Chart Commentary 28/6/08
Paul Hyett
-------
After 9 years of trying, and several near misses, Coldplay *finally* get
their first #1 single!
While technically a new entry, Viva La Vida has in fact been selling
enough copies for a high chart entry for several weeks (4th highest last
Sunday), but had been declared chart-ineligible on a dubious criteria.
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Ne-Yo #2, Sara Bareilles #4, Chris Brown #5, Jordin Sparks ft
CB #10
Top 20 : Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #14, Jonas Brothers #16
Top 30 : Billiam #23, Madonna (GI2M) #25, Flo-Rida/Timbaland #27, Maroon
5/Rihanna #28
Top 40 : Cage The Elephant #32, Weezer #40
Re-entries T40 : Nickelback (Ph) #29
New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42, Subways
#43, Freemasons (WYTM) #45, MGMT #50, Infadels #52, Potbelleez #54,
Coldplay (Lost) #55, Estelle (NSL) #73
Re-entries : Coldplay (FY) #61, Guns'N'Roses (SCOM) #64, Lynryd Skynyrd
(SHA) #68, Basshunter (WYG) #75
Albums
------
Coldplay outsell the #2 by 5-1, for their 2nd week at the top.
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Darren Styles #4, Feeder #8, Sara Bareilles #9
Top 20 : Fleet Foxes #11, Dennis Wilson #16, Petula Clark #17
Music #19
New outside the top 20 : Weezer #21, Judas Priest #30, Offspring #39
Re-entries : Dolly Prton (VBO) #23, MGMT #57, Estelle #63, Mika #64, Bon
Jovi (Best Of) #68, Mariah (GH) #71, LInkin Park (MTM) #73
Next Week
---------
Singles
-------
With Ne-Yo's single *finally* getting its physical release, it should
gain enough impetus to claim the top spot, though hardly convincingly.
Top 5 : Gabriella Cilmi (please!)
Top 10 : Jordin Sparks, Busta Rhymes
Top 20 : Flo-Rida/Timbaland
Top 30 : Mariah Carey, Weezer, Elliot Minor, Nickelback
Top 40 : Black Kids, Courteeners, MGMT, Freemasons
Any other possibilities?
Albums
------
Still can't see anything to challenge Coldplay.
Top 10 NE :
Top 20 NE : Chris Brown, Cage The Elephant, Infadels, Jonas Brothers
Others : Billy Idol, Donna Summer, Hawkwind, Presets, Rascals, Ry
Cooder, Sigur Ros, Blondie, And You Will Know Us..., Harmans Hermits,
Manfred Mann
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
Chris Brown
"Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XFM8bGqU...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Singles
> -------
> After 9 years of trying, and several near misses,
Two anyway.
> Coldplay *finally* get their first #1 single!
The first Number One single with a foreign-language title since 'Deja Vu' in
2006. Of course it's also the point where collectors who want a physical
copy of every chart-topper have to admit defeat.
> While technically a new entry, Viva La Vida has in fact been selling
> enough copies for a high chart entry for several weeks (4th highest last
> Sunday), but had been declared chart-ineligible on a dubious criteria.
Apparently, though, there were only enough individual sales for a Top 30
position last week, so perhaps EMI just didn't want them to count.
BTW, Mint Royale have fallen 1-8: is that a record for a single that spent
more than one week at the top?
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Ne-Yo #2,
This is, er, not growing on me much.
>Sara Bareilles #4,
The trouble with this continuing to climb is that I haven't got all that
much to say about it. Er, some people say she's embarassed about her nose.
> Chris Brown #5,
This appears to have the beat from that Taio Cruz record, but none of the
rest of the record is in time with it.
>Jordin Sparks ft CB #10
Still don't really get this.
But since they'd have to play these two Chris Brown tracks, I don't think we
needed the third inflicted on us as well.
> Top 20 : Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #14,
Out on CD on the 30th.
> Jonas Brothers #16
The latest Disney Channel stars who've attracted comparisons to Hanson
because they're siblings, although they sound more like a cross between
Avril Lavigne and Busted: indeed they have covered a Busted song.
> Top 30 : Billiam #23,
'My Generation' is not the Who song or even the Limp Bizkit one, but the
second hit for dubious boyband Billiam, and a Top 30 hit thanks to the
plethora of mixes available on download (and two physical formats).
Apart from the fact that it's only Number 23,this does sound very Nineties.
BTW, weren't F&R already presenting the chart show when they had their first
hit in September?
> Flo-Rida/Timbaland #27,
I still think this has a lot of flaws. Geddit???!!
> Maroon 5/Rihanna #28
Chart run to date: 29-30-28. Possibly a bit too consistent for its own good
there.
> Top 40 : Cage The Elephant #32,
Quite aside from my own concern for animal rights, another reason not to
like the idea of caging elephants is the possibility that they might trample
awful bands like this.
They could become another Killers or another Jason Downes.
>Weezer #40
Out tomorrow on CD & 7"s.
> Re-entries T40 : Nickelback (Ph) #29
Which, despite what I said, matches its original peak.
> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place twice.
>Subways #43,
I've got them at 44 here, with Snap! at 43 (listed as a new entry due to an
import CD release).
Either way, though, it's not great news for the Subs, who seem at risk of
becoming an underground band.
>Freemasons (WYTM) #45,
Out on CD & 12" on the 30th.
>MGMT #50,
According to HMV, this is out on CD & 7" on the 26th! Possibly a misprint
there.
Weird video, either way.
>Infadels #52,
Call me petty, but I've never been abel to get over the name there.
>Potbelleez #54,
I could say I'd heard this and formed an opinion. But I'd be telling
porkies.
> Coldplay (Lost) #55,
The third biggest-seller from the album, possibly because there's an
acoustic version on iTunes. Other download sites are available.
>Estelle (NSL) #73
Out on CDs on the 30th. And that really is the title, even though it looks
like there's a word missing.
> Re-entries : Coldplay (FY) #61,
My least favourite Coldplay single, if anyone wanted to know.
> Guns'N'Roses (SCOM) #64,
For no obvious reason, but I know it's always bouncing around there
somewhere.
>Lynryd Skynyrd (SHA) #68,
Presumably reflected glory, if you can call it that, from the Kid Rock
single.
> Albums
> ------
> Coldplay outsell the #2 by 5-1, for their 2nd week at the top.
Nothing unexpected there.
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Darren Styles #4,
His first artist album is a double, featuring discs subtitled "hardcore" and
"commercial". Both include collaborations with Ultrabeat, who like Styles
and to a lesser extent Scooter seem to be turning conventional wisdom on its
head by selling better on the album market even as their singles fail.
> Feeder #8,
Sixth album, apparently something of a return to their rock roots.
There's a limited edition with extra artwork and two bonus tracks; actually
the only version I could see on the shelves this week, which may reveal who
the shops thought would be interested.
> Sara Bareilles #9
Little Voice. Not a lot of songwriting either.
> Top 20 : Fleet Foxes #11,
The big "indie" release of the week (it's actually distributed by Universal
in the UK) is the debut full-length set by this vaguely hippy-sounding
Seattle group.
It's attracted comparisons to the Beach Boys, Fairport Convention and CSNY,
and I for one can also hear traces of the Polyphonic Spree although there
are nowhere near as many of these guys.
>Dennis Wilson #16,
The drummer from the Beach Boys, and famously the only one who could surf.
Many were surprised when he became the first member of the band to release a
solo album (in 1977) but it was arguably even more of a surprise that
Pacific Ocean Blue went on to become one of the most acclaimed releases
affiliated to the group.
Although the record was briefly available on CD it remained largely
unobtainable, which seems if anything to have helped boost its legendary
status as one of the great lost albums. Now at last a record company has
finally done the decent thing and rereleased an impressive double CD set
with a freshly remastered version of this album and various tracks from his
unfinished second album, and for some reason a version of the song 'Holy
Man' with vocals by Taylor Hawkins. I should probably buy it myself, as I've
already got a bootleg copy... And I probably wasn't the only one, as he's
surprised us again by becoming only the second Beach Boy to reach the UK
album chart.
> Petula Clark #17
Not by any stretch of the imagination her first retrospective, but there are
a handful of new recordings, as well as duets with Michael McDonald and
Dusty Springfield.
> Music #19
Rather belated third set from the Yorkshire group, who still have a
guitarist called Adam Nutter. And that's still the most interesting thing
about them.
And yes, there is a special edition with two more songs on it.
> New outside the top 20 : Weezer #21,
Third in their occasional series of untitled albums referred to by the
colour of the sleeve, in this case Red.
For the first time in their career all the members of the band have
contributed to the writing.
A special edition adds four bonus tracks, though even the standard UK disc
is two tracks longer than the American version.
>Judas Priest #30,
Back again with their second album since reuniting, and this time it's a 2CD
concept album about Nostradamus. Obviously. Still it returns them to the Top
30 for the first time since 1990.
And there's a special edition in a book-like package, or an even more
special one with another copy of the album on three LPs.
>Offspring #39
In the years since their last album, I'd pretty much forgotten about them.
But here they are with an eighth album, produced by Bob Rock.
It's described as a more mature record than previous ones, for what that's
worth.
> Re-entries : Dolly Prton (VBO) #23,
Republicised.
>MGMT #57, Estelle #63,
New singles.
>Mika #64, Bon
> Jovi (Best Of) #68, Mariah (GH) #71, LInkin Park (MTM) #73
Probably just filling the space left by the departing Father's Day stuff.
UB40 are conspicuous by their absence.
> Next Week
> ---------
> Singles
> -------
> With Ne-Yo's single *finally* getting its physical release, it should gain
> enough impetus to claim the top spot, though hardly convincingly.
Agreed, on both counts.
> Top 5 : Gabriella Cilmi (please!)
What do you think would drop out, in that case?
> Top 10 : Jordin Sparks,
You think so? ;-)
> Busta Rhymes
Very likely.
> Top 20 : Flo-Rida/Timbaland
Out on physicals. so that's about right.
> Top 30 : Mariah Carey,
Probably not to be one of her bigger hits.
> Weezer,
That's what I'd have said a few days ago, but now it's done well on
downloads I'm starting to wonder whether they could sneak another Top 20
hit.
>Elliot Minor,
Diminishing returns must be setting in now.
> Nickelback
Probably not to be a big physical seller, so this is believable.
> Top 40 : Black Kids,
Not doing great guns for the follow-up to a big hit, so far.
>Courteeners,
They seem almost forgotten already, so they'll do well to beat this.
>MGMT,
I think so.
>Freemasons
Presumably.
> Any other possibilities?
There's supposed to be a new Dirty Pretty Things single out but I'm not sure
I believe that.
On more solid ground, Glasvegas are the latest of the tipped-for-2008 acts
to get a record out. The Buy Now! record has had some R1 support but is
perhaps a bit too odd for mainstream success.
> Albums
> ------
> Still can't see anything to challenge Coldplay.
Probably not.
> Top 20 NE : Chris Brown,
Arguably a re-entry rather than a new one, but likely to beat its original
peak.
> Cage The Elephant,
Maybe a bit much off a moderate hit single.
> Infadels,
Maybe a bit much off a not-even-moderate hit.
>Jonas Brothers
Likely.
> Others : Billy Idol, Donna Summer, Hawkwind,
Er, what century is it again? ;-)
But seriously: Idol is releasing some CD/DVD thing next week that may or may
not be chart eligible, Summer hasn't released anything for so long it's hard
to tell and I thought Hawkwind might chart last time but they didn't even
come close.
>Presets,
One of those names that always seems to be cropping up without them really
getting anywhere.
>Rascals,
Reflected glory hasn't done a lot for the single, after all.
>Ry Cooder,
Yup.
>Sigur Ros,
Stands a good chance of doing better, when even that odd live thing got to
23.
>Blondie,
This is just another repackage of Parallel Lines.
> And You Will Know Us...,
A live album from an act who struggle to chart at the best of times?
> Harmans Hermits,
Harriet's? ;-)
Sorry. These are always very hard to predict, I find.
> Manfred Mann
As above, and I think this may be an import anyway.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>> Singles
>> -------
>> After 9 years of trying, and several near misses,
>
>Two anyway.
But some of their other singles were better than the ones that got
closest.
Of course, with their level of album sales, anything released *after*
the album is doomed before it starts.
>
>> Coldplay *finally* get their first #1 single!
>
>The first Number One single with a foreign-language title since 'Deja Vu' in
>2006. Of course it's also the point where collectors who want a physical
>copy of every chart-topper have to admit defeat.
This song is still listed in the 'coming soon' section of the new
release schedule, but actually doing so seems daft now, as it would be
the first #1 *never* to have been physically released if they didn't.
>
>> While technically a new entry, Viva La Vida has in fact been selling
>> enough copies for a high chart entry for several weeks (4th highest last
>> Sunday), but had been declared chart-ineligible on a dubious criteria.
>
>Apparently, though, there were only enough individual sales for a Top 30
>position last week, so perhaps EMI just didn't want them to count.
Or all sales were ineligible because *some* of them were?
>
>BTW, Mint Royale have fallen 1-8: is that a record for a single that spent
>more than one week at the top?
Emma Bunton's 'What Took You So Long' dropped to #8 after 2 weeks at #1.
Harry Belefonte's 'Mary's Boy Child' dropped straight to #12 after 7
weeks at #1.
There may be other examples, but I don't have the info to check. I'll
ask at Buzzjack/Haven
>
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Ne-Yo #2,
>
>This is, er, not growing on me much.
For me, it's about as appealing as a malignant cancer.
>
>>Sara Bareilles #4,
>
>The trouble with this continuing to climb is that I haven't got all that
>much to say about it. Er, some people say she's embarassed about her nose.
Why, what's wrong with it?
>
>> Chris Brown #5,
>
>This appears to have the beat from that Taio Cruz record, but none of the
>rest of the record is in time with it.
His best chart position so far...
