
>> I'd have said so - that's generally the case with 'limited' editions.
>
>But this wasn't limited in that sense - there doesn't seem to have been any
>shortage of copies around.
But if you didn't have a handy Tescos nearby...
>
>>>I'd certainly call it difficult inasmuch as neither of them had come all
>>>that close before, even on a physical-only chart.
>>
>> Katie Melua reached #5 with '9 Million Bicycles',
>
>Which is still four places away
Which I would still call quite close.
>
>>and they'd both had
>> *album* #1's...
>
>Of course, but that's partly my point - even a successful album act like Eva
>Cassidy couldn't have a Top 40 single until then, so it would be anything
>but easy for someone without a major fanbase to do it, on physicals alone.
Especially when you couldn't promote it without the help of a ouija
board. :)
>
>BTW, did this re-chart at all when it appeared on iTunes?
No, but IIRC it also appeared on a NOW album, so it could have been
downloaded from there too, although not in T200 quantities.
>
>> Re : Kid Rock - All Summer Long
>>>
>>>>>It's possible that the label are hoping to
>>>>>sell some albums instead.
>>>>
>>>> A pretty forlorn hope, given his previous record in the UK.
>>>
>>>Hence the incentive to give this one a leg-up.
>>
>> But that almost certainly will not happen - people will simply download
>> that one album track, rather than risk forking out £10 for the album,
>> especially given his previous lack of success.
>
>Unless they make it difficult to get the download, which was my point.
I guess they would be masochists who like shooting themselves in the
foot, then...
>
>> The album is due on the 21st, one week after the single, so it could well
>> be another post-CD-release climber. That's even more likely if the album
>> *is* released on iTunes - unless he foolishly decides not to allow tracks
>> to be sold individually...
>
>Not that it's necessarily his personal decision.
True, but the higher a single charts, the more its parent album is
likely to sell - so any deliberate action which reduces singles sales
can only be counter-productive.
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 at 22:11:51, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> What I think of as 'pop' is the kind of ultra-peppy Stock, Aitken &
>>> Waterman songs that Kylie started her career with.
>>>
>>> There were songs like that before then, of course - like various Bucks
>>> Fizz ones - but most of them are utterly forgettable so it's hard to
>>> remember when I first heard a song I'd define that way.
>>
>>And people have been talking about "pop" music since before the Bucks Fizz
>>days (obviously - 'Pop Muzik' and 'This Is Pop?' came out in the
>>Seventies) - this is why I prefer not to use the word "pop" as a genre
>>term,
>>because the meaning has changed so much over the years.
>
> I'm not sure it has - when someone talks about pop as a specific genre, >
> I think people have a better idea of what you mean than, say, AOR or MOR.
Funny - my experience is very much the opposite, especially since AOR at
least hasn't changed much in style since the term was first popularised; in
a way I suppose that's the point!
>>>McFly
>>
>>>>These are the formats of the new single, according to HMV:
>>>>
>>>>three two-track CDs, and as I read the chart rules that won't
>>>>count.
>>>
>>> As I interpret the rules though, they don't have to be three *different*
>>> physical formats - three separate "1 track+" CD's are OK.
>>
>>Yes, this is right actually. That's changed since the last set of rules,
>>which specifically precluded more than one two-track.
>>
>>So I stand corrected. But you'd still think they could do better with more
>>B-sides.
>
> I doubt it - their core fanbase will buy all 3 CD's, and would still do so
> regardless of what the b-sides were.
If that's true (and it may very well be) that would seem to go against what
they've done with previous releases like 'The Heart Never Lies'.
> OTOH, people who just like the main track will simply download *that*, and
> are unlikely to be interested in the b-sides.
Which is probably just as well - AFAICT that's all they can download anyway.
>>> No doubt there'll be a '3 for £5' offer though, to entice the suck...
>>> err,
>>> encourage the groups dedicated fans - but, then again, maybe I was right
>>> the first time. :)
>>
>>You're close - 3 for £4.
>
> AIUI that's as low as it can go without averaging less than the £1.20/CD
> lower limit for qualifying 2-tracks.
That's mathematically accurate (since a "3 for £3:61" offer wouldn't have
much of a ring to it) but remember those limits are for the dealer price. By
my reckoning, just taking the VAT equates to about 60p out of that £4.
> In the end, we'll probably be talking about 60% CD sales, 40% downloads in
> a 30k-ish sales figure - probably T3, but not #1.
Sounds a good guess. But it obviously depends on other people's sales too.
>>>>I did actually see a TT video as well. And the start of the Gabriella
>>>>Cilmi
>>>>one a couple of times.
>>>
>>> Only the start?
>>>
>>> Was the thought of being tied up & filmed by an attractive 16yo girl too
>>> disturbing? :)
>>
>>Well, it does sound wrong on at least a couple of levels.
>
> But intriguing on certain others? :)
I'm glad I saw it on telly and not YouTube - you wouldn't want Viacom
finding out about that would you?
>>But I didn't get
>>that far - as soon as a saw that slappable backing group I switched over.
>
> But you must have heard it on that radio quite a bit - it's #2 on airplay
> now, so must be playlisted on both R1 & R2.
You can look that up you know. It's not on the latest R2 playlist (though
that only starts today) or the R1 equivalent, but it may possibly have been
during the survey period. Even A-listing at both wouldn't put it that far
alone, of course, but I bet commercial stations are lapping it up.
>>>>>>>>>>> Mariah Carey
>>>
>>> I wonder how many of her MOR fanbase has followed her to her new R&B
>>> style
>>> though.
>>
>>How new do you think her R&B style is anyway? 'Fantasy' was in 1995.
>
> Well, I only recall her more recent songs being consistently R&B.
Actually, even tracks like 'Emotions' weren't a long way off what RnB was at
the time.
>>> 'Without You' is the only one on my MP3 player - probably the best
>>> example
>>> for her really letting rip with her voice!
>>
>>It's easy to compare, at least.
>
> I bought its parent album 'Music Box' 2nd hand, but haven't really
> bothered listening to any of the other tracks from it.
Probably a wise choice, in some cases. I meant that you could compare it to
other versions of 'Without You' though.
>>> The albums before & after 'Emancipation' bombed, that what I call
>>> inconsistent...
