Chart Commentary 31/5/08
Paul Hyett
-------
After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
(mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Duffy #7
Top 20 : Ne-Yo #12, Nelly #14, Sara Barielles #16, Gabriella Cilmi #18,
Taio Cruz #19
Top 30 : Alphabeat (TTN) #23, Ashlee Simpson #24, Fratellis #27, Zutons
#28, Royworld #29
Top 40 : Fall Out Boy #31, Ting Tings (GDJ) #33, Gusto #34, Lil Wayne
#38
Re-entries T40 : Snap (RIAD) #36
New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Vampire Weekend #44,
Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49, Flo Rida #51, Mariah Carey (BB) #56, Sandi Thom
#58, Chenoweth/Menzel #60, Kids In Glass Houses #62, Futureheads #65,
Andy Abraham #67
nb - #75 was missing from the chart I worked from.
Re-entries : none
Albums
------
As expected, the Ting Tings claim the #1 spot with their debut album 'We
Started Nothing'.
New Entries/New Peaks
---------------------
Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6, Cistercian Monks #9
Top 20 : Osmonds #11, Vampire Weekend #15, Hucknall #18
New outside the top 20 : Foxboro Hot Tubs #37, Sparks #54, Scarlet
Johansson #64, Johnny Ray #67
Re-entries : Neil Diamond (Best Of) #8, Taio Cruz #52, Elvis (Hitstory)
#55, Mariah Carey (GH) #58, Kaiser Chiefs (YTAM) #63, Pigeon Detectives
(WFM) #70
Next Week
---------
Singles
-------
Seems likely that Rihanna will hold on at #1, as the competition isn't
particularly strong.
Some of the below seem unlike to hang around for more than a week
though, given the nature of their fanbases.
Top 5 : Duffy
Top 10 : Alphabeat, Fratellis, Zutons
Top 20 : Guillemots, Paul Weller, Taio Cruz (T15)
Top 30 : Foals
Top 40 : Alanis Morissette, Flo Rida, Nickelback (Ph)
Any other possibilities?
Albums
------
Despite the indifferent reception for the lead single, Usher seems
likely to have the #1 album, based on past performance.
Top 10 NE : Futureheads, Pigeon Detectives
Top 20 NE : Sandi Thom
Others : Ashlee Simpson, Bobby Womack, Kids In Glass Houses, Russell
Watson, Spiritualized, Wedding Present, Yazoo
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
Col
"Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QMt4oo8c...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Singles
> -------
> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
Agreed, it's not a great track, rather dull.
However it's a whole lot better than the Ting Tings thing.
Stupid name for a group, completely shite song.
--
Col
Steal a spaceship and head for the sun,
Shoot the stars with a lemonade ray gun.
Chris Brown
> Singles
> -------
> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
I guess it's done its job then.
But it still doesn't seem to gel somehow.
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Duffy #7
This would be a good time to look for previous Top 10 singles named
after tube stations, if I were at home.
> Top 20 : Ne-Yo #12,
Promotion obviously kicking in then.
> Nelly #14,
Promotion not obviously kicking in quite enough. Good.
I suppose you could call this record an attempt to return to his
underground roots or something, but it just goes to show that he
wasn't actually very good.
> Gabriella Cilmi #18,
HMV is now listing a re-issue of the CD single in a couple of weeks'
time, though the value isn't obvious.
> Taio Cruz #19
Quite well ahead of physical release, but that's probably because
nobody's buying the album.
> Top 30 : Alphabeat (TTN) #23,
Out tomorrow on CDs.
> Ashlee Simpson #24,
Already out on CD, although these days that's not necessarily the end
of the matter.
> Fratellis #27, Zutons
> #28,
Both out on CD & 7" tomorrow (with a second CD in the latter case).
Both look to be underperforming a little.
>Royworld #29
Sorry guys, the Hooisiers got there first. Perhaps it would have done
better if they'd called it 'Radio In/Out'.
> Top 40 : Fall Out Boy #31,
Apparently this is now getting played on the radio. Oh dear.
I believe this is John Mayer's first UK Top 40 appearance (well,
second because it was in last week).
> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
Now eligible for the chart, of course, as part of their album. But
since the download single is still (presumably) ruled out, it might be
selling even more than this.