>
>>Jordin Sparks ft CB #10
... but this might beat it.
>
>Still don't really get this.
Well, she's supposedly America's answer to Leona Lewis...
>
>> Top 20 : Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #14,
>
>Out on CD on the 30th.
I've a feeling that it may climb only modestly next week, as any pent-up
demand will have been released, and it's not airplay-friendly. In the
21/6 chart week, just 18 spins, at #99 - and it made no impression on
the T50 last week either.
>
>> Jonas Brothers #16
>
>The latest Disney Channel stars who've attracted comparisons to Hanson
>because they're siblings, although they sound more like a cross between
>Avril Lavigne and Busted: indeed they have covered a Busted song.
This is a full-release position too, so we can hope for a swift fall.
>
>> Top 30 : Billiam #23,
>
>'My Generation' is not the Who song or even the Limp Bizkit one, but the
>second hit for dubious boyband Billiam
Though Fearne & Reggie seemed to be totally clueless on that - so what's
new... :)
>, and a Top 30 hit thanks to the
>plethora of mixes available on download (and two physical formats).
Ditto my comment for the #16
>Apart from the fact that it's only Number 23,this does sound very Nineties.
>BTW, weren't F&R already presenting the chart show when they had their first
>hit in September?
Not sure.
We can only hope they won't still be presenting it by *this* September,
though! :)
Their bloody waffling drives me up the wall - who gives a fuck about
people who got things stuck up their nose, for example! :(
>
>> Flo-Rida/Timbaland #27,
>
>I still think this has a lot of flaws. Geddit???!!
Groan.
It's taken 12 weeks to get *this* far, and is finally out on CD today,
if anyone could be bothered waiting this long. By my reckoning, it must
have sold over 30k already.
>
>> Maroon 5/Rihanna #28
>
>Chart run to date: 29-30-28. Possibly a bit too consistent for its own good
>there.
Physical release cancelled, it appears.
>
>> Top 40 : Cage The Elephant #32,
>
>Quite aside from my own concern for animal rights, another reason not to
>like the idea of caging elephants is the possibility that they might trample
>awful bands like this.
Grin.
>They could become another Killers
>or another Jason Downes.
Who?
>
>>Weezer #40
>
>Out tomorrow on CD & 7"s.
How much difference will they make, though?
>
>> Re-entries T40 : Nickelback (Ph) #29
>
>Which, despite what I said, matches its original peak.
With the CD re-release today...
>
>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>
>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place twice.
No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>
>>Subways #43,
>
>I've got them at 44 here
You're right.
>, with Snap! at 43 (listed as a new entry due to an
>import CD release).
On my spreadsheet, it won't be. :)
>Either way, though, it's not great news for the Subs, who seem at risk of
>becoming an underground band.
6 feet under, you mean?
>
>>Freemasons (WYTM) #45,
>
>Out on CD & 12" on the 30th.
They seem to do better when mixing for others, than on their own,
though.
>
>>MGMT #50,
>
>According to HMV, this is out on CD & 7" on the 26th! Possibly a misprint
>there.
It is listed for physical release this week, but not stated as the 26th.
>Weird video, either way.
Haven't seen it.
>
>>Infadels #52,
>
>Call me petty, but I've never been abel to get over the name there.
Hmmm...
>
>>Potbelleez #54,
>
>I could say I'd heard this and formed an opinion. But I'd be telling
>porkies.
I have - and IMO it has the position it deserved.
>
>> Coldplay (Lost) #55,
>
>The third biggest-seller from the album, possibly because there's an
>acoustic version on iTunes.
Is that really enough on it's own to send it this high, though?
>
>>Estelle (NSL) #73
>
>Out on CDs on the 30th. And that really is the title, even though it looks
>like there's a word missing.
Hopefully there'll be a T40 position missing.
>
>> Re-entries : Coldplay (FY) #61,
>
>My least favourite Coldplay single, if anyone wanted to know.
I liked it more than 'Speed Of Sound'...
>
>>Lynryd Skynyrd (SHA) #68,
>
>Presumably reflected glory, if you can call it that, from the Kid Rock
>single.
AIUI Kid Rock is boycotting iTunes, so that won't exactly help his
version!
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Coldplay outsell the #2 by 5-1, for their 2nd week at the top.
>
>Nothing unexpected there.
16 consecutive weeks in the T4 for Duffy, yet probably overtaken by 3
weeks Coldplay sales...
>
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Darren Styles #4,
>
>His first artist album is a double, featuring discs subtitled "hardcore" and
>"commercial". Both include collaborations with Ultrabeat, who like Styles
>and to a lesser extent Scooter seem to be turning conventional wisdom on its
>head by selling better on the album market even as their singles fail.
Well, once you've seen one video packed with hot babes, you've seen them
all. :)
>
>> Feeder #8,
>
>Sixth album, apparently something of a return to their rock roots.
>There's a limited edition with extra artwork and two bonus tracks; actually
>the only version I could see on the shelves this week, which may reveal who
>the shops thought would be interested.
Limited numbers of customers? :)
>
>> Sara Bareilles #9
>
>Little Voice. Not a lot of songwriting either.
Not unattractive though.
>
>> Top 20 : Fleet Foxes #11,
>
>The big "indie" release of the week (it's actually distributed by Universal
>in the UK) is the debut full-length set by this vaguely hippy-sounding
>Seattle group.
Their name, or their music?
>
>>Dennis Wilson #16,
>I should probably buy it myself, as I've
>already got a bootleg copy...
I only know the Beach Boys main hits.
>
>> Petula Clark #17
>
>Not by any stretch of the imagination her first retrospective, but there are
>a handful of new recordings, as well as duets with Michael McDonald and
>Dusty Springfield.
I must get a copy... for the next time I have insomnia.
>
>> Music #19
>
>Rather belated third set from the Yorkshire group, who still have a
>guitarist called Adam Nutter. And that's still the most interesting thing
>about them.
>And yes, there is a special edition with two more songs on it.
How special are 'special editions' when *everyone* is releasing them?
>
>> New outside the top 20 : Weezer #21,
>
>Third in their occasional series of untitled albums referred to by the
>colour of the sleeve, in this case Red.
I have this titled as 'Weezer'.
>For the first time in their career all the members of the band have
>contributed to the writing.
>A special edition adds four bonus tracks, though even the standard UK disc
>is two tracks longer than the American version.
No wonder album sales are lousy there.
>
>>Judas Priest #30,
>
>Back again with their second album since reuniting, and this time it's a 2CD
>concept album about Nostradamus. Obviously. S
No kidding? :)
>
>>Offspring #39
>
>In the years since their last album, I'd pretty much forgotten about them.
>But here they are with an eighth album, produced by Bob Rock.
>It's described as a more mature record than previous ones, for what that's
>worth.
Having no single to promote it doesn't exactly help.
>
>> Re-entries : Dolly Prton (VBO) #23,
>
>Republicised.
Quite successfully it seems.
>
>>MGMT #57, Estelle #63,
>
>New singles.
No, definitely old albums... :)
>
> >Mika #64, Bon
>> Jovi (Best Of) #68, Mariah (GH) #71, LInkin Park (MTM) #73
>
>Probably just filling the space left by the departing Father's Day stuff.
Yes, they dropped like McFlys. :)
>UB40 are conspicuous by their absence.
I noticed that, too.
>
>> Next Week
>> ---------
>> Singles
>> -------
>
>> Top 5 : Gabriella Cilmi (please!)
>
>What do you think would drop out, in that case?
Rihanna and/or Sara B.
>
>> Top 10 : Jordin Sparks,
>
>You think so? ;-)
Well, that includes new peaks too.
>
>> Busta Rhymes
>
>Very likely.
Quite likely - but see earlier comment.
>
>> Top 30 : Mariah Carey,
>
>Probably not to be one of her bigger hits.
Despite her sexy efforts in the video...
>
>> Weezer,
>
>That's what I'd have said a few days ago, but now it's done well on
>downloads I'm starting to wonder whether they could sneak another Top 20
>hit.
They'd need a dramatic gain on physicals, though.
>
>> Nickelback
>
>Probably not to be a big physical seller, so this is believable.
Especially since they are already there. :)
>
>>MGMT,
>
>I think so.
Though their appeal escapes me.
>
>> Any other possibilities?
>
>There's supposed to be a new Dirty Pretty Things single out but I'm not sure
>I believe that.
Yes, the NR sched is about as reliable as politicians promise these
days...
>On more solid ground, Glasvegas are the latest of the tipped-for-2008 acts
>to get a record out.
But unlike the others, they seem to have had no publicity (that I've
seen).
>The Buy Now! record has had some R1 support but is
>perhaps a bit too odd for mainstream success.
<Cough>Spiderpig<cough>
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Still can't see anything to challenge Coldplay.
>
>Probably not.
If something beats it this week, I'll put some money on a British man to
win Wimbledon...!
>
>> Top 20 NE : Chris Brown,
>
>Arguably a re-entry rather than a new one, but likely to beat its original
>peak.
Especially if it has the Jordin Sparks duet.
>
>> Others : Billy Idol, Donna Summer, Hawkwind,
>
>Er, what century is it again? ;-)
Grin.
>
>>Sigur Ros,
>
>Stands a good chance of doing better, when even that odd live thing got to
>23.
Perhaps.
>
>>Blondie,
>
>This is just another repackage of Parallel Lines.
Should still chart, though.
>
>> And You Will Know Us...,
>
>A live album from an act who struggle to chart at the best of times?
Didn't realise it was live.
Jan Buxton
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 at 23:44:11, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>> Third in their occasional series of untitled albums referred to by the
>> colour of the sleeve, in this case Red.
>
> I have this titled as 'Weezer'.
Given that it lacks anything else on the cover thats what it has to be.
Just got my copy, really good. I think joins the Blue Album and the
Green Album in being my favourite Weezer records.
--
Jan
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 at 23:44:11, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> After 9 years of trying, and several near misses,
>>
>>Two anyway.
>
> But some of their other singles were better than the ones that got
> closest.
Which I'd tend to agree with. But I don't think 'Shiver' getting to Number
35 counts as a near miss.
> Of course, with their level of album sales, anything released *after* the
> album is doomed before it starts.
Apart from this apparently.
>>> Coldplay *finally* get their first #1 single!
>>
>>The first Number One single with a foreign-language title since 'Deja Vu'
>>in
>>2006. Of course it's also the point where collectors who want a physical
>>copy of every chart-topper have to admit defeat.
>
> This song is still listed in the 'coming soon' section of the new release
> schedule, but actually doing so seems daft now, as it would be the first
> #1 *never* to have been physically released if they didn't.
And it's hard to see what a physical release can add really.
>>> While technically a new entry, Viva La Vida has in fact been selling
>>> enough copies for a high chart entry for several weeks (4th highest last
>>> Sunday), but had been declared chart-ineligible on a dubious criteria.
>>
>>Apparently, though, there were only enough individual sales for a Top 30
>>position last week, so perhaps EMI just didn't want them to count.
>
> Or all sales were ineligible because *some* of them were?
That's also possible.
>>BTW, Mint Royale have fallen 1-8: is that a record for a single that spent
>>more than one week at the top?
>
> Emma Bunton's 'What Took You So Long' dropped to #8 after 2 weeks at #1.
I'd forgotten that.
> Harry Belefonte's 'Mary's Boy Child' dropped straight to #12 after 7 weeks
> at #1.
And I really should have thought of Christmas records too.
> There may be other examples, but I don't have the info to check. I'll ask
> at Buzzjack/Haven
Oh well. It was a thought.
>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>>Sara Bareilles #4,
>>
>>The trouble with this continuing to climb is that I haven't got all that
>>much to say about it. Er, some people say she's embarassed about her nose.
>
> Why, what's wrong with it?
I don't know. It might explain the album cover though.
>>> Chris Brown #5,
>>
>>This appears to have the beat from that Taio Cruz record, but none of the
>>rest of the record is in time with it.
>
> His best chart position so far...
Apart from when 'Run It' got to Number 2?
>>>Jordin Sparks ft CB #10
>
> ... but this might beat it.
That I wouldn't rule out.
>>Still don't really get this.
>
> Well, she's supposedly America's answer to Leona Lewis...
I don't even get that.
>>> Top 20 : Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #14,
>>
>>Out on CD on the 30th.
>
> I've a feeling that it may climb only modestly next week, as any pent-up
> demand will have been released, and it's not airplay-friendly. In the 21/6
> chart week, just 18 spins, at #99 - and it made no impression on the T50
> last week either.
I wouldn't say it was exceptionally airplay-unfriendly either, though, it's
just lame. Perhaps the video will help it?
>>> Jonas Brothers #16
>>
>>The latest Disney Channel stars who've attracted comparisons to Hanson
>>because they're siblings, although they sound more like a cross between
>>Avril Lavigne and Busted: indeed they have covered a Busted song.
>
> This is a full-release position too, so we can hope for a swift fall.
But not bank on it - remember how that HS Musical track hung around?
>>> Top 30 : Billiam #23,
>>
>>'My Generation' is not the Who song or even the Limp Bizkit one, but the
>>second hit for dubious boyband Billiam
>
> Though Fearne & Reggie seemed to be totally clueless on that - so what's
> new... :)
I didn't really remember it either until I looked it up, though.
>>, and a Top 30 hit thanks to the
>>plethora of mixes available on download (and two physical formats).
>
> Ditto my comment for the #16
About dropping? Yes.
I wonder if they can match We Are Scientists, who apparently fell 37-194.
>>Apart from the fact that it's only Number 23,this does sound very
>>Nineties.
>>BTW, weren't F&R already presenting the chart show when they had their
>>first
>>hit in September?
>
> Not sure.
I sort of thought they were.
> We can only hope they won't still be presenting it by *this* September,
> though! :)
>
> Their bloody waffling drives me up the wall - who gives a fuck about
> people who got things stuck up their nose, for example! :(
Even then they seemed to be at risk of underrunning.