>>
>>But then you might be stretching "recent" a bit.
>
> Say the last 5-6 years.
Fair enough, although even that omits the Glitter period.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they cut out most of the inane crap from the chart show, they
>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>> have to wait until Monday to do an album T10 rundown...
>>>>
>>>>I think they were already doing that feature when the Chart had the full
>>>>Top
>>>>10 though.
>>>
>>> Much as I hate to admit it, JK & Joel weren't as bad as the current
>>> pair.
>>
>>I disagree actually. And was reminded of such after hearing them the other
>>day.
>
> But at least they didn't ask people to text in about utter trivia
> completely unconnected with the charts.
They did actually - you just weren't listening.
Of course, now they're on commercial radio they can do naff competitions
too.
> ******
>>>
>>> Well, local stations can't really afford to specialise - their audience
>>> is
>>> already limited, with further self-imposed restrictions.
>>
>>But at the same time, they can't afford to be totally generalist either.
>>And
>>even if they could they probably couldn't be bothered. In theory, they
>>also
>>have their licences to worry about, but enforcement is pretty lame.
>>Nonetheless, there certainly are local stations that could be described as
>>specialised - by definition, though, they don't account for much audience
>>each.
>
> Which is what I was saying - national audiences are large enough to
> specialise & still get reasonable viewer numbers, but try that at a local
> level...
But (in my admittedly finite experience) I've never encountered a commercial
station that was really generalised - you never hear the DJ say "That was
the new one from Slipknot; coming up we've got some Tuvan throat singing
from Yat Kha, some hip-hop from Public Enemy and some classic Bix
Biederbecke - but first here's Dido!"
>>> That's not true of America though, which is partly why airplay has such
>>> a
>>> big influence on their music. If they *had* national stations, their
>>> advertisers would have to be too mindful of the middle-class WASP's &
>>> rednecks, for urban music to dominate there as it currently does.
>>
>>That would only apply if there was only one station in the entire country,
>>though.
>
> But if the US had nationwide specialist radio stations, then no genre
> would be able to dominate in the way urban does there, now.
Whyever not?
>>And can you be a middle-class redneck?
>
> You know what I meant - I didn't think I *had* to put a comma in >there!
For that matter, why the WASPs? Catholics listen to the radio too you know.
>>> In contrast, Dizzee managed a much more respectable 598 spins in 14th
>>> place - though some of them may well have been due more to Calvin
>>> Harris.
>>
>>I wonder who's got the better, er, record in airplay charts?
>
> Definitely CH - before now, Dizzee has never had a T40 airplay single.
Although presumably Calvin's only managed the two. IIRC I only heard
'Merrymaking At My House' twice, and on one occasion they got a barrage of
texts asking if it was a joke.
> 2nd string rappers almost never get playlisted on the big national
> generalist stations.
Although there are only three of them - at least on broadcast radio, and one
plays him fairly regularly. The only one of his I think R1 shunned
completely was 'Off 2Work'.
>>> BTW, Kylie's new single got 564 spins, but was only in 56th place -
>>> which
>>> clearly demonstrates that *where* you get played is more important than
>>> how often.
>>
>>Now R2 are on board, that'll presumably change.
>
> She's C-listed on R1, B-listed on R2.
Is it really only B-listed? It feels like they're playing it more often than
the news.
Chris
Jan Buxton
> "Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4I+n4CFv...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 at 22:11:51, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>> But I didn't get
>>> that far - as soon as a saw that slappable backing group I switched over.
>> But you must have heard it on that radio quite a bit - it's #2 on airplay
>> now, so must be playlisted on both R1 & R2.
>
> You can look that up you know. It's not on the latest R2 playlist (though
> that only starts today) or the R1 equivalent, but it may possibly have been
> during the survey period. Even A-listing at both wouldn't put it that far
> alone, of course, but I bet commercial stations are lapping it up.
Well it's listed on the R1 front page but not the actual playlist page.
Anyway I've heard it a lot, it was definitely at least B-listed if not A.
--
Jan
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>>>McFly
>>>
>>>
>>>So I stand corrected. But you'd still think they could do better with more
>>>B-sides.
>>
>> I doubt it - their core fanbase will buy all 3 CD's, and would still do so
>> regardless of what the b-sides were.
>
>If that's true (and it may very well be) that would seem to go against what
>they've done with previous releases like 'The Heart Never Lies'.
>
>> OTOH, people who just like the main track will simply download *that*, and
>> are unlikely to be interested in the b-sides.
>
>Which is probably just as well - AFAICT that's all they can download anyway.
So, in effect, they are virtually abandoning the download release to its
fate...
>
>>>>>And the start of the Gabriella
>>>>>Cilmi
>>>>>one a couple of times.
>>>>
>>>> Only the start?
>>>>
>>>> Was the thought of being tied up & filmed by an attractive 16yo girl too
>>>> disturbing? :)
>>>
>>>Well, it does sound wrong on at least a couple of levels.
>>
>> But intriguing on certain others? :)
>
>I'm glad I saw it on telly and not YouTube - you wouldn't want Viacom
>finding out about that would you?
So you heard about that.
I don't think can have *any* conception of the amount if info they are
seeking - must be terabytes of it! Also, 99% of *that* will just be
people viewing material, rather than uploading it.
I'm pretty sure the court ruling will be appealed though, and quite
probably overturned.
>
>> ******
>>
>> Which is what I was saying - national audiences are large enough to
>> specialise & still get reasonable viewer numbers, but try that at a local
>> level...
>
>But (in my admittedly finite experience) I've never encountered a commercial
>station that was really generalised - you never hear the DJ say "That was
>the new one from Slipknot; coming up we've got some Tuvan throat singing
>from Yat Kha, some hip-hop from Public Enemy and some classic Bix
>Biederbecke - but first here's Dido!"
Well, commercial stations are a separate issue - their advertisements
are aimed at a particular demographic, and 'whoever pays the piper,
calls the tune'.
>>
>> But if the US had nationwide specialist radio stations, then no genre
>> would be able to dominate in the way urban does there, now.
>
>Whyever not?
Because musical tastes are too diverse for one genre to dominate.
>
>Although presumably Calvin's only managed the two. IIRC I only heard
>'Merrymaking At My House' twice, and on one occasion they got a barrage of
>texts asking if it was a joke.