> Gusto #34,
Not only is dance music seemingly dominated by inferior retreads of
records that weren't much cop to start with, they aren't even
especially popular.
> Re-entries T40 : Snap (RIAD) #36
Their first Top 40 appearance since 'The Power (Of Bhangra)' in 2003,
and their first new hit since 1995. This song was a Number One in
1992, and returned to the chart in 2003 for no obvious reason.
> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Vampire Weekend #44,
Some sources suggest that this is out on physicals tomorrow, but I
can't confirm that.
> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
Very much how I felt too!. ;-)
This is the one from the iTunes advert, which seems to have been
available as a download for a couple of weeks too, but gets the now
common boost from album release.
> Mariah Carey (BB) #56,
The next single, which is about dead people apparently.
> Sandi Thom
> #58,
And speaking of dead, here's Sandi Thom's career.
'The Devil's Beat' ought really to be called 'Ray Charles' Beat' as
it's quite obviously 'Hit The Road Jack', but with supposedly serious
lyrics.
>Chenoweth/Menzel #60,
And to complete the death theme, Kristen Chenoweth is apparently in
some TV show called Pushing Up Daisies.
This song, however, comes from the much-hyped musical Wicked, and
apparently got some promotion from I'd Do Anything. Perhaps we should
be grateful that's on the BBC.
>Kids In Glass Houses #62,
'Give Me What I Want', they demand, seemingly unfairly. Lostprophets-
ish Welsh emo.
>Futureheads #65,
It sort of looks like the trick of postponing the digital release to
coincide with the physical has backfired, maybe because that meant
waiting until one week before the album. Or perhaps people just didn't
like the song, which isn't necessarily their finest work.
> Andy Abraham #67
This year's Eurovision failure. And apparently not a brilliant enough
performance on the night to give him a boost next week either. That
could leave it the least successful UK Eurovision track for many a
year.
> nb - #75 was missing from the chart I worked from.
According to Yahoo! it's 'Scream' by Timbaland et al.
> Re-entries : none
Apart from that one.
> Albums
> ------
> As expected, the Ting Tings claim the #1 spot with their debut album 'We
> Started Nothing'.
Which I don't have much to say about really.
> New Entries/New Peaks
> ---------------------
> Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6,
Debut album from the Peruvian-born UK jazz crossover star, co-written
largely by Roy Castle's son. Not bad stuff, from what I've heard.
>Cistercian Monks #9
To quote the official hype:
"It all started with some striking advertising in religious
publications for 'Monks, Men of the Cloth and Sacred Singers'.
Following this campaign came some high profile radio interviews with
UCJ's A&R department and soon the search for suitable singers became
the headline of entertainment news. When the winners of this unusal
competition have been selected, they will go into the recording studio
with a repertoire of Gregorian Chant, sacred vocal music from the
Middle Ages."
Was that translated from Finnish or something?
Anyway, what you get is some apparently contest-winning monks singing
the usual Gregorian chant repertoire - but presumably it much have had
some pretty strong promotion to make people buy this instead of the
thousands of other such recordings.
> Top 20 : Osmonds #11,
Five-year old compilation which assembles hits by both the group and
individual members. No really, you shouldn't have.
>Vampire Weekend #15,
Some people obviously do give a [bleep] about an Oxford Comma, then.
> Hucknall #18
It's not immediately obvious why he's abandoned the Simply Red name.
It certainly doesn't reflect a huge change in style or anything. As
the title suggests, Tribute To Bobby is an album of covers, all songs
made famous by Bobby "Blue" Bland - I can only assume he didn't want
to put the surname on the cover in case it became obvious joke
fodder.
> New outside the top 20 : Foxboro Hot Tubs #37,
A pseudonymous Green Day, but the fans obviously aren't fooled.
Apparently this contains various lyrical allusions to the American
Idiot album.
>Sparks #54,
If I'm not very much mistaken, their first UK chart album since 1979.
Tracks include 'Let The Monkey Drive', 'Lighten Up, Morrissey' and the
airplay single 'Good Morning'. The band themselves are in the midst
of a London residency where they're performing all their albums on
consecutive nights.
> Scarlet
> Johansson #64,
Not taking the conventional route of actressess who turn to pop, this
album consists largely of covers of Tom Waits songs - even more oddly,
it opens with an instrumental track that she has no involvement in.
Still doing better than Minnie Driver though.