It was funny when that texter predicted Weezer for Number One though.
>>> Flo-Rida/Timbaland #27,
>>
>>I still think this has a lot of flaws. Geddit???!!
>
> Groan.
I've got to keep up that standard for next week now. Ahem.
>>> Maroon 5/Rihanna #28
>>
>>Chart run to date: 29-30-28. Possibly a bit too consistent for its own
>>good
>>there.
>
> Physical release cancelled, it appears.
Really?
>>> Top 40 : Cage The Elephant #32,
>>
>>They could become another Killers
>
>>or another Jason Downes.
>
> Who?
Exactly!
>>>Weezer #40
>>
>>Out tomorrow on CD & 7"s.
>
> How much difference will they make, though?
I thought quite a lot, as they're a bit of a fanbase act.
>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>>
>>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place twice.
>
> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>>>Subways #43,
>>
>>I've got them at 44 here
>
> You're right.
Thought so.
>>, with Snap! at 43 (listed as a new entry due to an
>>import CD release).
>
> On my spreadsheet, it won't be. :)
Good excuse to mention that I recently heard the only other Number One
single I know of that mentions Cancer.
>>Either way, though, it's not great news for the Subs, who seem at risk of
>>becoming an underground band.
>
> 6 feet under, you mean?
That's sort of the pun I was aiming at, yep.
>>>Freemasons (WYTM) #45,
>>
>>Out on CD & 12" on the 30th.
>
> They seem to do better when mixing for others, than on their own, though.
A bit yes, although this obviously isn't over yet.
>>>MGMT #50,
>>
>>According to HMV, this is out on CD & 7" on the 26th! Possibly a misprint
>>there.
>
> It is listed for physical release this week, but not stated as the 26th.
Yes, I think they meant the 23rd.
>>Weird video, either way.
>
> Haven't seen it.
I think they're in a jungle with some monsters or something.
>>> Coldplay (Lost) #55,
>>
>>The third biggest-seller from the album, possibly because there's an
>>acoustic version on iTunes.
>
> Is that really enough on it's own to send it this high, though?
Not entirely on its own, no, but it does give it an advantage over 'Lovers
In Japan', '42' and the other songs.
BTW, for some reason 'Yes' is not available from iTunes, although it's on
every other site I've looked at.
>>> Re-entries : Coldplay (FY) #61,
>>
>>My least favourite Coldplay single, if anyone wanted to know.
>
> I liked it more than 'Speed Of Sound'...
I didn't, obviously.
Actually, I was never that keen on 'The Hardest Part' but that wasn't
exactly a single.
>>>Lynryd Skynyrd (SHA) #68,
>>
>>Presumably reflected glory, if you can call it that, from the Kid Rock
>>single.
>
> AIUI Kid Rock is boycotting iTunes, so that won't exactly help his
> version!
Possibly not the most effective boycott ever, as he's currently Number One
on their video chart. I guess he's just trying to look rebellious.
>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>> Top 10 : Darren Styles #4,
>>
>>His first artist album is a double, featuring discs subtitled "hardcore"
>>and
>>"commercial". Both include collaborations with Ultrabeat, who like Styles
>>and to a lesser extent Scooter seem to be turning conventional wisdom on
>>its
>>head by selling better on the album market even as their singles fail.
>
> Well, once you've seen one video packed with hot babes, you've seen them
> all. :)
But the singles are presumably promoting the albums, that's the curious bit.
>>> Feeder #8,
>>
>>Sixth album, apparently something of a return to their rock roots.
>>There's a limited edition with extra artwork and two bonus tracks;
>>actually
>>the only version I could see on the shelves this week, which may reveal
>>who
>>the shops thought would be interested.
>
> Limited numbers of customers? :)
Well, yes, but in particular only the sort of fans who'd happily pay the
extra few quid for this version.
>>
>>> Top 20 : Fleet Foxes #11,
>>
>>The big "indie" release of the week (it's actually distributed by
>>Universal
>>in the UK) is the debut full-length set by this vaguely hippy-sounding
>>Seattle group.
>
> Their name, or their music?
Both really, but I was referring to the music. You can draw your own
conclusions about the name.
>>>Dennis Wilson #16,
>
>>I should probably buy it myself, as I've
>>already got a bootleg copy...
>
> I only know the Beach Boys main hits.
Legend has it that Dennis Wilson was intended to do the lead vocal on 'Good
Vibrations', but had lost his voice on the night when he was supposed to be
doing it. He never did get to sing lead on a UK hit.
>>> Petula Clark #17
>>
>>Not by any stretch of the imagination her first retrospective, but there
>>are
>>a handful of new recordings, as well as duets with Michael McDonald and
>>Dusty Springfield.
>
> I must get a copy... for the next time I have insomnia.
Well, I suppose 'Downtown' was not a bad record.
>>> Music #19
>>
>>Rather belated third set from the Yorkshire group, who still have a
>>guitarist called Adam Nutter. And that's still the most interesting thing
>>about them.
>>And yes, there is a special edition with two more songs on it.
>
> How special are 'special editions' when *everyone* is releasing them?
Actually, they mostly seem to be from the same couple of record labels. But
anyway, they're supposed to be special relative to the standard versions of
the album.
>>> New outside the top 20 : Weezer #21,
>>
>>Third in their occasional series of untitled albums referred to by the
>>colour of the sleeve, in this case Red.
>
> I have this titled as 'Weezer'.
That is the only title on the sleeve, but the same applies to their debut
album, which fans apparently refer to as The Blue Album; as an apparent
in-joke their third and now sixth album also have no titles on the cover but
are supposed to be called The Green Album and The Red Album respectively.
Their other three sets have more conventional titles.
>>For the first time in their career all the members of the band have
>>contributed to the writing.
>>A special edition adds four bonus tracks, though even the standard UK disc
>>is two tracks longer than the American version.
>
> No wonder album sales are lousy there.
Heh.
I wonder if that's why they postponed the UK release?
>>>Judas Priest #30,
>>
>>Back again with their second album since reuniting, and this time it's a
>>2CD
>>concept album about Nostradamus. Obviously. S
>
> No kidding? :)
I wonder whether he predicted that.
>>>Offspring #39
>>
>>In the years since their last album, I'd pretty much forgotten about them.
>>But here they are with an eighth album, produced by Bob Rock.
>>It's described as a more mature record than previous ones, for what that's
>>worth.
>
> Having no single to promote it doesn't exactly help.
Only if you assume that Offspring singles encourage people to buy albums: I
have to say they haven't tended to have that effect on me!
Also, their last couple of single releases have flopped, and the one before
that was well after the album.
>> >Mika #64, Bon
>>> Jovi (Best Of) #68, Mariah (GH) #71, LInkin Park (MTM) #73
>>
>>Probably just filling the space left by the departing Father's Day stuff.
>
> Yes, they dropped like McFlys. :)
Although you'd think Bon Jovi would have been part of that group.
>>UB40 are conspicuous by their absence.
>
> I noticed that, too.
Possibly a peril of giving your album away, although the commercial CD is an
extended version. Not an ideal send-off for Ali Campbell, you might say.
>>> Next Week
>>> ---------
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> Top 30 : Mariah Carey,
>>
>>Probably not to be one of her bigger hits.
>
> Despite her sexy efforts in the video...
Perhaps that's too uncomfortable a juxtaposition with the meaning of the
song, though.
>>> Weezer,
>>
>>That's what I'd have said a few days ago, but now it's done well on
>>downloads I'm starting to wonder whether they could sneak another Top 20
>>hit.
>
> They'd need a dramatic gain on physicals, though.
They would, but that doesn't mean they won't get one.
>>> Nickelback
>>
>>Probably not to be a big physical seller, so this is believable.
>
> Especially since they are already there. :)
That's what I mean - I don't think the CD single will send this straight to
the Top 10.
>>>MGMT,
>>
>>I think so.
>
> Though their appeal escapes me.
I like some of the instrumental bits, but the vocals are annoying.
>>> Any other possibilities?
>>
>>There's supposed to be a new Dirty Pretty Things single out but I'm not
>>sure
>>I believe that.
>
> Yes, the NR sched is about as reliable as politicians promise these
> days...
Having said which, I actually did see it on the shelves today, so I suppose
it will be a hit.
>>On more solid ground, Glasvegas are the latest of the tipped-for-2008 acts
>>to get a record out.
>
> But unlike the others, they seem to have had no publicity (that I've
> seen).
They're on the front of the NME this week. Apparently they're the best band
in Britain. And I saw them on Later a few weeks ago, where they were
surprisingly OK.
>>The Buy Now! record has had some R1 support but is
>>perhaps a bit too odd for mainstream success.
>
> <Cough>Spiderpig<cough>
Well, that's what I meant by perhaps.
>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> Still can't see anything to challenge Coldplay.
>>
>>Probably not.
>
> If something beats it this week, I'll put some money on a British man to
> win Wimbledon...!
In a raffle?
>>> Top 20 NE : Chris Brown,
>>
>>Arguably a re-entry rather than a new one, but likely to beat its original
>>peak.
>
> Especially if it has the Jordin Sparks duet.
Which I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
>>>Sigur Ros,
>>
>>Stands a good chance of doing better, when even that odd live thing got to
>>23.
>
> Perhaps.
Well, this is a proper studio album. And Woolworths are stocking it
prominently, despite the nudity on the cover.
>>>Blondie,
>>
>>This is just another repackage of Parallel Lines.
>
> Should still chart, though.
Why? It's not like people haven't had ample opportunity to buy it before.
>>> And You Will Know Us...,
>>
>>A live album from an act who struggle to chart at the best of times?
>
> Didn't realise it was live.
Actually, it turns out there are two: one from Emo's in Austin TX and one
from First Avenue, wherever that is.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>>> After 9 years of trying, and several near misses,
>>>
>>>Two anyway.
>>
>> But some of their other singles were better than the ones that got
>> closest.
>
>Which I'd tend to agree with. But I don't think 'Shiver' getting to Number
>35 counts as a near miss.
Or 'Brothers & Sisters' at #92 in 1999... :)
>
>> Of course, with their level of album sales, anything released *after* the
>> album is doomed before it starts.
>
>Apart from this apparently.
But it *wasn't* released after the album, technically...
>
>>>> Coldplay *finally* get their first #1 single!
>>>
>>>Of course it's also the point where collectors who want a physical
>>>copy of every chart-topper have to admit defeat.
They'll have to burn it to CD...
>>
>> This song is still listed in the 'coming soon' section of the new release
>> schedule, but actually doing so seems daft now, as it would be the first
>> #1 *never* to have been physically released if they didn't.
>
>And it's hard to see what a physical release can add really.
To the song, or the sales? :)
>
>>>BTW, Mint Royale have fallen 1-8: is that a record for a single that spent
>>>more than one week at the top?
>>
>> Emma Bunton's 'What Took You So Long' dropped to #8 after 2 weeks at #1.
>
>I'd forgotten that.
Deliberately? :)
It's actually one of my favourites - and she looks incredible in the
video!
>
>> There may be other examples, but I don't have the info to check. I'll ask
>> at Buzzjack/Haven
>
>Oh well. It was a thought.
Iron Maiden 1-9
Flying Pickets 1-10
>
>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>> ---------------------
>
>>>> Chris Brown #5,
>>>
>>>This appears to have the beat from that Taio Cruz record, but none of the
>>>rest of the record is in time with it.
>>
>> His best chart position so far...
>
>Apart from when 'Run It' got to Number 2?
Err - oh, yes...
>
>>>>Jordin Sparks ft CB #10
>>
>> ... but this might beat it.
>
>That I wouldn't rule out.
Though I wouldn't have posted this comment if I remembered 'Run It'.
>
>>>Still don't really get this.
>>
>> Well, she's supposedly America's answer to Leona Lewis...
>
>I don't even get that.
Both young black female ballad singers; both talent show winners...
>
>>>> Top 20 : Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #14,
>>>
>>>Out on CD on the 30th.
>>
>> I've a feeling that it may climb only modestly next week, as any pent-up
>> demand will have been released, and it's not airplay-friendly. In the 21/6
>> chart week, just 18 spins, at #99 - and it made no impression on the T50
>> last week either.
>
>I wouldn't say it was exceptionally airplay-unfriendly either, though, it's
>just lame.
No argument there.
>Perhaps the video will help it?
Because rappers & rockers are so photogenic? :)
>
>>>> Jonas Brothers #16
>>>
>>>The latest Disney Channel stars who've attracted comparisons to Hanson
>>>because they're siblings, although they sound more like a cross between
>>>Avril Lavigne and Busted: indeed they have covered a Busted song.
>>
>> This is a full-release position too, so we can hope for a swift fall.
>
>But not bank on it - remember how that HS Musical track hung around?
It charted lower on downloads though, and they are essential for longer
chart runs nowadays.
>
>>>> Top 30 : Billiam #23,
>>>
>>>'My Generation' is not the Who song or even the Limp Bizkit one, but the
>>>second hit for dubious boyband Billiam
>>
>> Though Fearne & Reggie seemed to be totally clueless on that - so what's
>> new... :)
>
>I didn't really remember it either until I looked it up, though.
I didn't remember the song, but *did* remember it had gone T40.
>I wonder if they can match We Are Scientists, who apparently fell 37-194.
I can't confirm that yet, but it suggests virtually no download sales at
all in that #37 position.
>>
>> Their bloody waffling drives me up the wall - who gives a fuck about
>> people who got things stuck up their nose, for example! :(
>
>Even then they seemed to be at risk of underrunning.
Then they should try extending the album chart segment...!
>>>> Maroon 5/Rihanna #28
>>>
>>>Chart run to date: 29-30-28. Possibly a bit too consistent for its own
>>>good
>>>there.
>>
>> Physical release cancelled, it appears.
>
>Really?
No longer listed.
>
>>>>Weezer #40
>>>
>>>Out tomorrow on CD & 7"s.