They had to *ask*? :)
>>>>Kylie's new single
>>
>> She's C-listed on R1, B-listed on R2.
>
>Is it really only B-listed? It feels like they're playing it more often than
>the news.
Still no sign of a video.
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 at 22:41:28, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>If those are disadvantages.
>>>
>>> I'd have said so - that's generally the case with 'limited' editions.
>>
>>But this wasn't limited in that sense - there doesn't seem to have been
>>any
>>shortage of copies around.
>
> But if you didn't have a handy Tescos nearby...
You're among a very small minority of the UK population. And you could still
have got it online if you were really that bothered.
>>>>I'd certainly call it difficult inasmuch as neither of them had come all
>>>>that close before, even on a physical-only chart.
>>>
>>> Katie Melua reached #5 with '9 Million Bicycles',
>>
>>Which is still four places away
>
> Which I would still call quite close.
But not "all that close".
>>>and they'd both had
>>> *album* #1's...
>>
>>Of course, but that's partly my point - even a successful album act like
>>Eva
>>Cassidy couldn't have a Top 40 single until then, so it would be anything
>>but easy for someone without a major fanbase to do it, on physicals alone.
>
> Especially when you couldn't promote it without the help of a ouija board.
> :)
True, but then she didn't have any while she was alive either.
>>BTW, did this re-chart at all when it appeared on iTunes?
>
> No, but IIRC it also appeared on a NOW album, so it could have been
> downloaded from there too, although not in T200 quantities.
That was the incident I was referring to.
>>> Re : Kid Rock - All Summer Long
>>>>
>>>>>>It's possible that the label are hoping to
>>>>>>sell some albums instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> A pretty forlorn hope, given his previous record in the UK.
>>>>
>>>>Hence the incentive to give this one a leg-up.
>>>
>>> But that almost certainly will not happen - people will simply download
>>> that one album track, rather than risk forking out £10 for the album,
>>> especially given his previous lack of success.
>>
>>Unless they make it difficult to get the download, which was my point.
>
> I guess they would be masochists who like shooting themselves in the foot,
> then...
Bearing in mind that they've chosen a job which requires them to listen to
the music of Kid Rock, I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
>>> The album is due on the 21st, one week after the single, so it could
>>> well
>>> be another post-CD-release climber. That's even more likely if the album
>>> *is* released on iTunes - unless he foolishly decides not to allow
>>> tracks
>>> to be sold individually...
>>
>>Not that it's necessarily his personal decision.
>
> True, but the higher a single charts, the more its parent album is likely
> to sell - so any deliberate action which reduces singles sales can only be
> counter-productive.
It's obvious that there's a connection - but that doesn't always prove cause
and effect. And of course, in more general terms, singles sales aren't quite
the same as chart peaks.
BTW, I was joking about 'Bawitdaba' but now I come to think of it it does
have a very similar chorus to 'The Ketchup Song'.
Chris
Robbie
Gabriella Cilmi was the joint most played song at R1 (along with "Pork
And Beans" by Weezer) and its R1 audience accounted for 40% of its total
UK audience. Commercial Radio accounted for just over 50% so I'd imagine
the vast majority of the rest is from R2 (where it is at #27).
--
Robbie
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 15:55:13, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>>>>>McFly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So I stand corrected. But you'd still think they could do better with
>>>>more
>>>>B-sides.
>>>
>>> I doubt it - their core fanbase will buy all 3 CD's, and would still do
>>> so
>>> regardless of what the b-sides were.
>>
>>> and
>>> are unlikely to be interested in the b-sides.
>>
>>Which is probably just as well - AFAICT that's all they can download
>>anyway.
>
> So, in effect, they are virtually abandoning the download release to its
> fate...
Presumably making the same assumption as you have.
>>>>>>And the start of the Gabriella
>>>>>>Cilmi
>>>>>>one a couple of times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the start?
>>>>>
>>>>> Was the thought of being tied up & filmed by an attractive 16yo girl
>>>>> too
>>>>> disturbing? :)
>>>>
>>>>Well, it does sound wrong on at least a couple of levels.
>>>
>>> But intriguing on certain others? :)
>>
>>I'm glad I saw it on telly and not YouTube - you wouldn't want Viacom
>>finding out about that would you?
>
> So you heard about that.
Of course.
> I don't think can have *any* conception of the amount if info they are
> seeking - must be terabytes of it! Also, 99% of *that* will just be people
> viewing material, rather than uploading it.
They presumably know the second fact though. I assumed the idea was to find
out how many people were watching "their" clips so they'd know how much
recompense to demand.
>>> ******
>>>
>>> Which is what I was saying - national audiences are large enough to
>>> specialise & still get reasonable viewer numbers, but try that at a
>>> local
>>> level...
>>
>>But (in my admittedly finite experience) I've never encountered a
>>commercial
>>station that was really generalised - you never hear the DJ say "That was
>>the new one from Slipknot; coming up we've got some Tuvan throat singing
>>from Yat Kha, some hip-hop from Public Enemy and some classic Bix
>>Biederbecke - but first here's Dido!"
>
> Well, commercial stations are a separate issue - their advertisements are
> aimed at a particular demographic, and 'whoever pays the piper, calls the
> tune'.
But commercial stations are an immense majority of local radio. It doesn't
make sense to discuss it away from them. I would agree that they tend to
specialise by demographic rather than style though.
>>> But if the US had nationwide specialist radio stations, then no genre
>>> would be able to dominate in the way urban does there, now.
>>
>>Whyever not?
>
> Because musical tastes are too diverse for one genre to dominate.
But that's already true now.
>>Although presumably Calvin's only managed the two. IIRC I only heard
>>'Merrymaking At My House' twice, and on one occasion they got a barrage of
>>texts asking if it was a joke.
>
> They had to *ask*? :)
I bet the record company weren't laughing.
>>>>>Kylie's new single
>>>
>>> She's C-listed on R1, B-listed on R2.
>>
>>Is it really only B-listed? It feels like they're playing it more often
>>than
>>the news.
>
> Still no sign of a video.
Never mind, you can already guess what it'll look like.