>Johnny Ray #67
Poor old him.
Needless to say, another hits collection.
> Re-entries : Neil Diamond (Best Of) #8,
Repromoted for the second time off the back of his new material.
> Taio Cruz #52, Elvis (Hitstory)
> #55, Mariah Carey (GH) #58, Kaiser Chiefs (YTAM) #63, Pigeon Detectives
> (WFM) #70
I'm guessing some shops in Blighty are having special offers for the
Bank Holiday.
> Next Week
> ---------
> Singles
> -------
> Seems likely that Rihanna will hold on at #1, as the competition isn't
> particularly strong.
I would tend to agree, although obviously my predictions won't be
their best this week.
> Some of the below seem unlike to hang around for more than a week
> though, given the nature of their fanbases.
>
> Top 5 : Duffy
This not one of the above.
> Top 10 : Alphabeat,
I suppose that's possible, although it's unlikely to match their first
hit in the long run.
> Fratellis, Zutons
Agreed. Their longer-term futures may be more doubtful.
> Top 20 : Guillemots,
Quite a victory for them, if so.
> Paul Weller,
Probably about right, since the download-driven chart is likely to
deny him a Top 10 position.
>Taio Cruz (T15)
Probably right, although I'm in the dark a bit here.
> Top 30 : Foals
Seems to have been postponed to June. Not that I'd bank on it going
this high anyway.
> Top 40 : Alanis Morissette,
Does anyone really care any more? It certainly hasn't sold downloads.
>Flo Rida,
Considering how early it charted, it hasn't shown great momentum.
>Nickelback (Ph)
Yeah, I always say their name like that too ;-)
Is this actually coming out though?
> Any other possibilities?
Off the top of my head, no.
> Albums
> ------
> Despite the indifferent reception for the lead single, Usher seems
> likely to have the #1 album, based on past performance.
Agreed.
> Top 10 NE : Futureheads,
Possibly not, given the hiccup of the present single. Also, the online-
only deluxe CD has been delayed, so those sales may not get counted
this time.
>Pigeon Detectives
Yep.
> Top 20 NE : Sandi Thom
She may just about make it.
> Others : Ashlee Simpson,
Anyone's guess.
>Bobby Womack,
Much as I like the guy, there's no obvious reason why this should
chart when his previous 450 best-ofs didn't.
>Kids In Glass Houses,
Plausible.
>Russell
> Watson,
Seems likely again, though it's not been heavily promoted for obvious
reasons I guess.
> Spiritualized,
Yeah. Pretend I didn't predict the single for a hit...
>Wedding Present,
I was going to point out that their last album only got to 67, despite
coming out in February. But seeing how sales have been lately, that's
not going to damn them.
> Yazoo
The pricetag might discourage early purchases.
Chris
Richard Brooks
> "Paul Hyett" <vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:QMt4oo8c...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Singles
>> -------
>> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
>> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
>
> Agreed, it's not a great track, rather dull.
> However it's a whole lot better than the Ting Tings thing.
> Stupid name for a group, completely shite song.
Does anyone else think that Alphabeat are the embodiment of the
Archies with their Sugar, Sugar type songs?
Col
"Chris Brown" <extrem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:677d37a9-5797-4897...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>This would be a good time to look for previous Top 10 singles named
>after tube stations, if I were at home.
Waterloo!
Paul Hyett
<richar...@vickers-armstrongs.com> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>
>Does anyone else think that Alphabeat are the embodiment of the Archies
>with their Sugar, Sugar type songs?
Certainly sickly enough to make you want to throw up...
Paul Hyett
in uk.music.charts :
>
>"Chris Brown" <extrem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:677d37a9-5797-4897...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>This would be a good time to look for previous Top 10 singles named
>>after tube stations, if I were at home.
>
> Waterloo!
Baker Street?
Paul Hyett
in uk.music.charts :
>> Singles
>> -------
>> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
>> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
>
>Agreed, it's not a great track, rather dull.
>However it's a whole lot better than the Ting Tings thing.
I wouldn't say that.
>Stupid name for a group
No worse than many others.
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>On May 25, 2:59 pm, Paul Hyett <vidcap...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote:
>> Singles
>> -------
>> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
>> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
>
>I guess it's done its job then.
What job? Scraping to #1 on relatively low sales?