>>
>> How much difference will they make, though?
>
>I thought quite a lot, as they're a bit of a fanbase act.
OK.
>
>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>>>
>>>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place twice.
>>
>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>
>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>
I thought they were Scottish?
>
>>>, with Snap! at 43 (listed as a new entry due to an
>>>import CD release).
>>
>> On my spreadsheet, it won't be. :)
>
>Good excuse to mention that I recently heard the only other Number One
>single I know of that mentions Cancer.
>
Need I ask which?
>
>>>>Lynryd Skynyrd (SHA) #68,
>>>
>>>Presumably reflected glory, if you can call it that, from the Kid Rock
>>>single.
>>
>> AIUI Kid Rock is boycotting iTunes, so that won't exactly help his
>> version!
>
>Possibly not the most effective boycott ever, as he's currently Number One
>on their video chart.
But that presumably won't count towards singles sales?
>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> Top 10 :
>
>>>> Feeder #8,
>>>
>>>There's a limited edition with extra artwork and two bonus tracks;
>>>actually
>>>the only version I could see on the shelves this week, which may reveal
>>>who
>>>the shops thought would be interested.
>>
>> Limited numbers of customers? :)
>
>Well, yes, but in particular only the sort of fans who'd happily pay the
>extra few quid for this version.
Suckers with more money than sense, you mean? :)
>>>
>>>> Top 20 :
>
>>>> Petula Clark #17
>>
>> I must get a copy... for the next time I have insomnia.
>
>Well, I suppose 'Downtown' was not a bad record.
I preferred Emma B's cover.
>
>>>> Music #19
>>>
>>>Rather belated third set from the Yorkshire group, who still have a
>>>guitarist called Adam Nutter. And that's still the most interesting thing
>>>about them.
>>>And yes, there is a special edition with two more songs on it.
>>
>> How special are 'special editions' when *everyone* is releasing them?
>
>Actually, they mostly seem to be from the same couple of record labels. But
>anyway, they're supposed to be special relative to the standard versions of
>the album.
Makes you wonder though : if you stuck the words 'special edition' &
upped the price a bit, would fans still buy it even if it was actually
the unchanged original album in the box? :)
>>>UB40 are conspicuous by their absence.
>>
>> I noticed that, too.
>
>Possibly a peril of giving your album away
Did they?
>, although the commercial CD is an
>extended version. Not an ideal send-off for Ali Campbell, you might say.
It was #81.
>
>>>> Next Week
>>>> ---------
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>>On more solid ground, Glasvegas are the latest of the tipped-for-2008 acts
>>>to get a record out.
>>
>> But unlike the others, they seem to have had no publicity (that I've
>> seen).
>
>They're on the front of the NME this week.
They're an indie band then - their video would presumably appear on MTV2
which I don't watch.
>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>
>>>>Sigur Ros,
>>>
>>>Stands a good chance of doing better, when even that odd live thing got to
>>>23.
>>
>> Perhaps.
>
>Well, this is a proper studio album. And Woolworths are stocking it
>prominently, despite the nudity on the cover.
Male or female?
>
>>>>Blondie,
>>>
>>>This is just another repackage of Parallel Lines.
>>
>> Should still chart, though.
>
>Why? It's not like people haven't had ample opportunity to buy it before.
Unlike Coldplay's back catalogue? :)
Paul Hyett
in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> Third in their occasional series of untitled albums referred to by the
>>> colour of the sleeve, in this case Red.
>> I have this titled as 'Weezer'.
>
>Given that it lacks anything else on the cover thats what it has to be.
>Just got my copy, really good. I think joins the Blue Album and the
>Green Album in being my favourite Weezer records.
How many albums have they released?
Jan Buxton
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 at 18:14:10, Jan Buxton <ja...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote
> in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>> Third in their occasional series of untitled albums referred to by the
>>>> colour of the sleeve, in this case Red.
>
>>> I have this titled as 'Weezer'.
>>
>> Given that it lacks anything else on the cover thats what it has to
>> be. Just got my copy, really good. I think joins the Blue Album and
>> the Green Album in being my favourite Weezer records.
>
> How many albums have they released?
6.
Weezer (The Blue Album) - 1994
Pinkerton - 1996
Weezer (The Green Album) - 2001
Maladroit - 2002
Make Believe - 2005
Weezer (The Red Album) - 2008
--
Jan
Robbie
and all of them are quite good..
--
Robbie
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 at 23:39:28, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>> After 9 years of trying, and several near misses,
>>>>
>>>>Two anyway.
>>>
>>> But some of their other singles were better than the ones that got
>>> closest.
>>
>>Which I'd tend to agree with. But I don't think 'Shiver' getting to Number
>>35 counts as a near miss.
>
> Or 'Brothers & Sisters' at #92 in 1999... :)
Indeed not. As an aside, BTW, I loaded 'Brothers And Sisters' onto my MP3
player a few weeks ago and was fairly impressed. If anything it sounds
better now than it did at the time.
>>> Of course, with their level of album sales, anything released *after*
>>> the
>>> album is doomed before it starts.
>>
>>Apart from this apparently.
>
> But it *wasn't* released after the album, technically...
No, but it did top the chart after it.
>>>>> Coldplay *finally* get their first #1 single!
>>>>
>>>>Of course it's also the point where collectors who want a physical
>>>>copy of every chart-topper have to admit defeat.
>
> They'll have to burn it to CD...
Or use the album as a proxy.
>>> This song is still listed in the 'coming soon' section of the new
>>> release
>>> schedule, but actually doing so seems daft now, as it would be the first
>>> #1 *never* to have been physically released if they didn't.
>>
>>And it's hard to see what a physical release can add really.
>
> To the song, or the sales? :)
Well, it would (presumably) add sales, but I don't know if it would make it
any more of a hit in a meaningful way. Obviously it can't improve upon the
chart peak!
>>>>BTW, Mint Royale have fallen 1-8: is that a record for a single that
>>>>spent
>>>>more than one week at the top?
>>>
>>> Emma Bunton's 'What Took You So Long' dropped to #8 after 2 weeks at #1.
>>
>>I'd forgotten that.
>
> Deliberately? :)
Nope.
> It's actually one of my favourites - and she looks incredible in the
> video!
I do remember the song - which I think is alright actually. I just didn't
remember the chart run.
>>> There may be other examples, but I don't have the info to check. I'll
>>> ask
>>> at Buzzjack/Haven
>>
>>Oh well. It was a thought.
>
> Iron Maiden 1-9
No surprise there. Apart from the fact that they managed two weeks at the
top in the first place.
> Flying Pickets 1-10
That's a very strange looking chart run, isn't it?
>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>> ---------------------
>>
>>>>> Chris Brown #5,
>>>>
>>>>This appears to have the beat from that Taio Cruz record, but none of
>>>>the
>>>>rest of the record is in time with it.
>>>
>>> His best chart position so far...
>>
>>Apart from when 'Run It' got to Number 2?
>
> Err - oh, yes...
>>
>>>>>Jordin Sparks ft CB #10
>>>
>>> ... but this might beat it.
>>
>>That I wouldn't rule out.
>
> Though I wouldn't have posted this comment if I remembered 'Run It'.
It could theoretically do it. But too early to say.
>>>>Still don't really get this.
>>>
>>> Well, she's supposedly America's answer to Leona Lewis...
>>
>>I don't even get that.
>
> Both young black female ballad singers; both talent show winners...
I'm aware of those facts, but I don't think that's particularly meaningful.
Richard Hawley and Joe Satriani are both white male guitarists who didn't
appear on talent shows, but I wouldn't call them equivalent.
>>>>> Top 20 : Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #14,
>>>>
>>>>Out on CD on the 30th.
>>>
>>> I've a feeling that it may climb only modestly next week, as any pent-up
>>> demand will have been released, and it's not airplay-friendly. In the
>>> 21/6
>>> chart week, just 18 spins, at #99 - and it made no impression on the T50
>>> last week either.
>>
>>I wouldn't say it was exceptionally airplay-unfriendly either, though,
>>it's
>>just lame.
>
> No argument there.
>
>>Perhaps the video will help it?
>
> Because rappers & rockers are so photogenic? :)
I thought girls liked Linkin Park.
>>>>> Jonas Brothers #16
>>>>
>>>>The latest Disney Channel stars who've attracted comparisons to Hanson
>>>>because they're siblings, although they sound more like a cross between
>>>>Avril Lavigne and Busted: indeed they have covered a Busted song.
>>>
>>> This is a full-release position too, so we can hope for a swift fall.
>>
>>But not bank on it - remember how that HS Musical track hung around?
>
> It charted lower on downloads though, and they are essential for longer
> chart runs nowadays.
Fair point.
>>>>> Top 30 : Billiam #23,
>>>>
>>>>'My Generation' is not the Who song or even the Limp Bizkit one, but the
>>>>second hit for dubious boyband Billiam
>>>
>>> Though Fearne & Reggie seemed to be totally clueless on that - so what's
>>> new... :)
>>
>>I didn't really remember it either until I looked it up, though.
>
> I didn't remember the song, but *did* remember it had gone T40.
I remember (now) that it was one of two songs in that week's chart that
mentioned Angelina Jolie. And if you think that's trivia, maybe I shouldn't
admit to noticing that both Billiam's hits to date share their titles with
songs that were hits in 1996 ('Beautiful Ones' was by Suede).
>>I wonder if they can match We Are Scientists, who apparently fell 37-194.
>
> I can't confirm that yet, but it suggests virtually no download sales at
> all in that #37 position.
Or that all the downloads they did sell were to fans getting the mixes and
things in the first week. Either would be consistent with minimal digital
sales the week before the physicals came out.
>>>>> Maroon 5/Rihanna #28
>>>>
>>>>Chart run to date: 29-30-28. Possibly a bit too consistent for its own
>>>>good
>>>>there.
>>>
>>> Physical release cancelled, it appears.
>>
>>Really?
>
> No longer listed.
You'd think M5 would need it at this stage.
>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>>>>
>>>>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place twice.
>>>
>>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>>
>>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>>
> I thought they were Scottish?
Yes, but the regional charts are physical-only aren't they?
>>>>, with Snap! at 43 (listed as a new entry due to an
>>>>import CD release).
>>>
>>> On my spreadsheet, it won't be. :)
>>
>>Good excuse to mention that I recently heard the only other Number One
>>single I know of that mentions Cancer.
>>
> Need I ask which?
'Float On' by the Floaters. They mean the astrological sign of course.
>>>>>Lynryd Skynyrd (SHA) #68,
>>>>
>>>>Presumably reflected glory, if you can call it that, from the Kid Rock
>>>>single.
>>>
>>> AIUI Kid Rock is boycotting iTunes, so that won't exactly help his
>>> version!
>>
>>Possibly not the most effective boycott ever, as he's currently Number One
>>on their video chart.
>
> But that presumably won't count towards singles sales?
Of course not. I just mean it's a bit two-faced of him to brag about
boycotting them. It'd be like telling people you were boycotting McDonalds
because you were buying the fries but not the burgers.
>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>
>>>>> Top 20 :
>>
>>>>> Petula Clark #17
>>>
>>> I must get a copy... for the next time I have insomnia.
>>
>>Well, I suppose 'Downtown' was not a bad record.
>
> I preferred Emma B's cover.
I didn't, quite.
Mind you, people who talk about how great music was in 1967 all seem to have
forgotten about 'This Is My Song' being Number One that year.
>>>>> Music #19
>>>>
>>>>Rather belated third set from the Yorkshire group, who still have a
>>>>guitarist called Adam Nutter. And that's still the most interesting
>>>>thing
>>>>about them.
>>>>And yes, there is a special edition with two more songs on it.
>>>
>>> How special are 'special editions' when *everyone* is releasing them?
>>
>>Actually, they mostly seem to be from the same couple of record labels.
>>But
>>anyway, they're supposed to be special relative to the standard versions
>>of
>>the album.
>
> Makes you wonder though : if you stuck the words 'special edition' & upped
> the price a bit, would fans still buy it even if it was actually the
> unchanged original album in the box? :)
Well, there are some special edition CDs that really are more glamorously
packaged versions of the original. And technically speaking, Universal used
to put those "SPECIAL EDITION" labels on all the CDs that had different UK
versions, and there's at least one of those where that literally did amount
to different-coloured lettering on the front.
>>>>UB40 are conspicuous by their absence.
>>>
>>> I noticed that, too.
>>
>>Possibly a peril of giving your album away
>
> Did they?
Yes. The album (or some of it at least) was attached to a Sunday newspaper.
>>, although the commercial CD is an
>>extended version. Not an ideal send-off for Ali Campbell, you might say.
>
> It was #81.
So I saw.
Back on the singles side, I also saw that even a Radio 1 A-listing and
reviving the 3" CD single format couldn't get Panic At The Disco into the
Top 90.
>>>>> Next Week
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>On more solid ground, Glasvegas are the latest of the tipped-for-2008
>>>>acts
>>>>to get a record out.
>>>
>>> But unlike the others, they seem to have had no publicity (that I've
>>> seen).
>>
>>They're on the front of the NME this week.
>
> They're an indie band then - their video would presumably appear on MTV2
> which I don't watch.
Presumably.
On their YouTube channel they describe themselves as Experimental/Surf/Pop
although that may be a joke.
>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>
>>>>>Sigur Ros,
>>>>
>>>>Stands a good chance of doing better, when even that odd live thing got
>>>>to
>>>>23.
>>>
>>> Perhaps.
>>
>>Well, this is a proper studio album. And Woolworths are stocking it
>>prominently, despite the nudity on the cover.
>
> Male or female?
It's a rear view, but I think it's male.
>>>>>Blondie,
>>>>
>>>>This is just another repackage of Parallel Lines.
>>>
>>> Should still chart, though.
>>
>>Why? It's not like people haven't had ample opportunity to buy it before.