Chris
Paul Hyett
uk.music.charts :
>>
>
>Gabriella Cilmi was the joint most played song at R1 (along with "Pork
>And Beans" by Weezer)
For all the good that did the latter... :)
> and its R1 audience accounted for 40% of its total UK audience.
>Commercial Radio accounted for just over 50% so I'd imagine the vast
>majority of the rest is from R2 (where it is at #27).
>
I never know where to find this sort of info.
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>>>>McFly
>>>
>>>> OTOH, people who just like the main track will simply download *that*,
>>>> and
>>>> are unlikely to be interested in the b-sides.
>>>
>>>Which is probably just as well - AFAICT that's all they can download
>>>anyway.
>>
>> So, in effect, they are virtually abandoning the download release to its
>> fate...
>
>Presumably making the same assumption as you have.
That no-one outside their core fanbase can stand them, and therefore
they are the only people prepared to get their asses down to the record
shops for it? :)
>>>
>>>I'm glad I saw it on telly and not YouTube - you wouldn't want Viacom
>>>finding out about that would you?
>>
>> So you heard about that.
>
>Of course.
>
>> I don't think can have *any* conception of the amount if info they are
>> seeking - must be terabytes of it! Also, 99% of *that* will just be people
>> viewing material, rather than uploading it.
>
>They presumably know the second fact though. I assumed the idea was to find
>out how many people were watching "their" clips so they'd know how much
>recompense to demand.
I really *hate* corporate assholes like Viacom when they do this - they
are losing *nothing* by clips being on Youtube, and Youtube themselves
gain nothing from it, so where would any recompense come from??
Corporate bulling is one area where I would be in favour of 'trial by
media'. I've little doubt that in virtually every case, the public would
tell the companies to go fuck themselves! :)
Of course, that does happen indirectly even now, as vengeful consumers
boycott the bullies, but to me that doesn't fell like punishment enough.
>
>>>> ******
>>
>> Well, commercial stations are a separate issue - their advertisements are
>> aimed at a particular demographic, and 'whoever pays the piper, calls the
>> tune'.
>
>But commercial stations are an immense majority of local radio. It doesn't
>make sense to discuss it away from them.
In an American context, I agree - but here it's somewhat different, with
numerous BBC local radio stations.
>
>>>> But if the US had nationwide specialist radio stations, then no genre
>>>> would be able to dominate in the way urban does there, now.
>>>
>>>Whyever not?
>>
>> Because musical tastes are too diverse for one genre to dominate.
>
>But that's already true now.
Yes, but in the big cities, specialist stations other than urban ones
are very much marginalised.
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
Re : Melua/Cassidy single
>>>But this wasn't limited in that sense - there doesn't seem to have been
>>>any
>>>shortage of copies around.
>>
>> But if you didn't have a handy Tescos nearby...
>
>You're among a very small minority of the UK population. And you could still
>have got it online if you were really that bothered.
Of course, if you *were* one of the few who didn't have a Tescos nearby,
you might well not even know of the single's existence, so obviously you
wouldn't be seeking to download it either.
>
>>>> Re : Kid Rock - All Summer Long
>>>
>>>Unless they make it difficult to get the download, which was my point.
>>
>> I guess they would be masochists who like shooting themselves in the foot,
>> then...
>
>Bearing in mind that they've chosen a job which requires them to listen to
>the music of Kid Rock, I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
Grin.
>>
>> True, but the higher a single charts, the more its parent album is likely
>> to sell - so any deliberate action which reduces singles sales can only be
>> counter-productive.
>
>It's obvious that there's a connection - but that doesn't always prove cause
>and effect. And of course, in more general terms, singles sales aren't quite
>the same as chart peaks.
Ever more so nowadays, when the higher selling singles are more likely
to do so through extended chart runs, than high but short-lived peak
sales.
Robbie
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 19:03:18, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>
>> Gabriella Cilmi was the joint most played song at R1 (along with "Pork
>> And Beans" by Weezer)
>
> For all the good that did the latter... :)
>
>> and its R1 audience accounted for 40% of its total UK audience.
>> Commercial Radio accounted for just over 50% so I'd imagine the vast
>> majority of the rest is from R2 (where it is at #27).
>>
> I never know where to find this sort of info.
Music Week publishes selected station charts as well as the main airplay
chart.
--
Robbie
Robbie
Youtube must gain something from the clips being there otherwise they'd
be in serious financial trouble...
>
> Corporate bulling is one area where I would be in favour of 'trial by
> media'. I've little doubt that in virtually every case, the public would
> tell the companies to go fuck themselves! :)
>
> Of course, that does happen indirectly even now, as vengeful consumers
> boycott the bullies, but to me that doesn't fell like punishment enough.
>>
>>>>> ******
>>>
>>> Well, commercial stations are a separate issue - their advertisements
>>> are
>>> aimed at a particular demographic, and 'whoever pays the piper, calls
>>> the
>>> tune'.
>>
>> But commercial stations are an immense majority of local radio. It
>> doesn't
>> make sense to discuss it away from them.
>
> In an American context, I agree - but here it's somewhat different, with
> numerous BBC local radio stations.
>>
>>>>> But if the US had nationwide specialist radio stations, then no genre
>>>>> would be able to dominate in the way urban does there, now.
>>>>
>>>> Whyever not?
>>>
>>> Because musical tastes are too diverse for one genre to dominate.
>>
>> But that's already true now.
>
> Yes, but in the big cities, specialist stations other than urban ones
> are very much marginalised.
>>
--
Robbie
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 22:54:50, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>>>>McFly
>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, people who just like the main track will simply download *that*,
>>>>> and
>>>>> are unlikely to be interested in the b-sides.
>>>>
>>>>Which is probably just as well - AFAICT that's all they can download
>>>>anyway.
>>>
>>> So, in effect, they are virtually abandoning the download release to its
>>> fate...
>>
>>Presumably making the same assumption as you have.
>
> That no-one outside their core fanbase can stand them, and therefore they
> are the only people prepared to get their asses down to the record shops
> for it? :)
Not that one, otherwise they wouldn't bother at ll.
The assumption is, presumably, that only fans will want those B-sides, and
they'll buy them on the CDs anyway. Of course, it's also possible that the
B-sides will be released digitally somewhere, just not where I've looked.
One think I did find interesting is that it's still distributed, at least
digitally, by Universal.