>
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Duffy #7
>
>This would be a good time to look for previous Top 10 singles named
>after tube stations, if I were at home.
Well, the Rockferry single wasn't about a tube station, but there were
trains in the video...
>
>> Top 20 : Ne-Yo #12,
>
>Promotion obviously kicking in then.
Relegation would be better. :)
Still not listed for physical release until 30th June, but ISTM its
download sales will peak in only another 2-3 weeks, so that date will be
too late.
>
>> Nelly #14,
>
>Promotion not obviously kicking in quite enough. Good.
This is on full release.
>
>> Gabriella Cilmi #18,
>
>HMV is now listing a re-issue of the CD single in a couple of weeks'
>time, though the value isn't obvious.
The renewed airplay is kicking in - it rose from #125 to #37 last week!
>
>> Taio Cruz #19
>
>Quite well ahead of physical release
One day is 'well ahead'??
>
>> Top 30 : Alphabeat (TTN) #23,
>
>Out tomorrow on CDs.
I hope it doesn't hang around like the last one. :(
>
>> Ashlee Simpson #24,
>
>Already out on CD, although these days that's not necessarily the end
>of the matter.
But post-CD climbs tend to occur when a song has only been released to
download a week or two before, obviously not the case with this.
>
>> Fratellis #27, Zutons
>> #28,
>
>Both out on CD & 7" tomorrow (with a second CD in the latter case).
>Both look to be underperforming a little.
I only liked one of these two, but I can't remember which!
>
>> Top 40 : Fall Out Boy #31,
>
>Apparently this is now getting played on the radio. Oh dear.
>I believe this is John Mayer's first UK Top 40 appearance (well,
>second because it was in last week).
I'm not sure if this has been (or will be) released on CD - I can't see
it listed to come.
>
>> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>
>Now eligible for the chart, of course, as part of their album. But
>since the download single is still (presumably) ruled out, it might be
>selling even more than this.
It'll be interesting to see if this goes much higher.
>
>> Gusto #34,
>
>Not only is dance music seemingly dominated by inferior retreads of
>records that weren't much cop to start with,
>they aren't even
>especially popular.
And you worked that out from their modest chart position - amazing! :)
>
>> Re-entries T40 : Snap (RIAD) #36
>
>Their first Top 40 appearance since 'The Power (Of Bhangra)' in 2003,
>and their first new hit since 1995. This song was a Number One in
>1992, and returned to the chart in 2003 for no obvious reason.
Other than it being a remixed version?
BTW, Morrissey's new single has been pushed back again, to the 2nd June
- and for one week only, apparently. Given that's about how long his
physical sales normally last though, I doubt we'll see much difference
in chart terms... :)
It's not a new track anyway, but from his recent GH album. A CD + two 7"
singles, all with different B-sides.
>
>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Vampire Weekend #44,
>
>Some sources suggest that this is out on physicals tomorrow, but I
>can't confirm that.
Now listed for download-only release, today.
>
>> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
>
>Very much how I felt too!. ;-)
>This is the one from the iTunes advert, which seems to have been
>available as a download for a couple of weeks too, but gets the now
>common boost from album release.
Two album track downloads in the top 50 - has that happened before?
I wonder how many others charted lower down.
>
>> Mariah Carey (BB) #56,
>
>The next single, which is about dead people apparently.
The usual revealing/tight-fitting clothes in the video, so I have no
idea what the song itself is about... :)
>
>> Sandi Thom
>> #58,
>
>And speaking of dead, here's Sandi Thom's career.
Climbed a massive one place on CD release. :)
>
>>Futureheads #65,
>
>It sort of looks like the trick of postponing the digital release to
>coincide with the physical has backfired, maybe because that meant
>waiting until one week before the album. Or perhaps people just didn't
>like the song
Or perhaps few have even heard it - never went T100 on airplay...
>
>> Andy Abraham #67
>
>This year's Eurovision failure. And apparently not a brilliant enough
>performance on the night to give him a boost next week either. That
>could leave it the least successful UK Eurovision track for many a
>year.
I assume you mean in chart terms, rather than contest?
>
>> nb - #75 was missing from the chart I worked from.
>
>According to Yahoo! it's 'Scream' by Timbaland et al.
Found that out this morning.
>
>> Re-entries : none
>
>Apart from that one.
Well, yes.