>
> Unlike Coldplay's back catalogue? :)
Oh yes, silly me forgetting the new Blondie album selling 200,000 copies
this week. I didn't even see this in the shops, but maybe I missed it.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>>>
>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> closest.
>>>
>>>Which I'd tend to agree with. But I don't think 'Shiver' getting to Number
>>>35 counts as a near miss.
>>
>> Or 'Brothers & Sisters' at #92 in 1999... :)
>
>Indeed not. As an aside, BTW, I loaded 'Brothers And Sisters' onto my MP3
>player a few weeks ago and was fairly impressed. If anything it sounds
>better now than it did at the time.
Not that I'd know it, given when it was released, even if it hadn't
bombed.
>>>
>>>Apart from this apparently.
>>
>> But it *wasn't* released after the album, technically...
>
>No, but it did top the chart after it.
Maybe it would have done the week before, too.
We don't know if the quoted figure that would have given it 4th place,
was the whole picture - maybe that was just the number of sales that
*would* have been eligible?
>
>>>> There may be other examples
>>
>> Iron Maiden 1-9
>
>No surprise there. Apart from the fact that they managed two weeks at the
>top in the first place.
Was this what started the practice of rock/metal bands releasing in the
week after Xmas?
>
>> Flying Pickets 1-10
>
>That's a very strange looking chart run, isn't it?
Well, it *was* over the Xmas period...
>
>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>>>>>Jordin Sparks ft CB #10
>>>>
>>>> ... but this might beat it.
>>>
>>>That I wouldn't rule out.
>>
>> Though I wouldn't have posted this comment if I remembered 'Run It'.
>
>It could theoretically do it. But too early to say.
I hope not - having urban tracks go to #1 just encourages others... :)
Doing a quick check - I think 10 of this week's T20 singles could be
called urban.
>
>>>>>> Top 20 : Busta Rhymes/Linkin Park #14,
>>>>>
>>>>>Out on CD on the 30th.
>>>>
>>>> I've a feeling that it may climb only modestly next week, as any pent-up
>>>> demand will have been released, and it's not airplay-friendly. In the
>>>> 21/6
>>>> chart week, just 18 spins, at #99 - and it made no impression on the T50
>>>> last week either.
FYI, it is just #93 this week.
>
>>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>>>>>
>>>>>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place twice.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>>>
>>>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>>>
>> I thought they were Scottish?
>
>Yes, but the regional charts are physical-only aren't they?
Yes, but that hardly explains why it should appeal to the Welsh as well.
>>>
>>>Good excuse to mention that I recently heard the only other Number One
>>>single I know of that mentions Cancer.
>>>
>> Need I ask which?
>
>'Float On' by the Floaters.
You can remember that one? That's almost before *my* time!
>
>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>> ------
>>
>> Makes you wonder though : if you stuck the words 'special edition' & upped
>> the price a bit, would fans still buy it even if it was actually the
>> unchanged original album in the box? :)
>
>Well, there are some special edition CDs that really are more glamorously
>packaged versions of the original. And technically speaking, Universal used
>to put those "SPECIAL EDITION" labels on all the CDs that had different UK
>versions, and there's at least one of those where that literally did amount
>to different-coloured lettering on the front.
I wonder if my scenario would fall foul of the Trade Descriptions
Act...?
>
>>>>>UB40 are conspicuous by their absence.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that, too.
>>>
>>>Possibly a peril of giving your album away
>>
>> Did they?
>
>Yes. The album (or some of it at least) was attached to a Sunday newspaper.
On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to do
so with their forthcoming one :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7472226.stm
They are insanely optimistic if they really expect more than 1-2% of the
3m copies given away, to be listened to. I wouldn't even insult my
favourite cup by using it as a coaster. :)
Of course, they had a lot of trouble persuading people to *buy* their
last one - just one week in the T20...
The give-away date is 6 days after the release of their single though,
so they are not *totally* stupid...
>
>>>, although the commercial CD is an
>>>extended version. Not an ideal send-off for Ali Campbell, you might say.
>>
>> It was #81.
>
>So I saw.
>Back on the singles side, I also saw that even a Radio 1 A-listing and
>reviving the 3" CD single format couldn't get Panic At The Disco into the
>Top 90.
There seems to be some confusion over the title, too - C+ last week
listed it as 'F'N MTV Live EP'.
>
>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>Sigur Ros,
>>>
>>>Well, this is a proper studio album. And Woolworths are stocking it
>>>prominently, despite the nudity on the cover.
>>
>> Male or female?
>
>It's a rear view, but I think it's male.
Shame.
Seems to have worked though, from the Mids.
>
>>>>>>Blondie,
>>>>>
>>>>>This is just another repackage of Parallel Lines.
>>>>
>>>> Should still chart, though.
>>>
>>>Why? It's not like people haven't had ample opportunity to buy it before.
>>
>> Unlike Coldplay's back catalogue? :)
>
>Oh yes, silly me forgetting the new Blondie album selling 200,000 copies
>this week. I didn't even see this in the shops, but maybe I missed it.
My sarcasm detector just exploded...
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 at 22:54:35, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> But some of their other singles were better than the ones that got
>>>>> closest.
>>>>
>>>>Which I'd tend to agree with. But I don't think 'Shiver' getting to
>>>>Number
>>>>35 counts as a near miss.
>>>
>>> Or 'Brothers & Sisters' at #92 in 1999... :)
>>
>>Indeed not. As an aside, BTW, I loaded 'Brothers And Sisters' onto my MP3
>>player a few weeks ago and was fairly impressed. If anything it sounds
>>better now than it did at the time.
>
> Not that I'd know it, given when it was released, even if it hadn't
> bombed.
I'm not sure "bombed" is a word I'd use in this connexion. I don't think
anyone had any expectation of it doing any better.
Meanwhile, YouTube is your friend. Here's the original single:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiEeirUz-Ec
And here's a less good re-recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynez8pAtzOA
>>>>Apart from this apparently.
>>>
>>> But it *wasn't* released after the album, technically...
>>
>>No, but it did top the chart after it.
>
> Maybe it would have done the week before, too.
Don't think so.
> We don't know if the quoted figure that would have given it 4th place, was
> the whole picture - maybe that was just the number of sales that *would*
> have been eligible?
Apparently, that was the total number of sales, including the ones that
couldn't possibly have counted. AIUI, the "legit" sales would only have put
it into the Top 30.
>>>>> There may be other examples
>>>
>>> Iron Maiden 1-9
>>
>>No surprise there. Apart from the fact that they managed two weeks at the
>>top in the first place.
>
> Was this what started the practice of rock/metal bands releasing in the
> week after Xmas?
I very much doubt it - surely somebody had realised before that?
There are certainly earlier examples of records sneaking to the top after
the Christmas hits were out of the way, but of course most of them had
climbed from lower positions after a release in December.
>>> Flying Pickets 1-10
>>
>>That's a very strange looking chart run, isn't it?
>
> Well, it *was* over the Xmas period...
I suppose so, but it's not an obviously festive sound.
>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>>>>>Jordin Sparks ft CB #10
>>>>>
>>>>> ... but this might beat it.
>>>>
>>>>That I wouldn't rule out.
>>>
>>> Though I wouldn't have posted this comment if I remembered 'Run It'.
>>
>>It could theoretically do it. But too early to say.
>
> I hope not - having urban tracks go to #1 just encourages others... :)
I appreciate the smiley, but do you really think Timbaland cares.
> Doing a quick check - I think 10 of this week's T20 singles could be
> called urban.
Which isn't an all-time high, of course. And it's rather stretching a point
to count this boring MOR drivel as urban, IMO.
>>>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place
>>>>>>twice.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>>>>
>>> I thought they were Scottish?
>>
>>Yes, but the regional charts are physical-only aren't they?
>
> Yes, but that hardly explains why it should appeal to the Welsh as well.
But I presume, judging by the last one, that this will have done better in
any physical chart than the combined one. I think Richard Hawley once had a
Top 10 single in Wales on this basis, although he's not Welsh either.
>>>>Good excuse to mention that I recently heard the only other Number One
>>>>single I know of that mentions Cancer.
>>>>
>>> Need I ask which?
>>
>>'Float On' by the Floaters.
>
> You can remember that one?
Nope. I think that one occasion was the first time I'd ever heard it all the
way through.
>That's almost before *my* time!
It is literally before my time (1977).
>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>UB40 are conspicuous by their absence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that, too.
>>>>
>>>>Possibly a peril of giving your album away
>>>
>>> Did they?
>>
>>Yes. The album (or some of it at least) was attached to a Sunday
>>newspaper.
>
> On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to do so
> with their forthcoming one :
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7472226.stm
So I see.
> They are insanely optimistic if they really expect more than 1-2% of the >
> 3m copies given away, to be listened to. I wouldn't even insult my
> favourite cup by using it as a coaster. :)
But from their POV, they presumably get paid the same whether the discs get
played or not. And even a few percent of those 3m would include some people
who wouldn't have bought it.
> Of course, they had a lot of trouble persuading people to *buy* their last
> one - just one week in the T20...
Which shows how little they stand to lose, I guess. Fans will presumably buy
the album if/when it gets a proper release anyway.
> The give-away date is 6 days after the release of their single though, so
> they are not *totally* stupid...
Although that raises the question of how much it'll affect later singles.
Possibly not all that much.
>>Back on the singles side, I also saw that even a Radio 1 A-listing and
>>reviving the 3" CD single format couldn't get Panic At The Disco into the
>>Top 90.
>
> There seems to be some confusion over the title, too - C+ last week listed
> it as 'F'N MTV Live EP'.
There's no need for that sort of language! ;-)
Presumably, as has happened in some previous cases, they were associated the
wrong way around.
>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>Sigur Ros,
>>>>
>>>>Well, this is a proper studio album. And Woolworths are stocking it
>>>>prominently, despite the nudity on the cover.
>>>
>>> Male or female?
>>
>>It's a rear view, but I think it's male.
>
> Shame.
I think it may be the actual members of Sigur Ros. But I can't entirely
vouch for that.
> Seems to have worked though, from the Mids.
Possibly not the sole selling point. ;-)
Chris
Jan Buxton
>>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>> Sigur Ros,
>>>>> Well, this is a proper studio album. And Woolworths are stocking it
>>>>> prominently, despite the nudity on the cover.
>>>> Male or female?
>>> It's a rear view, but I think it's male.
>> Shame.
>
> I think it may be the actual members of Sigur Ros. But I can't entirely
> vouch for that.
It's not. The latest issue of Q has quite a good piece detailing the
making of the new album. To quote,
"...in the meantime Jonsi wants to show us the small Soho exhibition of
his photographer friend Ryan McGinley, contacted to provide emergency
replacement artwork after the Berlin fiasco."
[Jan's note, the original plan was to collaborate with Olafur Eliasson
on album artwork and stage show, but Sigur Ros were not impressed with
his work when unveiled at a gloriously awkward meeting in Berlin]
"Jonsi points out the cover they've chosen. Titled Highway, it's a photo
of four skinny nudes pelting across a deserted road like some sort of
naturist's cross-country run."
--
Jan
Paul Hyett
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But some of their other singles were better than the ones that got
>>>>>> closest.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which I'd tend to agree with. But I don't think 'Shiver' getting to
>>>>>Number
>>>>>35 counts as a near miss.
>>>>
>>>> Or 'Brothers & Sisters' at #92 in 1999... :)
>>>
>>>Indeed not. As an aside, BTW, I loaded 'Brothers And Sisters' onto my MP3
>>>player a few weeks ago and was fairly impressed. If anything it sounds
>>>better now than it did at the time.
>>
>> Not that I'd know it, given when it was released, even if it hadn't
>> bombed.
>
>I'm not sure "bombed" is a word I'd use in this connexion. I don't think
>anyone had any expectation of it doing any better.
Not even the band themselves?
>
>Meanwhile, YouTube is your friend. Here's the original single:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiEeirUz-Ec
>
No wonder it bombed. :)
>
>> We don't know if the quoted figure that would have given it 4th place, was
>> the whole picture - maybe that was just the number of sales that *would*
>> have been eligible?
>
>Apparently, that was the total number of sales, including the ones that
>couldn't possibly have counted. AIUI, the "legit" sales would only have put
>it into the Top 30.
Was that per the MW report?
>
>>>> Flying Pickets 1-10
>>>
>>>That's a very strange looking chart run, isn't it?
>>
>> Well, it *was* over the Xmas period...
>
>I suppose so, but it's not an obviously festive sound.
Nothing about them was conventional sounding, though. 100% acapella,
IIRC?
>
>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>>It could theoretically do it. But too early to say.
>>
>> I hope not - having urban tracks go to #1 just encourages others... :)
>
>I appreciate the smiley, but do you really think Timbaland cares.
Well, when he gets to #1 *unassisted*...
>
>> Doing a quick check - I think 10 of this week's T20 singles could be
>> called urban.
>
>Which isn't an all-time high, of course. And it's rather stretching a point
>to count this boring MOR drivel as urban, IMO.
I thought 'urban' covered all of hip-hop, R&B & soul - possibly other
sub-genres like reggae, too?
>
>>>>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place
>>>>>>>twice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
They *were* #1 on physical sales in Scotland, but nowhere in physical
sales in Wales - it may well not even have been physically released
outside of Scotland?
>>>>>
>>>> I thought they were Scottish?
>>>
>>>Yes, but the regional charts are physical-only aren't they?
>>
>> Yes, but that hardly explains why it should appeal to the Welsh as well.
>
>But I presume, judging by the last one, that this will have done better in
>any physical chart than the combined one.
See above.
>
>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>> ------
>> On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to do so
>> with their forthcoming one :
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7472226.stm
>
>So I see.
>
>> They are insanely optimistic if they really expect more than 1-2% of the >
>> 3m copies given away, to be listened to. I wouldn't even insult my
>> favourite cup by using it as a coaster. :)
>
>But from their POV, they presumably get paid the same whether the discs get
>played or not.