>>>>I'm glad I saw it on telly and not YouTube - you wouldn't want Viacom
>>>>finding out about that would you?
>>>
>>> So you heard about that.
>>
>>Of course.
>>
>>> I don't think can have *any* conception of the amount if info they are
>>> seeking - must be terabytes of it! Also, 99% of *that* will just be
>>> people
>>> viewing material, rather than uploading it.
>>
>>They presumably know the second fact though. I assumed the idea was to
>>find
>>out how many people were watching "their" clips so they'd know how much
>>recompense to demand.
>
> I really *hate* corporate assholes like Viacom when they do this - they
> are losing *nothing* by clips being on Youtube, and Youtube themselves
> gain nothing from it, so where would any recompense come from??
Well, YouTube do get something from it, otherwise Google wouldn't have paid
all that money for the company. It's funded by ad revenue.
> Corporate bulling is one area where I would be in favour of 'trial by
> media'. I've little doubt that in virtually every case, the public would
> tell the companies to go fuck themselves! :)
Of course, Viacom's argument would be that they should be getting the
revenue from advertising themselves - but this is a hard sell to the general
public, even harder than when the record industry tries to discourage
file-sharing and so on, because most people have no experience of having to
pay (directly) for TV shows.
> Of course, that does happen indirectly even now, as vengeful consumers
> boycott the bullies, but to me that doesn't fell like punishment enough.
But making money is what they're all about.
>>>>> ******
>>>
>>> Well, commercial stations are a separate issue - their advertisements
>>> are
>>> aimed at a particular demographic, and 'whoever pays the piper, calls
>>> the
>>> tune'.
>>
>>But commercial stations are an immense majority of local radio. It doesn't
>>make sense to discuss it away from them.
>
> In an American context, I agree - but here it's somewhat different, with
> numerous BBC local radio stations.
Not that numerous - there are certainly fewer of them than commercial ones,
and they're not supposed to compete with each other either so in theory most
people are only served by one BBC local. I was always under the impression
that commercial stations had more listeners too.
>>>>> But if the US had nationwide specialist radio stations, then no genre
>>>>> would be able to dominate in the way urban does there, now.
>>>>
>>>>Whyever not?
>>>
>>> Because musical tastes are too diverse for one genre to dominate.
>>
>>But that's already true now.
>
> Yes, but in the big cities, specialist stations other than urban ones are
> very much marginalised.
If that's true, though, that's because people are choosing to listen that
way. In a way, of course, there are now nationwide specialist stations on
satellite radio but I don't know whether those are factored into charts at
all.
Chris
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 19:00:07, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
> Re : Melua/Cassidy single
>
>>>>But this wasn't limited in that sense - there doesn't seem to have been
>>>>any
>>>>shortage of copies around.
>>>
>>> But if you didn't have a handy Tescos nearby...
>>
>>You're among a very small minority of the UK population. And you could
>>still
>>have got it online if you were really that bothered.
>
> Of course, if you *were* one of the few who didn't have a Tescos nearby,
> you might well not even know of the single's existence, so obviously you
> wouldn't be seeking to download it either.
That is possible, unless you were a very devoted fan of either act who made
it your business to find out what they were releasing.
>>>>> Re : Kid Rock - All Summer Long
>>>>
>>>>Unless they make it difficult to get the download, which was my point.
>>>
>>> I guess they would be masochists who like shooting themselves in the
>>> foot,
>>> then...
>>
>>Bearing in mind that they've chosen a job which requires them to listen to
>>the music of Kid Rock, I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
>
> Grin.
I'm glad someone is.
>>> True, but the higher a single charts, the more its parent album is
>>> likely
>>> to sell - so any deliberate action which reduces singles sales can only
>>> be
>>> counter-productive.
>>
>>It's obvious that there's a connection - but that doesn't always prove
>>cause
>>and effect. And of course, in more general terms, singles sales aren't
>>quite
>>the same as chart peaks.
>
> Ever more so nowadays, when the higher selling singles are more likely to
> do so through extended chart runs, than high but short-lived peak sales.
I suppose you could construe the deletion of 'Crazy' and 'You're Beautiful'
as attempts to limit singles sales for the benefit of the album. And they
were both on Warner Music too.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> So, in effect, they are virtually abandoning the download release to its
>>>> fate...
>>>
>>>Presumably making the same assumption as you have.
>>
>> That no-one outside their core fanbase can stand them, and therefore they
>> are the only people prepared to get their asses down to the record shops
>> for it? :)
>
>Not that one, otherwise they wouldn't bother at ll.
Wishful thinking... :)
>The assumption is, presumably, that only fans will want those B-sides, and
>they'll buy them on the CDs anyway. Of course, it's also possible that the
>B-sides will be released digitally somewhere, just not where I've looked.
Which was itunes?
>One think I did find interesting is that it's still distributed, at least
>digitally, by Universal.
Almost every download seems to be...
>
>>
>> I really *hate* corporate assholes like Viacom when they do this - they
>> are losing *nothing* by clips being on Youtube, and Youtube themselves
>> gain nothing from it, so where would any recompense come from??
>
>Well, YouTube do get something from it, otherwise Google wouldn't have paid
>all that money for the company. It's funded by ad revenue.
I never read website ads...
>
>> Corporate bulling is one area where I would be in favour of 'trial by
>> media'. I've little doubt that in virtually every case, the public would
>> tell the companies to go fuck themselves! :)
>
>Of course, Viacom's argument would be that they should be getting the
>revenue from advertising themselves - but this is a hard sell to the general
>public
No kidding. :)
>
>> Of course, that does happen indirectly even now, as vengeful consumers
>> boycott the bullies, but to me that doesn't fell like punishment enough.
>
>But making money is what they're all about.
But it's *supposed* to be via producing TV & selling shows, not using
their legal 'thugs' to extract money from individuals of limited means.
>
>>>>>> ******
>>>
>>>But commercial stations are an immense majority of local radio. It doesn't
>>>make sense to discuss it away from them.
>>
>> In an American context, I agree - but here it's somewhat different, with
>> numerous BBC local radio stations.
>
>Not that numerous - there are certainly fewer of them than commercial ones,
>and they're not supposed to compete with each other either so in theory most
>people are only served by one BBC local. I was always under the impression
>that commercial stations had more listeners too.