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> As expected, the Ting Tings claim the #1 spot with their debut album 'We
>> Started Nothing'.
>
>Which I don't have much to say about really.
The chart show played one of their 30 second montages of the tracks from
the album - sounded OK.
>
>> New Entries/New Peaks
>> ---------------------
>> Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6,
>
>Debut album from the Peruvian-born UK jazz crossover star, co-written
>largely by Roy Castle's son. Not bad stuff, from what I've heard.
But what *have* you heard from it?
>
>> Top 20 :
>
>>Vampire Weekend #15,
>
>Some people obviously do give a [bleep] about an Oxford Comma, then.
Presumably on sale cheap somewhere.
>
>> Hucknall #18
>
>It's not immediately obvious why he's abandoned the Simply Red name.
>It certainly doesn't reflect a huge change in style or anything. As
>the title suggests, Tribute To Bobby is an album of covers, all songs
>made famous by Bobby "Blue" Bland
Not famous enough for me to have heard of him, though. :)
>
>> New outside the top 20 : Foxboro Hot Tubs #37,
>
>A pseudonymous Green Day, but the fans obviously aren't fooled.
Clearly they were, given its modest sales - you'd expect a Green Day
album top go T5 at worst.
>
>>Sparks #54,
>
>If I'm not very much mistaken, their first UK chart album since 1979.
You took Guinness all the way to America with you? :)
>
>>Johnny Ray #67
>
>Poor old him.
>Needless to say, another hits collection.
One that didn't even appear on the mids.
>
>> Re-entries : Neil Diamond (Best Of) #8,
>
>Repromoted for the second time off the back of his new material.
Up from #194 last week - possibly a record in-chart climb?
>
>> Taio Cruz #52, Elvis (Hitstory)
>> #55, Mariah Carey (GH) #58, Kaiser Chiefs (YTAM) #63, Pigeon Detectives
>> (WFM) #70
>
>I'm guessing some shops in Blighty are having special offers for the
>Bank Holiday.
Because people are *that* desperate for something to do? :)
>
>> Next Week
>> ---------
>> Singles
>> -------
>> Seems likely that Rihanna will hold on at #1, as the competition isn't
>> particularly strong.
>
>I would tend to agree, although obviously my predictions won't be
>their best this week.
At least you have an excuse. :)
>
>> Some of the below seem unlike to hang around for more than a week
>> though, given the nature of their fanbases.
>>
>> Top 5 : Duffy
>
>This not one of the above.
But previous album sales will hurt it.
>
>> Top 10 : Alphabeat,
>
>I suppose that's possible, although it's unlikely to match their first
>hit in the long run.
I hope you're right!
>
>> Top 20 :
>
>> Paul Weller,
>
>Probably about right, since the download-driven chart is likely to
>deny him a Top 10 position.
Except initially, perhaps.
>
>> Top 30 : Foals
>
>Seems to have been postponed to June.
That's what happens when I work from an out-of-date NR sched. :(
>
>> Top 40 : Alanis Morissette,
>
>Does anyone really care any more? It certainly hasn't sold downloads.
I sounds OK to me, though - and I'm not a fan of hers.
>
>>Nickelback (Ph)
>
>Yeah, I always say their name like that too ;-)
>Is this actually coming out though?
Repeatedly delayed, presumably by continuing sales of Rockstar - now
listed for 23rd June.
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Despite the indifferent reception for the lead single, Usher seems
>> likely to have the #1 album, based on past performance.
>
>Agreed.
Especially as 30k might be enough - a level he should reach even on the
back of an under-performing single.
>
>> Top 10 NE :
>
>>Pigeon Detectives
>
>Yep.
>
>> Top 20 NE : Sandi Thom
>
>She may just about make it.
I'm beginning to wonder, though.
>
>> Others : Ashlee Simpson,
>
>Anyone's guess.
Should manage T75 at least.
>
>> Yazoo
>
>The pricetag might discourage early purchases.
Didn't notice it was a multi-disc.
Col
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 at 06:39:15, Col <reddw...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> uk.music.charts :
>
>>
>>"Chris Brown" <extrem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:677d37a9-5797-4897...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>This would be a good time to look for previous Top 10 singles named
>>>after tube stations, if I were at home.
>>
>> Waterloo!
>
> Baker Street?