The newspaper presumably providing the money?
>And even a few percent of those 3m would include some people
>who wouldn't have bought it.
But even if they listen to it, would they like it? It's hard to imagine
there being many potential UK boy-band music fans, who haven't already
heard of McFly.
>
>> Of course, they had a lot of trouble persuading people to *buy* their last
>> one - just one week in the T20...
>
>Which shows how little they stand to lose, I guess. Fans will presumably buy
>the album if/when it gets a proper release anyway.
Currently listed for September release. Given the above, it's hard to
see it matching even the last album's modest #6 position, though.
>
>> The give-away date is 6 days after the release of their single though, so
>> they are not *totally* stupid...
>
>Although that raises the question of how much it'll affect later singles.
>Possibly not all that much.
What later singles?
They didn't even bother trying, last time!
>
>>>Back on the singles side, I also saw that even a Radio 1 A-listing and
>>>reviving the 3" CD single format couldn't get Panic At The Disco into the
>>>Top 90.
>>
>> There seems to be some confusion over the title, too - C+ last week listed
>> it as 'F'N MTV Live EP'.
>
>There's no need for that sort of language! ;-)
>Presumably, as has happened in some previous cases, they were associated the
>wrong way around.
C+ lists 'That Green Gentleman' as a new entry at #96, while pointing
out it is also on the aforementioned EP, which has 'coincidentally'
dropped out of the T200...
Chris Brown
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 at 21:13:35, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But some of their other singles were better than the ones that got
>>>>>>> closest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which I'd tend to agree with. But I don't think 'Shiver' getting to
>>>>>>Number
>>>>>>35 counts as a near miss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or 'Brothers & Sisters' at #92 in 1999... :)
>>>>
>>>>Indeed not. As an aside, BTW, I loaded 'Brothers And Sisters' onto my
>>>>MP3
>>>>player a few weeks ago and was fairly impressed. If anything it sounds
>>>>better now than it did at the time.
>>>
>>> Not that I'd know it, given when it was released, even if it hadn't
>>> bombed.
>>
>>I'm not sure "bombed" is a word I'd use in this connexion. I don't think
>>anyone had any expectation of it doing any better.
>
> Not even the band themselves?
Probably them least of all, at that point in their career.
They seemed exceptionally British and self-effacing in those days. And
obviously they had no previous chart success at that time.
>>Meanwhile, YouTube is your friend. Here's the original single:
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiEeirUz-Ec
>>
> No wonder it bombed. :)
You say that now, but what will you think in 2017? ;-)
Obviously that's not an official video. I don't even think there was one.
>>> We don't know if the quoted figure that would have given it 4th place,
>>> was
>>> the whole picture - maybe that was just the number of sales that *would*
>>> have been eligible?
>>
>>Apparently, that was the total number of sales, including the ones that
>>couldn't possibly have counted. AIUI, the "legit" sales would only have
>>put
>>it into the Top 30.
>
> Was that per the MW report?
Nope, the MW report was just the total sales.
Somebody on Buzzjack posted it, but I can't remember exactly where the info
came from.
>>>>> Flying Pickets 1-10
>>>>
>>>>That's a very strange looking chart run, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Well, it *was* over the Xmas period...
>>
>>I suppose so, but it's not an obviously festive sound.
>
> Nothing about them was conventional sounding, though. 100% acapella, IIRC?
Completely. And indeed it was one of only two accapella Number One singles.
To date, anyway.
>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>>It could theoretically do it. But too early to say.
>>>
>>> I hope not - having urban tracks go to #1 just encourages others... :)
>>
>>I appreciate the smiley, but do you really think Timbaland cares.
>
> Well, when he gets to #1 *unassisted*...
He probably still won't be that bothered. Partly because he's a mardy git,
but mainly because he makes the records for his home market.
And are you really attributing the success of 'The Way I Are' to the Keri
Hilson fanbase?
>>> Doing a quick check - I think 10 of this week's T20 singles could be
>>> called urban.
>>
>>Which isn't an all-time high, of course. And it's rather stretching a
>>point
>>to count this boring MOR drivel as urban, IMO.
>
> I thought 'urban' covered all of hip-hop, R&B & soul - possibly other
> sub-genres like reggae, too?
It's not a very clearly defined term, but I think it's normally used of
hip-hop and R&B sounds. Some soul probably gets included, for historical
reasons, but I don't even know if I'd call this soul.
Definitely not reggae (which I wouldn't call a sub-genre anyway) or ska and
things.
>>>>>>>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Urbnri #42,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That'll be the sound of lightning not striking in the same place
>>>>>>>>twice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>
> They *were* #1 on physical sales in Scotland, but nowhere in physical
> sales in Wales - it may well not even have been physically released
> outside of Scotland?
I don't know - the last one found its way to HMV Harrow, so that was
presumably a UK-wide release.
>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>> ------
>>> On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to do
>>> so
>>> with their forthcoming one :
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7472226.stm
>>
>>So I see.
>>
>>> They are insanely optimistic if they really expect more than 1-2% of the
>>> >
>>> 3m copies given away, to be listened to. I wouldn't even insult my
>>> favourite cup by using it as a coaster. :)
>>
>>But from their POV, they presumably get paid the same whether the discs
>>get
>>played or not.
>
> The newspaper presumably providing the money?
Yes, as they'd have to pay for anything else they gave away. Prince
certainly got a big wodge of cash - I presume McFly won't get as much as he
did.
>>And even a few percent of those 3m would include some people
>>who wouldn't have bought it.
>
> But even if they listen to it, would they like it? It's hard to imagine
> there being many potential UK boy-band music fans, who haven't already
> heard of McFly.
Presumably the idea is to try and break out of the boy-band ghetto, although
that'll be easier said than done. Some people might be prepared to listen to
a free McFly album when they wouldn't pay for one - and if they wouldn't,
well, there are no lost sales.
>>> Of course, they had a lot of trouble persuading people to *buy* their
>>> last
>>> one - just one week in the T20...
>>
>>Which shows how little they stand to lose, I guess. Fans will presumably
>>buy
>>the album if/when it gets a proper release anyway.
>
> Currently listed for September release. Given the above, it's hard to see
> it matching even the last album's modest #6 position, though.
Probably so. But then it might not have done anyway, without a big record
company behind it.
>>> The give-away date is 6 days after the release of their single though,
>>> so
>>> they are not *totally* stupid...
>>
>>Although that raises the question of how much it'll affect later singles.
>>Possibly not all that much.
>
> What later singles?
>
> They didn't even bother trying, last time!
Not from the Greatest Hits, but the justly forgotten 'Sorry's Not Good
Enough' [their worst single IMO] was released after Motion In The Ocean. And
'Baby's Coming Back' was officially a double A with 'Tranylvania'.
In any case, there could be more than one single before the album, as
they've tended to do before.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>>>>> Flying Pickets 1-10
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a very strange looking chart run, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it *was* over the Xmas period...
>>>
>>>I suppose so, but it's not an obviously festive sound.
>>
>> Nothing about them was conventional sounding, though. 100% acapella, IIRC?
>
>Completely. And indeed it was one of only two accapella Number One singles.
>To date, anyway.
What was the other?
>
>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>It could theoretically do it. But too early to say.
>>>>
>>>> I hope not - having urban tracks go to #1 just encourages others... :)
>>>
>>>I appreciate the smiley, but do you really think Timbaland cares.
>>
>> Well, when he gets to #1 *unassisted*...
>
>He probably still won't be that bothered. Partly because he's a mardy git,
Mardy?
>
>but mainly because he makes the records for his home market.
>
>>>it's rather stretching a
>>>point
>>>to count this boring MOR drivel as urban, IMO.
>>
>> I thought 'urban' covered all of hip-hop, R&B & soul - possibly other
>> sub-genres like reggae, too?
>
>It's not a very clearly defined term, but I think it's normally used of
>hip-hop and R&B sounds. Some soul probably gets included, for historical
>reasons, but I don't even know if I'd call this soul.
Don't forget that Joss Stone won an urban Brit for one of her first two
soul albums - and she's definitely not the typical soul singer! :)
>Definitely not reggae
No?
> (which I wouldn't call a sub-genre anyway)
>or ska and
>things.
I'll agree with you about ska, but what are 'things'?
>
>>>>>>>>>>Urbnri
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>>
>> They *were* #1 on physical sales in Scotland, but nowhere in physical
>> sales in Wales - it may well not even have been physically released
>> outside of Scotland?
>
>I don't know - the last one found its way to HMV Harrow, so that was
>presumably a UK-wide release.
IIRC, their first chart single only sold a few dozen physical copies
outside Scotland.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>> On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to do
>>>> so
>>>> with their forthcoming one :
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7472226.stm
>>>
>>>> They are insanely optimistic if they really expect more than 1-2% of the
>>>> 3m copies given away, to be listened to.
>>>
>>>But from their POV, they presumably get paid the same whether the discs
>>>get
>>>played or not.
>>
>> The newspaper presumably providing the money?
>
>Yes, as they'd have to pay for anything else they gave away. Prince
>certainly got a big wodge of cash - I presume McFly won't get as much as he
>did.
Funny how we've yet to see a really big album-selling artist give away
their new material via a newspaper, though... :)
>>
>> But even if they listen to it, would they like it? It's hard to imagine
>> there being many potential UK boy-band music fans, who haven't already
>> heard of McFly.
>
>Presumably the idea is to try and break out of the boy-band ghetto, although
>that'll be easier said than done.
Breaking out of Guantanamo Bay would be easier! :)
>
>>>Fans will presumably
>>>buy
>>>the album if/when it gets a proper release anyway.
>>
>> Currently listed for September release. Given the above, it's hard to see
>> it matching even the last album's modest #6 position, though.
>
>Probably so. But then it might not have done anyway, without a big record
>company behind it.
True, but with downloads sales still increasing, the backing of a big
record company will probably become less important over time. ISTM
unless RC's swallow their pride and pay performers a far higher
percentage of the revenue their recordings generate, their very survival
will be threatened.
>>
>> What later singles?
>>
>> They didn't even bother trying, last time!
>
>Not from the Greatest Hits, but the justly forgotten 'Sorry's Not Good
>Enough' [their worst single IMO]
Therefore a very apt title. :)
>In any case, there could be more than one single before the album, as
>they've tended to do before.
But the timing won't work out for that, this time.
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 at 22:26:58, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>>>>>>> Flying Pickets 1-10
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a very strange looking chart run, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it *was* over the Xmas period...
>>>>
>>>>I suppose so, but it's not an obviously festive sound.
>>>
>>> Nothing about them was conventional sounding, though. 100% acapella,
>>> IIRC?
>>
>>Completely. And indeed it was one of only two accapella Number One
>>singles.
>>To date, anyway.
>
> What was the other?
'Caravan Of Love' by The Housemartins. Both cover versions, interestingly
enough.
>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It could theoretically do it. But too early to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope not - having urban tracks go to #1 just encourages others... :)
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate the smiley, but do you really think Timbaland cares.
>>>
>>> Well, when he gets to #1 *unassisted*...
>>
>>He probably still won't be that bothered. Partly because he's a mardy git,
>
> Mardy?
Yeah, you know, grouchy, crabby.
>>but mainly because he makes the records for his home market.
>>
>>>>it's rather stretching a
>>>>point
>>>>to count this boring MOR drivel as urban, IMO.
>>>
>>> I thought 'urban' covered all of hip-hop, R&B & soul - possibly other
>>> sub-genres like reggae, too?
>>
>>It's not a very clearly defined term, but I think it's normally used of
>>hip-hop and R&B sounds. Some soul probably gets included, for historical
>>reasons, but I don't even know if I'd call this soul.
>
> Don't forget that Joss Stone won an urban Brit for one of her first two
> soul albums - and she's definitely not the typical soul singer! :)
Yeah, but look at who used to win the best dance category at the Brits.
>>Definitely not reggae
>
> No?
Not in my experience, perhaps because it's already recognised as a different
style, or possibly because it's not American in origin.
>> (which I wouldn't call a sub-genre anyway)
>
>>or ska and
>>things.
>
> I'll agree with you about ska, but what are 'things'?
I'm tempted to pretend there actually is a genre called things, but I just
meant etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>Urbnri
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No doubt close to #1 in Scotland, though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, but probably not too far off in Wales either.
>>>
>>> They *were* #1 on physical sales in Scotland, but nowhere in physical
>>> sales in Wales - it may well not even have been physically released
>>> outside of Scotland?
>>
>>I don't know - the last one found its way to HMV Harrow, so that was
>>presumably a UK-wide release.
>
> IIRC, their first chart single only sold a few dozen physical copies
> outside Scotland.
I don't think the ones here are still around, but maybe they shipped them to
another branch.
>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>> On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to do
>>>>> so
>>>>> with their forthcoming one :
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7472226.stm
>>>>
>>>>> They are insanely optimistic if they really expect more than 1-2% of
>>>>> the
>>>>> 3m copies given away, to be listened to.
>>>>
>>>>But from their POV, they presumably get paid the same whether the discs
>>>>get
>>>>played or not.
>>>
>>> The newspaper presumably providing the money?
>>
>>Yes, as they'd have to pay for anything else they gave away. Prince
>>certainly got a big wodge of cash - I presume McFly won't get as much as
>>he
>>did.
>
> Funny how we've yet to see a really big album-selling artist give away
> their new material via a newspaper, though... :)
Well, a currently big one anyway, yes.
>>> But even if they listen to it, would they like it? It's hard to imagine
>>> there being many potential UK boy-band music fans, who haven't already
>>> heard of McFly.
>>
>>Presumably the idea is to try and break out of the boy-band ghetto,
>>although
>>that'll be easier said than done.
>
> Breaking out of Guantanamo Bay would be easier! :)
Exactly. But there's probably not a lot for them to lose by doing it this
way.
>>>>Fans will presumably
>>>>buy
>>>>the album if/when it gets a proper release anyway.