That may be true, but I'd personally always choose the advert-free
option.
>>
>> Yes, but in the big cities, specialist stations other than urban ones are
>> very much marginalised.
>
>If that's true, though, that's because people are choosing to listen that
>way.
But it may be another chicken & egg situation - the stations the
advertisers prefer, can afford to provide a wider service, which in turn
encourages more advertisers...
Less well supported stations, even if they are playing music that lots
people want to hear, will not be able to compete financially.
Paul Hyett
uk.music.charts :
>>> They presumably know the second fact though. I assumed the idea was
>>>to find
>>> out how many people were watching "their" clips so they'd know how much
>>> recompense to demand.
>> I really *hate* corporate assholes like Viacom when they do this -
>>they are losing *nothing* by clips being on Youtube, and Youtube
>>themselves gain nothing from it, so where would any recompense come
>>from??
>
>Youtube must gain something from the clips being there otherwise they'd
>be in serious financial trouble...
Yes, but what?
Robbie
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 at 09:38:41, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> uk.music.charts :
>
>>>> They presumably know the second fact though. I assumed the idea was
>>>> to find
>>>> out how many people were watching "their" clips so they'd know how much
>>>> recompense to demand.
>
>>> I really *hate* corporate assholes like Viacom when they do this -
>>> they are losing *nothing* by clips being on Youtube, and Youtube
>>> themselves gain nothing from it, so where would any recompense come
>>> from??
>>
>> Youtube must gain something from the clips being there otherwise
>> they'd be in serious financial trouble...
>
> Yes, but what?
money?!
--
Robbie
Jan Buxton
Except of course it doesn't, and Google have admitted to not really
knowing how to make money out of Youtube! :-)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9968220-17.html
--
Jan
Robbie
oh, I didn't realise it made very little money! It was silly of Google
to pay so much money then...
--
Robbie
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>It's obvious that there's a connection - but that doesn't always prove
>>>cause
>>>and effect. And of course, in more general terms, singles sales aren't
>>>quite
>>>the same as chart peaks.
>>
>> Ever more so nowadays, when the higher selling singles are more likely to
>> do so through extended chart runs, than high but short-lived peak sales.
>
>I suppose you could construe the deletion of 'Crazy' and 'You're Beautiful'
>as attempts to limit singles sales for the benefit of the album.
Chasing Cars, too.
While it did boost the parent album (though much more so in the latter
case), it probably had more effect in encouraging the download market to
expand.
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 at 14:28:39, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>
>>they'll buy them on the CDs anyway. Of course, it's also possible that the
>>B-sides will be released digitally somewhere, just not where I've looked.
>
> Which was itunes?
Nope, that's one of the harder ones to look up on.
I suspect that where there are exclusives, it tends to be iTunes who get
them.
>>One think I did find interesting is that it's still distributed, at least
>>digitally, by Universal.
>
> Almost every download seems to be...
Funny that it'd be this one though.
>>> I really *hate* corporate assholes like Viacom when they do this - they
>>> are losing *nothing* by clips being on Youtube, and Youtube themselves
>>> gain nothing from it, so where would any recompense come from??
>>
>>Well, YouTube do get something from it, otherwise Google wouldn't have
>>paid
>>all that money for the company. It's funded by ad revenue.
>
> I never read website ads...
That's not the point though. YouTube still get paid for them.
>>> Corporate bulling is one area where I would be in favour of 'trial by
>>> media'. I've little doubt that in virtually every case, the public would
>>> tell the companies to go fuck themselves! :)
>>
>>Of course, Viacom's argument would be that they should be getting the
>>revenue from advertising themselves - but this is a hard sell to the
>>general
>>public
>
> No kidding. :)
Especially so.
>>> Of course, that does happen indirectly even now, as vengeful consumers
>>> boycott the bullies, but to me that doesn't fell like punishment enough.
>>
>>But making money is what they're all about.
>
> But it's *supposed* to be via producing TV & selling shows,
And broadcasting them.
> not using
> their legal 'thugs' to extract money from individuals of limited means.
Are you saying Google is of limited means?
Anyway, lost customers mean lost money so in theory that's the ultimate
punishment.
>>>>>>> ******
>>>>
>>>>But commercial stations are an immense majority of local radio. It
>>>>doesn't
>>>>make sense to discuss it away from them.
>>>
>>> In an American context, I agree - but here it's somewhat different, with
>>> numerous BBC local radio stations.
>>
>>Not that numerous - there are certainly fewer of them than commercial
>> >>ones,
>>and they're not supposed to compete with each other either so in theory
>>most
>>people are only served by one BBC local.
I forgot about Radio Scotland, Wales, Ulster, Cymru.
> I was always under the impression
>>that commercial stations had more listeners too.
>
> That may be true, but I'd personally always choose the advert-free option.
Yeah, but in terms of the airplay it means that the commercial ones matter
more.
>>> Yes, but in the big cities, specialist stations other than urban ones
>>> are
>>> very much marginalised.
>>
>>If that's true, though, that's because people are choosing to listen that
>>way.
>
> But it may be another chicken & egg situation - the stations the
> advertisers prefer, can afford to provide a wider service, which in turn
> encourages more advertisers...
What's a wider service? Is it like when John Peel used to talk about that
wide sound?
> Less well supported stations, even if they are playing music that lots
> people want to hear, will not be able to compete financially.
But there's no reason that wouldn't happen anyway.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>Well, YouTube do get something from it, otherwise Google wouldn't have
>>>paid
>>>all that money for the company. It's funded by ad revenue.
>>
>> I never read website ads...
>
>That's not the point though. YouTube still get paid for them.
But if most people *don't* read ads, then the advertisers will get
little benefit from their money...
>
>>>> Of course, that does happen indirectly even now, as vengeful consumers
>>>> boycott the bullies, but to me that doesn't fell like punishment enough.
>>>
>>>But making money is what they're all about.
>>
>> But it's *supposed* to be via producing TV & selling shows,
>
>And broadcasting them.
But the point with Youtube is that, AIUI, there is a file size limit
that is too small for entire shows to be posted - therefore Viacom have
little to worry about. Surely their energies would be better spent on
targeting P2P, where full shows *are* transferred?