Itchycoo Park sounds as if it should be :)
Chris Brown
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 at 14:04:48, Chris Brown <extreme_r...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
> >On May 25, 2:59 pm, Paul Hyett <vidcap...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Singles
> >> -------
> >> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
> >> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
>
> >I guess it's done its job then.
>
> What job? Scraping to #1 on relatively low sales?
In a way, yes - people who look this up in twenty years' time won't
remember how low the sales were. And more to the point, it's drawn
attention to her reissue.
> >> New Entries/New Peaks
> >> ---------------------
> >> Top 10 : Duffy #7
>
> >This would be a good time to look for previous Top 10 singles named
> >after tube stations, if I were at home.
>
> Well, the Rockferry single wasn't about a tube station, but there were
> trains in the video...
Yes, but those weren't tube trains - the Tube doesn't run that far out
of London.
Full marks to the people elsewhere in this thread who've spotted them,
though.
> >> Nelly #14,
>
> >Promotion not obviously kicking in quite enough. Good.
>
> This is on full release.
Correct.
> >> Gabriella Cilmi #18,
>
> >HMV is now listing a re-issue of the CD single in a couple of weeks'
> >time, though the value isn't obvious.
>
> The renewed airplay is kicking in - it rose from #125 to #37 last week!
So that should send it tumbling back down... ;-)
> >> Taio Cruz #19
>
> >Quite well ahead of physical release
>
> One day is 'well ahead'??
Nope - "quite well" is a phrase, not "well ahead". It didn't look
right with a comma, but perhaps I should have asked Vampire Weekend.
> >> Top 30 : Alphabeat (TTN) #23,
>
> >Out tomorrow on CDs.
>
> I hope it doesn't hang around like the last one. :(
I'm guessing not.
> >> Ashlee Simpson #24,
>
> >Already out on CD, although these days that's not necessarily the end
> >of the matter.
>
> But post-CD climbs tend to occur when a song has only been released to
> download a week or two before, obviously not the case with this.
Er, Scouting For Girls?
> >> Fratellis #27, Zutons
> >> #28,
>
> >Both out on CD & 7" tomorrow (with a second CD in the latter case).
> >Both look to be underperforming a little.
>
> I only liked one of these two, but I can't remember which!
Bearing in mind that the Fratellis are one of the most painfully awful
bands currently operating, it may not have been them.
> >> Top 40 : Fall Out Boy #31,
>
> >Apparently this is now getting played on the radio. Oh dear.
> >I believe this is John Mayer's first UK Top 40 appearance (well,
> >second because it was in last week).
>
> I'm not sure if this has been (or will be) released on CD - I can't see
> it listed to come.
AFAIK it isn't, although you can't prove a negative.
> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>
> >Now eligible for the chart, of course, as part of their album. But
> >since the download single is still (presumably) ruled out, it might be
> >selling even more than this.
>
> It'll be interesting to see if this goes much higher.
My suspicion is that it won't, unless of course it's intentionally re-
released.
Maybe a few places though.
> >> Gusto #34,
>
> >Not only is dance music seemingly dominated by inferior retreads of
> >records that weren't much cop to start with,
> >they aren't even
> >especially popular.
>
> And you worked that out from their modest chart position - amazing! :)
If you can find something more interesting to say about this track, be
my guest.
> >> Re-entries T40 : Snap (RIAD) #36
>
> >Their first Top 40 appearance since 'The Power (Of Bhangra)' in 2003,
> >and their first new hit since 1995. This song was a Number One in
> >1992, and returned to the chart in 2003 for no obvious reason.
>
> Other than it being a remixed version?
That doesn't totally explain it though.
> BTW, Morrissey's new single has been pushed back again, to the 2nd June
> - and for one week only, apparently. Given that's about how long his
> physical sales normally last though, I doubt we'll see much difference
> in chart terms... :)
Yeah - when was the last time record shops had to re-stock a Morrissey
single?
> It's not a new track anyway, but from his recent GH album.
I noticed that. Once upon a time that would have been a laudable
gesture.
> A CD + two 7"
> singles, all with different B-sides.
Indeed. Which is roughly what you'd expect, although I see it's only a
two-track CD.
> >> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Vampire Weekend #44,
>
> >Some sources suggest that this is out on physicals tomorrow, but I
> >can't confirm that.
>
> Now listed for download-only release, today.