>>>
>>> Currently listed for September release. Given the above, it's hard to
>>> see
>>> it matching even the last album's modest #6 position, though.
>>
>>Probably so. But then it might not have done anyway, without a big record
>>company behind it.
>
> True, but with downloads sales still increasing, the backing of a big
> record company will probably become less important over time. ISTM unless
> RC's swallow their pride and pay performers a far higher percentage of the
> revenue their recordings generate, their very survival will be threatened.
Although they'd probably claim that paying more would threaten their
existence anyway! EMI claim to lose money on 95% of their releases; make of
that what you will.
>>> What later singles?
>>>
>>> They didn't even bother trying, last time!
>>
>>Not from the Greatest Hits, but the justly forgotten 'Sorry's Not Good
>>Enough' [their worst single IMO]
>
> Therefore a very apt title. :)
Always a risk calling your song something like that.
>>In any case, there could be more than one single before the album, as
>>they've tended to do before.
>
> But the timing won't work out for that, this time.
Well, releasing a single in July and then the album in September (at least
two months later) wouldn't be very conventional. They could sneak another
into the gap.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>>
>>>>>>>> Flying Pickets
>>>>
>>>> IIRC?
>>>
>>>Completely. And indeed it was one of only two accapella Number One
>>>singles.
>>>To date, anyway.
>>
>> What was the other?
>
>'Caravan Of Love' by The Housemartins.
I don't remember that one.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>> Well, when he gets to #1 *unassisted*...
>>>
>>>He probably still won't be that bothered. Partly because he's a mardy git,
>>
>> Mardy?
>
>Yeah, you know, grouchy, crabby.
I guess that must be a Harrow term, then. :)
>>>>
>>>> I thought 'urban' covered all of hip-hop, R&B & soul - possibly other
>>>> sub-genres like reggae, too?
>>>
>>>It's not a very clearly defined term, but I think it's normally used of
>>>hip-hop and R&B sounds. Some soul probably gets included, for historical
>>>reasons, but I don't even know if I'd call this soul.
>>
>> Don't forget that Joss Stone won an urban Brit for one of her first two
>> soul albums - and she's definitely not the typical soul singer! :)
>
>Yeah, but look at who used to win the best dance category at the Brits.
Who?
>
>>>Definitely not reggae
>>
>> No?
>
>Not in my experience, perhaps because it's already recognised as a different
>style, or possibly because it's not American in origin.
I didn't think that was the underlying criteria, unless you meant black
American?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Urbnri
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> IIRC, their first chart single only sold a few dozen physical copies
>> outside Scotland.
>
>I don't think the ones here are still around
Precisely - the didn't sell...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to do
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> with their forthcoming one
>>>
>>
>> Funny how we've yet to see a really big album-selling artist give away
>> their new material via a newspaper, though... :)
>
>Well, a currently big one anyway, yes.
I wonder at what sort of expected album sales level, would it be more
profitable to 'give away' your album via a newspaper, rather than sell
it in the normal way?
Not much more than 100k I'd have thought, as Prince certainly wouldn't
have sold that many, and McFly would probably only *just* scrape 6
figures.
>
>>>> But even if they listen to it, would they like it? It's hard to imagine
>>>> there being many potential UK boy-band music fans, who haven't already
>>>> heard of McFly.
>>>
>>>Presumably the idea is to try and break out of the boy-band ghetto,
>>>although
>>>that'll be easier said than done.
>>
>> Breaking out of Guantanamo Bay would be easier! :)
>
>Exactly. But there's probably not a lot for them to lose by doing it this
>way.
Good point.
>> with downloads sales still increasing, the backing of a big
>> record company will probably become less important over time. ISTM unless
>> RC's swallow their pride and pay performers a far higher percentage of the
>> revenue their recordings generate, their very survival will be threatened.
>
>Although they'd probably claim that paying more would threaten their
>existence anyway! EMI claim to lose money on 95% of their releases; make of
>that what you will.
That either they are bullshitting, or they are as expert at picking
losers as the Big Brother producers. :)
>
>>>In any case, there could be more than one single before the album, as
>>>they've tended to do before.
>>
>> But the timing won't work out for that, this time.
>
>Well, releasing a single in July and then the album in September (at least
>two months later) wouldn't be very conventional. They could sneak another
>into the gap.
I think it a fair bet that, unlike some other acts, they *won't* have
any of their album tracks charting unexpectedly via downloads alone! :)
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 at 00:25:27, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Flying Pickets
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing about them was conventional sounding, 100% acapella,
>>>>> IIRC?
>>>>
>>>>Completely. And indeed it was one of only two accapella Number One
>>>>singles.
>>>>To date, anyway.
>>>
>>> What was the other?
>>
>>'Caravan Of Love' by The Housemartins.
>
> I don't remember that one.
It was almost the Christmas Number One in 1986.
I'm sure it's on YouTube somewhere, whether Fatboy Slim likes it or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, when he gets to #1 *unassisted*...
>>>>
>>>>He probably still won't be that bothered. Partly because he's a mardy
>>>>git,
>>>
>>> Mardy?
>>
>>Yeah, you know, grouchy, crabby.
>
> I guess that must be a Harrow term, then. :)
No, it's more of a Northern thing. That's why there's an Arctic Monkeys song
called 'Mardy Bum'.
>>>>> I thought 'urban' covered all of hip-hop, R&B & soul - possibly other
>>>>> sub-genres like reggae, too?
>>>>
>>>>It's not a very clearly defined term, but I think it's normally used of
>>>>hip-hop and R&B sounds. Some soul probably gets included, for historical
>>>>reasons, but I don't even know if I'd call this soul.
>>>
>>> Don't forget that Joss Stone won an urban Brit for one of her first two
>>> soul albums - and she's definitely not the typical soul singer! :)
>>
>>Yeah, but look at who used to win the best dance category at the Brits.
>
> Who?
Well, various people obviously. But I know the Sugababes won it at least
once, and I have a vague idea Eternal might have. Jamiroquai obviously
didn't win but they got a lot of nominations.
>>>>Definitely not reggae
>>>
>>> No?
>>
>>Not in my experience, perhaps because it's already recognised as a
>>different
>>style, or possibly because it's not American in origin.
>
> I didn't think that was the underlying criteria, unless you meant black
> American?
Well, it's an American term and that's how they used to use it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Urbnri
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, their first chart single only sold a few dozen physical copies
>>> outside Scotland.
>>
>>I don't think the ones here are still around
>
> Precisely - the didn't sell...
No, I said I *didn't* think they were still there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> On the subject of giving albums away, apparently McFly are going to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> with their forthcoming one
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny how we've yet to see a really big album-selling artist give away
>>> their new material via a newspaper, though... :)
>>
>>Well, a currently big one anyway, yes.
>
> I wonder at what sort of expected album sales level, would it be more
> profitable to 'give away' your album via a newspaper, rather than sell it
> in the normal way?
It presumably depends on how much the newspaper offers.
> Not much more than 100k I'd have thought, as Prince certainly wouldn't
> have sold that many, and McFly would probably only *just* scrape 6
> figures.
I guess that's probably about right. I wonder how much that'll change.
>>> with downloads sales still increasing, the backing of a big
>>> record company will probably become less important over time. ISTM
>>> unless
>>> RC's swallow their pride and pay performers a far higher percentage of
>>> the
>>> revenue their recordings generate, their very survival will be
>>> threatened.
>>
>>Although they'd probably claim that paying more would threaten their
>>existence anyway! EMI claim to lose money on 95% of their releases; make
>>of
>>that what you will.
>
> That either they are bullshitting, or they are as expert at picking losers
> as the Big Brother producers. :)
Their claim has always been that they use the profits from successful
releases to subsidise the less popular ones. If you think about it, they
must be creaming a lot off from those 5%.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>> it was one of only two accapella Number One
>>>>>singles.
>>>>>To date, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> What was the other?
>>>
>>>'Caravan Of Love' by The Housemartins.
>>
>> I don't remember that one.
>
>It was almost the Christmas Number One in 1986.
If it was only *almost* #1, then it wouldn't count.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>> Mardy?
>>>
>>>Yeah, you know, grouchy, crabby.
>>
>> I guess that must be a Harrow term, then. :)
>
>No, it's more of a Northern thing. That's why there's an Arctic Monkeys song
>called 'Mardy Bum'.
Well, that sheds a bit of light on *that* song title! :)
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Urbnri
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, their first chart single only sold a few dozen physical copies
>>>> outside Scotland.
>>>
>>>I don't think the ones here are still around
>>
>> Precisely - the didn't sell...
>
>No, I said I *didn't* think they were still there.
Yes I know - I assumed you meant they were returned unsold.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>
>> I wonder at what sort of expected album sales level, would it be more
>> profitable to 'give away' your album via a newspaper, rather than sell it
>> in the normal way?
>
>It presumably depends on how much the newspaper offers.
And what the circulation figure might be.
>
>>>
>>>Although they'd probably claim that paying more would threaten their
>>>existence anyway! EMI claim to lose money on 95% of their releases; make
>>>of
>>>that what you will.
>>
>> That either they are bullshitting, or they are as expert at picking losers
>> as the Big Brother producers. :)
>
>Their claim has always been that they use the profits from successful
>releases to subsidise the less popular ones. If you think about it, they
>must be creaming a lot off from those 5%.
Wonder how much of the 79p they get for each download sold?
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 at 17:20:19, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>>>>> it was one of only two accapella Number One
>>>>>>singles.
>>>>>>To date, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the other?
>>>>
>>>>'Caravan Of Love' by The Housemartins.
>>>
>>> I don't remember that one.
>>
>>It was almost the Christmas Number One in 1986.
>
> If it was only *almost* #1, then it wouldn't count.
No, I mean it was Number One, but then it was deposed in Christmas week by,
er, 'Reet Petite'. Fun fact: the Christmas chart also included the only ever
Top 75 week by Anthony Hopkins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Mardy?
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, you know, grouchy, crabby.
>>>
>>> I guess that must be a Harrow term, then. :)
>>
>>No, it's more of a Northern thing. That's why there's an Arctic Monkeys
>>song
>>called 'Mardy Bum'.
>
> Well, that sheds a bit of light on *that* song title! :)
I won't ask.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Urbnri
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, their first chart single only sold a few dozen physical copies
>>>>> outside Scotland.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think the ones here are still around
>>>
>>> Precisely - the didn't sell...
>>
>>No, I said I *didn't* think they were still there.
>
> Yes I know - I assumed you meant they were returned unsold.
Ah, I see what you mean now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>
>>> I wonder at what sort of expected album sales level, would it be more
>>> profitable to 'give away' your album via a newspaper, rather than sell
>>> it
>>> in the normal way?
>>
>>It presumably depends on how much the newspaper offers.
>
> And what the circulation figure might be.
Possibly, although I'd guess that pretty much any national paper has more
readers than the vast majority of albums can sell anyway.
>>>>Although they'd probably claim that paying more would threaten their
>>>>existence anyway! EMI claim to lose money on 95% of their releases; make
>>>>of
>>>>that what you will.
>>>
>>> That either they are bullshitting, or they are as expert at picking
>>> losers
>>> as the Big Brother producers. :)
>>
>>Their claim has always been that they use the profits from successful
>>releases to subsidise the less popular ones. If you think about it, they
>>must be creaming a lot off from those 5%.
>
> Wonder how much of the 79p they get for each download sold?
Surely what matters is how much they keep?
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>> I wonder at what sort of expected album sales level, would it be more
>>>> profitable to 'give away' your album via a newspaper, rather than sell
>>>> it
>>>> in the normal way?
>>>
>>>It presumably depends on how much the newspaper offers.
>>
>> And what the circulation figure might be.
>
>Possibly, although I'd guess that pretty much any national paper has more
>readers than the vast majority of albums can sell anyway.
With the expectation that an issue with a cover disc by a popular band
(or McFly) :) would sell to people who wouldn't normally buy the paper.
>
>>>
>>>Their claim has always been that they use the profits from successful
>>>releases to subsidise the less popular ones. If you think about it, they
>>>must be creaming a lot off from those 5%.
>>
>> Wonder how much of the 79p they get for each download sold?
>
>Surely what matters is how much they keep?
That's what I asked, more or less.
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 at 22:26:53, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder at what sort of expected album sales level, would it be more
>>>>> profitable to 'give away' your album via a newspaper, rather than sell
>>>>> it
>>>>> in the normal way?
>>>>
>>>>It presumably depends on how much the newspaper offers.
>>>
>>> And what the circulation figure might be.
>>
>>Possibly, although I'd guess that pretty much any national paper has more
>>readers than the vast majority of albums can sell anyway.
>
> With the expectation that an issue with a cover disc by a popular band (or
> McFly) :) would sell to people who wouldn't normally buy the paper.
I guess that's what the papers expect, in order to recoup the costs.
Even if they don't, though, the Mail On Sunday has an official circulation
figure of 2 million +.
>>>>Their claim has always been that they use the profits from successful
>>>>releases to subsidise the less popular ones. If you think about it, they
>>>>must be creaming a lot off from those 5%.
>>>
>>> Wonder how much of the 79p they get for each download sold?
>>
>>Surely what matters is how much they keep?
>
> That's what I asked, more or less.
They'll all be getting the same from the sites. But the amount they do or
don't retain will vary.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>
>>>readers than the vast majority of albums can sell anyway.
>>
>> With the expectation that an issue with a cover disc by a popular band (or
>> McFly) :) would sell to people who wouldn't normally buy the paper.
>Even if they don't, though, the Mail On Sunday has an official circulation
>figure of 2 million +.
They may pick up sales from McFly fans, but they will almost certainly
be once-off purchases.
If they included an album from an MOR artist more suited to their
targeted readership though, they might pick up even more sales, and have
those people more likely to return - which is surely the underlying
plan.