>
>> not using
>> their legal 'thugs' to extract money from individuals of limited means.
>
>Are you saying Google is of limited means?
Google is not an *individual* customer.
>>
>> But it may be another chicken & egg situation - the stations the
>> advertisers prefer, can afford to provide a wider service, which in turn
>> encourages more advertisers...
>
>What's a wider service? Is it like when John Peel used to talk about that
>wide sound?
Expanding their broadcasting range; digital rather than analogue
broadcasts; etc.
>
>> Less well supported stations, even if they are playing music that lots
>> people want to hear, will not be able to compete financially.
>
>But there's no reason that wouldn't happen anyway.
But that just perpetuates the situation where radio station play what
*they* think people want to hear, which is often *not* what listeners
themselves want to hear.
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 at 00:06:33, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>Well, YouTube do get something from it, otherwise Google wouldn't have
>>>>paid
>>>>all that money for the company. It's funded by ad revenue.
>>>
>>> I never read website ads...
>>
>>That's not the point though. YouTube still get paid for them.
>
> But if most people *don't* read ads, then the advertisers will get little
> benefit from their money...
Which is theoretically true - but as long as they keep paying that's not a
problem for Google.
Anyway, the one thing we all know about advertising is that nobody ever
admits to being influenced by it.
>>>>> Of course, that does happen indirectly even now, as vengeful consumers
>>>>> boycott the bullies, but to me that doesn't fell like punishment
>>>>> enough.
>>>>
>>>>But making money is what they're all about.
>>>
>>> But it's *supposed* to be via producing TV & selling shows,
>>
>>And broadcasting them.
>
> But the point with Youtube is that, AIUI, there is a file size limit that
> is too small for entire shows to be posted - therefore Viacom have little
> to worry about.
Only insofar as people want to watch entire shows. Remember, Viacom also run
MTV (and its sisters) so watching videos on YouTube is direct competition.
> Surely their energies would be better spent on targeting
> P2P, where full shows *are* transferred?
These aren't mutually exclusive of course.
>>> not using
>>> their legal 'thugs' to extract money from individuals of limited means.
>>
>>Are you saying Google is of limited means?
>
> Google is not an *individual* customer.
No, but it's Google they're suing.
And yet, wouldn't targetting P2P be at the expense of individuals?
>>> But it may be another chicken & egg situation - the stations the
>>> advertisers prefer, can afford to provide a wider service, which in turn
>>> encourages more advertisers...
>>
>>What's a wider service? Is it like when John Peel used to talk about that
>>wide sound?
>
> Expanding their broadcasting range; digital rather than analogue
> broadcasts; etc.
They can't just unilaterally stretch their range though - they need licences
and things.
>>> Less well supported stations, even if they are playing music that lots
>>> people want to hear, will not be able to compete financially.
>>
>>But there's no reason that wouldn't happen anyway.
>
> But that just perpetuates the situation where radio station play what
> *they* think people want to hear, which is often *not* what listeners
> themselves want to hear.
Which is true, but it's true of national broadcasters too. Have you seen how
bad the TV is over there?
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>Anyway, the one thing we all know about advertising is that nobody ever
>admits to being influenced by it.
The most that adverts do to me is to encourage me to buy something I was
already thinking about purchasing, rather than persuading me to purchase
something I hadn't thought of before.
>>
>> But the point with Youtube is that, AIUI, there is a file size limit that
>> is too small for entire shows to be posted - therefore Viacom have little
>> to worry about.
>
>Only insofar as people want to watch entire shows. Remember, Viacom also run
>MTV (and its sisters) so watching videos on YouTube is direct competition.
But the point of music videos is to sell songs, so surely the more
people that see them, the better, regardless of *where* they see them.
The more progressive record companies & artists realise this, of course,
and take full advantage.
>
>And yet, wouldn't targetting P2P be at the expense of individuals?
>
That was my point about individuals.
A related article :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7492907.stm
>>>
>>>What's a wider service? Is it like when John Peel used to talk about that
>>>wide sound?
>>
>> Expanding their broadcasting range; digital rather than analogue
>> broadcasts; etc.
>
>They can't just unilaterally stretch their range though - they need licences
>and things.
Or just brown envelopes slipped under the right doors...
>>
>> But that just perpetuates the situation where radio station play what
>> *they* think people want to hear, which is often *not* what listeners
>> themselves want to hear.
>
>Which is true, but it's true of national broadcasters too. Have you seen how
>bad the TV is over there?
You mean America? How could I not - half their shows make it onto UK
TV... :)
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 at 22:48:38, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>Anyway, the one thing we all know about advertising is that nobody ever
>>admits to being influenced by it.
>
> The most that adverts do to me is to encourage me to buy something I was
> already thinking about purchasing, rather than persuading me to purchase
> something I hadn't thought of before.
That's what everyone says, myself included.
>>> But the point with Youtube is that, AIUI, there is a file size limit
>>> that
>>> is too small for entire shows to be posted - therefore Viacom have
>>> little
>>> to worry about.
>>
>>Only insofar as people want to watch entire shows. Remember, Viacom also
>>run
>>MTV (and its sisters) so watching videos on YouTube is direct competition.
>
> But the point of music videos is to sell songs, so surely the more people
> > that see them, the better, regardless of *where* they see them.
From the record company's POV, absolutely. But Viacom don't get anything
from record sales.
> The more progressive record companies & artists realise this, of course,
> and take full advantage.
Pink Floyd? ;-)
>>Which is true, but it's true of national broadcasters too. Have you seen
>>how
>>bad the TV is over there?
>
> You mean America? How could I not - half their shows make it onto UK TV...
> :)
I can assure you that's the good half!
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>
>>>Anyway, the one thing we all know about advertising is that nobody ever
>>>admits to being influenced by it.
>>
>> The most that adverts do to me is to encourage me to buy something I was
>> already thinking about purchasing, rather than persuading me to purchase
>> something I hadn't thought of before.
>
>That's what everyone says, myself included.
Are you hinting that everyone is lying, or more precisely, fooling
themselves about that?
>>
>> But the point of music videos is to sell songs, so surely the more people
>> > that see them, the better, regardless of *where* they see them.
>
>From the record company's POV, absolutely. But Viacom don't get anything
>from record sales.
Then WTF does it have to do with Viacom?
>
>>>Which is true, but it's true of national broadcasters too. Have you seen
>>>how
>>>bad the TV is over there?
>>
>> You mean America? How could I not - half their shows make it onto UK TV...
>> :)
>
>I can assure you that's the good half!
>
Then it's no wonder they are complaining... :)
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 at 22:34:28, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>>Anyway, the one thing we all know about advertising is that nobody ever
>>>>admits to being influenced by it.
>>>
>>> The most that adverts do to me is to encourage me to buy something I was
>>> already thinking about purchasing, rather than persuading me to purchase
>>> something I hadn't thought of before.
>>
>>That's what everyone says, myself included.
>
> Are you hinting that everyone is lying, or more precisely, fooling
> themselves about that?
Well, yes, since companies can afford to keep advertising.
>>> But the point of music videos is to sell songs, so surely the more
>>> people
>>> > that see them, the better, regardless of *where* they see them.
>>
>>From the record company's POV, absolutely. But Viacom don't get anything
>>from record sales.
>
> Then WTF does it have to do with Viacom?
Because if somebody watches MTV (or MTV Dance, or MTV2, or VH1 or the other
channels they own) to see pop videos, then Viacom do get advertising
revenue.
Of course, they can't stop anyone competing with them, but that's probably
an extra incentive for them.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> The most that adverts do to me is to encourage me to buy something I was
>>>> already thinking about purchasing, rather than persuading me to purchase
>>>> something I hadn't thought of before.
>>>
>>>That's what everyone says, myself included.
>>
>> Are you hinting that everyone is lying, or more precisely, fooling
>> themselves about that?
>
>Well, yes, since companies can afford to keep advertising.
I just wonder what proportion of advertising campaigns cost more to run,
than the value of extra business they bring in, though?
>>>
>>>From the record company's POV, absolutely. But Viacom don't get anything
>>>from record sales.
>>
>> Then WTF does it have to do with Viacom?
>
>Because if somebody watches MTV (or MTV Dance, or MTV2, or VH1 or the other
>channels they own) to see pop videos, then Viacom do get advertising
>revenue.
But they don't get the revenue from people watching the channel, they
get it from advertisers paying for time. That'd be the same whether 1
person or 1 million were watching (ignoring the varying value of slots,
depending on time of day).
Chris Brown
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 at 19:26:27, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>> The most that adverts do to me is to encourage me to buy something I
>>>>> was
>>>>> already thinking about purchasing, rather than persuading me to
>>>>> purchase
>>>>> something I hadn't thought of before.
>>>>
>>>>That's what everyone says, myself included.
>>>
>>> Are you hinting that everyone is lying, or more precisely, fooling
>>> themselves about that?
>>
>>Well, yes, since companies can afford to keep advertising.
>
> I just wonder what proportion of advertising campaigns cost more to run,
> than the value of extra business they bring in, though?
The old gag (attributed to various advertising grandees) is "I know half the
money I spend on advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half."
>>>>From the record company's POV, absolutely. But Viacom don't get anything
>>>>from record sales.
>>>
>>> Then WTF does it have to do with Viacom?
>>
>>Because if somebody watches MTV (or MTV Dance, or MTV2, or VH1 or the
>>other
>>channels they own) to see pop videos, then Viacom do get advertising
>>revenue.
>
> But they don't get the revenue from people watching the channel, they get
> it from advertisers paying for time. That'd be the same whether 1 person
> or 1 million were watching (ignoring the varying value of slots, depending
> on time of day).
Er, no it wouldn't. The price they can charge for advertising time is very
heavily dependant on the audience they can draw (in terms of who they are as
well as how many, admittedly). So a declining number of viewers is a big
problem for them.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>> I just wonder what proportion of advertising campaigns cost more to run,
>> than the value of extra business they bring in, though?
>
>The old gag (attributed to various advertising grandees) is "I know half the
>money I spend on advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half."
Grin.
>>
>> But they don't get the revenue from people watching the channel, they get
>> it from advertisers paying for time. That'd be the same whether 1 person
>> or 1 million were watching (ignoring the varying value of slots, depending
>> on time of day).
>
>Er, no it wouldn't.
What I meant was - if the same show got 5m viewers one week, then 1m the
next, the advertisers would have paid the same money for each week
(assuming they have to book slots well in advance), and therefore would
get 5 times worse value on the 2nd week.
>The price they can charge for advertising time is very
>heavily dependant on the audience they can draw
Which I though I addressed above.
> So a declining number of viewers is a big
>problem for them.
True.
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 at 21:15:21, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> I just wonder what proportion of advertising campaigns cost more to run,
>>> than the value of extra business they bring in, though?
>>
>>The old gag (attributed to various advertising grandees) is "I know half
>>the
>>money I spend on advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half."
>
> Grin.
There obviously is a grain of truth in it.
>>> But they don't get the revenue from people watching the channel, they
>>> get
>>> it from advertisers paying for time. That'd be the same whether 1 person
>>> or 1 million were watching (ignoring the varying value of slots,
>>> depending
>>> on time of day).
>>
>>Er, no it wouldn't.
>
> What I meant was - if the same show got 5m viewers one week, then 1m the
> next, the advertisers would have paid the same money for each week
> (assuming they have to book slots well in advance), and therefore would
> get 5 times worse value on the 2nd week.
Well, for one thing they wouldn't necessarily have booked it that far ahead.
And for another if they did end up in that position, it would greatly
devalue future advertising slots on the channel.
>>The price they can charge for advertising time is very
>>heavily dependant on the audience they can draw
>
> Which I though I addressed above.
I didn't, sorry.
>> So a declining number of viewers is a big
>>problem for them.
>
> True.
And a potentially spiralling one.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>> What I meant was - if the same show got 5m viewers one week, then 1m the
>> next, the advertisers would have paid the same money for each week
>> (assuming they have to book slots well in advance), and therefore would
>> get 5 times worse value on the 2nd week.
>
>Well, for one thing they wouldn't necessarily have booked it that far ahead.
>And for another if they did end up in that position, it would greatly
>devalue future advertising slots on the channel.
I wonder what is more influential, the time of day, or the program put
in a slot?