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 00:11:20, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>>Possibly, although I'd guess that pretty much any national paper has
>>>>more
>>>>readers than the vast majority of albums can sell anyway.
>>>
>>> With the expectation that an issue with a cover disc by a popular band
>>> (or
>>> McFly) :) would sell to people who wouldn't normally buy the paper.
>
>>Even if they don't, though, the Mail On Sunday has an official circulation
>>figure of 2 million +.
>
> They may pick up sales from McFly fans, but they will almost certainly be
> once-off purchases.
Presumably, although even that will feed into the figures.
> If they included an album from an MOR artist more suited to their targeted
> readership though, they might pick up even more sales, and have those
> people more likely to return - which is surely the underlying plan.
That apparently didn't happen with the Paul McCartney CD.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>> If they included an album from an MOR artist more suited to their targeted
>> readership though, they might pick up even more sales, and have those
>> people more likely to return - which is surely the underlying plan.
>
>That apparently didn't happen with the Paul McCartney CD.
Well, the quality of the material does have some bearing, of course. His
best writing years are long behind him.
Of course, if you have material that indications suggest will be a
big-seller, then you aren't going to give it away free, anyway.
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 23:39:16, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>>> If they included an album from an MOR artist more suited to their
>>> targeted
>>> readership though, they might pick up even more sales, and have those
>>> people more likely to return - which is surely the underlying plan.
>>
>>That apparently didn't happen with the Paul McCartney CD.
>
> Well, the quality of the material does have some bearing, of course. His >
> best writing years are long behind him.
I'm not sure I'd entirely endorse that, not least because I can't entirely
buy into the idea that his biggest songs are his best.
The key factor in this case was that the album was already a year old by
this point, so the fans already had it.
> Of course, if you have material that indications suggest will be a
> big-seller, then you aren't going to give it away free, anyway.
Well, see above.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>That apparently didn't happen with the Paul McCartney CD.
>>
>> Well, the quality of the material does have some bearing, of course. His >
>> best writing years are long behind him.
>
>I'm not sure I'd entirely endorse that, not least because I can't entirely
>buy into the idea that his biggest songs are his best.
Except that, since everyone's opinions of any given song are subjective
& therefore widely variable, the only objective means of measuring
popularity is that of sales totals.
Chris Brown
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 at 23:59:41, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>That apparently didn't happen with the Paul McCartney CD.
>>>
>>> Well, the quality of the material does have some bearing, of course. His
>>> >
>>> best writing years are long behind him.
>>
>>I'm not sure I'd entirely endorse that, not least because I can't entirely
>>buy into the idea that his biggest songs are his best.
>
> Except that, since everyone's opinions of any given song are subjective &
> therefore widely variable, the only objective means of measuring
> popularity is that of sales totals.
Well, yes (up to a point) but that's all it measures - and really popularity
is driven by opinions so it's still subjective.
Even then, he's a good example of the limits of the measure - does anyone
really think 'Mull Of Kintyre' is better than any Beatles single?
Still, I'm glad about the giveaway - I got this album for a tenth of what I
paid for the last one.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul McCartney
>>>I can't entirely
>>>buy into the idea that his biggest songs are his best.
>>
>> Except that, since everyone's opinions of any given song are subjective &
>> therefore widely variable, the only objective means of measuring
>> popularity is that of sales totals.
>
>Well, yes (up to a point) but that's all it measures - and really popularity
>is driven by opinions so it's still subjective.
But the more people who subjectively like a recording, the more it'll
sell... :)
>Even then, he's a good example of the limits of the measure - does anyone
>really think 'Mull Of Kintyre' is better than any Beatles single?
>
While I liked that song, I still find it surprising that it sold in the
quantities it did. Nowadays though, it seems to be one of those songs
that people love to hate.
>Still, I'm glad about the giveaway - I got this album for a tenth of what I
>paid for the last one.
And all you had to do was suffer the Sunday Mail (or whichever) for one
day. :)
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 at 23:18:23, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul McCartney
>
>>>>I can't entirely
>>>>buy into the idea that his biggest songs are his best.
>>>
>>> Except that, since everyone's opinions of any given song are subjective
>>> &
>>> therefore widely variable, the only objective means of measuring
>>> popularity is that of sales totals.
>>
>>Well, yes (up to a point) but that's all it measures - and really
>>popularity
>>is driven by opinions so it's still subjective.
>
> But the more people who subjectively like a recording, the more it'll
> sell... :)
Oh absolutely, but let's not overstate the difference between "subjective"
and "objective" measures.
>>Even then, he's a good example of the limits of the measure - does anyone
>>really think 'Mull Of Kintyre' is better than any Beatles single?
>>
> While I liked that song, I still find it surprising that it sold in the
> quantities it did.
I suspect quite a lot of people were, not least McCartney himself.
>Nowadays though, it seems to be one of those songs that
> people love to hate.
Although even then, it's not one that people seem to have revived for the
novelty value, even. I'd struggle to recall when I last heard it.
It's a good example of what I was saying about downloading best-of albums
though - I could safely leave this one on the server.
>>Still, I'm glad about the giveaway - I got this album for a tenth of what
>>I
>>paid for the last one.
>
> And all you had to do was suffer the Sunday Mail (or whichever) for one
> day. :)
No thank you! And I wouldn't have paid £15 for the other one either.
Fortunately, a lot of these covermount CDs end up in the charity shops,
presumably because those people who put the Prince one onto eBay didn't get
much for it.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>since everyone's opinions of any given song are subjective
>>>> &
>>>> therefore widely variable, the only objective means of measuring
>>>> popularity is that of sales totals.
>>>
>>>Well, yes (up to a point) but that's all it measures - and really
>>>popularity
>>>is driven by opinions so it's still subjective.
>>
>> But the more people who subjectively like a recording, the more it'll
>> sell... :)
>
>Oh absolutely, but let's not overstate the difference between "subjective"
>and "objective" measures.
I must be missing your point, here?
>
>>>
>>>Mull Of Kintyre
>
>>Nowadays it seems to be one of those songs that
>> people love to hate.
>
>Although even then, it's not one that people seem to have revived for the
>novelty value, even.
It's not really a song you could 'trance' up... :)
>I'd struggle to recall when I last heard it.
>It's a good example of what I was saying about downloading best-of albums
>though - I could safely leave this one on the server.
BTW, I'm guessing you are just slightly too young to remember it when
MoK first came out?
>
>>>Still, I'm glad about the giveaway - I got this album for a tenth of what
>>>I
>>>paid for the last one.
>>
>> And all you had to do was suffer the Sunday Mail (or whichever) for one
>> day. :)
>
>No thank you! And I wouldn't have paid £15 for the other one either.
>Fortunately, a lot of these covermount CDs end up in the charity shops
So I've noticed.
>,
>presumably because those people who put the Prince one onto eBay didn't get
>much for it.
Grin.
While I can see there might be interest in it from other countries who
didn't have the 'benefit' of the cover disc offer, the cost of shipping
it there might well make it uneconomic.
Chris Brown
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 18:28:54, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>>>>since everyone's opinions of any given song are subjective
>>>>> &
>>>>> therefore widely variable, the only objective means of measuring
>>>>> popularity is that of sales totals.
>>>>
>>>>Well, yes (up to a point) but that's all it measures - and really
>>>>popularity
>>>>is driven by opinions so it's still subjective.
>>>
>>> But the more people who subjectively like a recording, the more it'll
>>> sell... :)
>>
>>Oh absolutely, but let's not overstate the difference between "subjective"
>>and "objective" measures.
>
> I must be missing your point, here?
My point, such as it is, was that McCartney passing the peak of his
songwriting ability wouldn't necessarily coincide with him losing the abilty
to shift units. After all, in his case you could argue that his best work
was behind him as long ago as 1972, but he managed a few hits after that...
>>>>Mull Of Kintyre
>>
>>>Nowadays it seems to be one of those songs that
>>> people love to hate.
>>
>>Although even then, it's not one that people seem to have revived for the
>>novelty value, even.
>
> It's not really a song you could 'trance' up... :)
Well, no, but neither are a lot of other songs embraced by the Guilty
Pleasures crowd.
>>I'd struggle to recall when I last heard it.
>>It's a good example of what I was saying about downloading best-of albums
>>though - I could safely leave this one on the server.
>
> BTW, I'm guessing you are just slightly too young to remember it when MoK
> first came out?
I was born during its last-ever chart week if I'm reading the week-ending
date correctly. So no, I don't remember the actual release but I did hear it
occasionally when I was young.
I have to say, though, that even my Mum never liked it.
>>>>Still, I'm glad about the giveaway - I got this album for a tenth of
>>>>what
>>>>I
>>>>paid for the last one.
>>>
>>> And all you had to do was suffer the Sunday Mail (or whichever) for one
>>> day. :)
>>
>>No thank you! And I wouldn't have paid £15 for the other one either.
>>Fortunately, a lot of these covermount CDs end up in the charity shops
>
> So I've noticed.
Quite handy for me.
>>presumably because those people who put the Prince one onto eBay didn't
>>get
>>much for it.
>
> Grin.
To be serious, though, that's the only one I've never seen in one.
> While I can see there might be interest in it from other countries who
> didn't have the 'benefit' of the cover disc offer, the cost of shipping it
> there might well make it uneconomic.
Especially since they could have bought the CD normally.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>Oh absolutely, but let's not overstate the difference between "subjective"
>>>and "objective" measures.
>>
>> I must be missing your point, here?
>
>My point, such as it is, was that McCartney passing the peak of his
>songwriting ability wouldn't necessarily coincide with him losing the abilty
>to shift units. After all, in his case you could argue that his best work
>was behind him as long ago as 1972, but he managed a few hits after that...
True.
Of course, that applies to all artists who last long enough to build up
substantial fanbases.
>
>>>>>Mull Of Kintyre
>>
>> BTW, I'm guessing you are just slightly too young to remember it when MoK
>> first came out?
>
>I was born during its last-ever chart week if I'm reading the week-ending
>date correctly. So no, I don't remember the actual release but I did hear it
>occasionally when I was young.
So you are just over 30 then?
I guess you must have a better memory for songs at a younger age than I
have. I don't remember any from before I was around 11 (1976-ish), but
you remember some from the 80's when you must have been ten or younger?
>
>> While I can see there might be interest in it from other countries who
>> didn't have the 'benefit' of the cover disc offer, the cost of shipping it
>> there might well make it uneconomic.
>
>Especially since they could have bought the CD normally.
If it had been released where they live.
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 at 20:14:22, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>Oh absolutely, but let's not overstate the difference between
>>>>"subjective"
>>>>and "objective" measures.
>>>
>>> I must be missing your point, here?
>>
>>My point, such as it is, was that McCartney passing the peak of his
>>songwriting ability wouldn't necessarily coincide with him losing the
>>abilty
>>to shift units. After all, in his case you could argue that his best work
>>was behind him as long ago as 1972, but he managed a few hits after
>>that...
>
> True.
>
> Of course, that applies to all artists who last long enough to build up
> substantial fanbases.
Yes. And it's a bit unfair that he was so good once that the standard is too
high.
>>>>>>Mull Of Kintyre
>>>
>>> BTW, I'm guessing you are just slightly too young to remember it when
>>> MoK
>>> first came out?
>>
>>I was born during its last-ever chart week if I'm reading the week-ending
>>date correctly. So no, I don't remember the actual release but I did hear
>>it
>>occasionally when I was young.
>
> So you are just over 30 then?
Correct.
> I guess you must have a better memory for songs at a younger age than I
> have. I don't remember any from before I was around 11 (1976-ish), but you
> remember some from the 80's when you must have been ten or younger?
Correct. Maybe music was just more memorable then?
Of course, it's a little bit difficult to know what you remember from the
time and what you've heard since, but my earliest specific memory of a song
is 'Ghost Town' on TOTP.
Anyway, I've managed to find the definitive version of 'Mull Of Kintyre' on
YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBkIqocn-JY&feature=related
>>> While I can see there might be interest in it from other countries who
>>> didn't have the 'benefit' of the cover disc offer, the cost of shipping
>>> it
>>> there might well make it uneconomic.
>>
>>Especially since they could have bought the CD normally.
>
> If it had been released where they live.
AIUI it was in most of the world, but the UK label understandably pulled
out.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>> I guess you must have a better memory for songs at a younger age than I
>> have. I don't remember any from before I was around 11 (1976-ish), but you
>> remember some from the 80's when you must have been ten or younger?
>
>Correct. Maybe music was just more memorable then?
Really? Perhaps your recall of the 80's isn't that good after all... :)
>Of course, it's a little bit difficult to know what you remember from the
>time and what you've heard since, but my earliest specific memory of a song
>is 'Ghost Town' on TOTP.
That was 1981...!
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 at 23:45:45, Chris Brown <extreme...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>>> I guess you must have a better memory for songs at a younger age than I
>>> have. I don't remember any from before I was around 11 (1976-ish), but
>>> you
>>> remember some from the 80's when you must have been ten or younger?
>>
>>Correct. Maybe music was just more memorable then?
>
> Really? Perhaps your recall of the 80's isn't that good after all... :)
More memorable isn't the same thing as better. A lot of Eighties music has a
rather garish edge to it.
>>Of course, it's a little bit difficult to know what you remember from the
>>time and what you've heard since, but my earliest specific memory of a
>>song
>>is 'Ghost Town' on TOTP.
>
> That was 1981...!
Correct.
I think I had to watch it in my pyjamas though.
Mainly I remember the video being shown and my parents discussing what the
car was.
It's a Vauxhall Cresta, in case you were going to look it up.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>> my earliest specific memory of a
>>>song
>>>is 'Ghost Town' on TOTP.
>>
>> That was 1981...!
>
>Correct.
>I think I had to watch it in my pyjamas though.
>Mainly I remember the video being shown and my parents discussing what the
>car was.
>
>It's a Vauxhall Cresta, in case you were going to look it up.
>
I didn't even remember there was a car in the video!