Which is a fairly meaningless concept, but could conceivably sneak it
into the 40.
> >> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
>
> >Very much how I felt too!. ;-)
> >This is the one from the iTunes advert, which seems to have been
> >available as a download for a couple of weeks too, but gets the now
> >common boost from album release.
>
> Two album track downloads in the top 50 - has that happened before?
By the same act you mean? I don't think so, although Leona came close.
I suppose if this climbs a few places (and I'm not predicting that it
will) they'd have their first three Top 40 entries in consecutive
weeks.
> I wonder how many others charted lower down.
My guess is not that many, since the three tracks that have charted
were all promoted.
> >> Mariah Carey (BB) #56,
>
> >The next single, which is about dead people apparently.
>
> The usual revealing/tight-fitting clothes in the video, so I have no
> idea what the song itself is about... :)
Very respectful, then.
> >>Futureheads #65,
>
> >It sort of looks like the trick of postponing the digital release to
> >coincide with the physical has backfired, maybe because that meant
> >waiting until one week before the album. Or perhaps people just didn't
> >like the song
>
> Or perhaps few have even heard it - never went T100 on airplay...
But surely some of their other singles that charted higher than this
didn't either?
That would have been a bit of a blow to them, since it's another case
of the old "radio song" trick.
> >> Andy Abraham #67
>
> >This year's Eurovision failure. And apparently not a brilliant enough
> >performance on the night to give him a boost next week either. That
> >could leave it the least successful UK Eurovision track for many a
> >year.
>
> I assume you mean in chart terms, rather than contest?
Yes - Jemini were only about five years ago.
> >> nb - #75 was missing from the chart I worked from.
>
> >According to Yahoo! it's 'Scream' by Timbaland et al.
>
> Found that out this morning.
Not really worth the wait, was it?
> >> Albums
> >> ------
> >> As expected, the Ting Tings claim the #1 spot with their debut album 'We
> >> Started Nothing'.
>
> >Which I don't have much to say about really.
>
> The chart show played one of their 30 second montages of the tracks from
> the album - sounded OK.
I presume they weren't playing a full track, as they'd have two in the
show anyway.
> >> New Entries/New Peaks
> >> ---------------------
> >> Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6,
>
> >Debut album from the Peruvian-born UK jazz crossover star, co-written
> >largely by Roy Castle's son. Not bad stuff, from what I've heard.
>
> But what *have* you heard from it?
Both singles and I think I might have heard one other track
somewhere.
> >> Top 20 :
>
> >>Vampire Weekend #15,
>
> >Some people obviously do give a [bleep] about an Oxford Comma, then.
>
> Presumably on sale cheap somewhere.
Presumably - but that alone wouldn't account for this. Were they a
British band, I'd wonder whether they should have waited until now to
release the album.
> >> Hucknall #18
>
> >It's not immediately obvious why he's abandoned the Simply Red name.
> >It certainly doesn't reflect a huge change in style or anything. As
> >the title suggests, Tribute To Bobby is an album of covers, all songs
> >made famous by Bobby "Blue" Bland
>
> Not famous enough for me to have heard of him, though. :)
I'm sure that's exactly what Hucknall planned though - that he could
make this music better known. And if that sounds egotistical, that's
probably because it is.
Of course, anyone who did know the originals would think this was
rubbish.
> >> New outside the top 20 : Foxboro Hot Tubs #37,
>
> >A pseudonymous Green Day, but the fans obviously aren't fooled.
>
> Clearly they were, given its modest sales - you'd expect a Green Day
> album top go T5 at worst.
But equally, you wouldn't expect an unpromoted album by an unknown
group to go Top 40.
Perhaps the truth of it is that nobody who wasn't a fan bought this,
and some people who were fans chose to give it a miss.
> >>Sparks #54,
>
> >If I'm not very much mistaken, their first UK chart album since 1979.
>
> You took Guinness all the way to America with you? :)
Nope - I just learnt that factoid when it looked like their last album
was going to chart.
> >>Johnny Ray #67
>
> >Poor old him.
> >Needless to say, another hits collection.
>
> One that didn't even appear on the mids.
Late week climb, presumably.
> >> Re-entries : Neil Diamond (Best Of) #8,
>
> >Repromoted for the second time off the back of his new material.
>
> Up from #194 last week - possibly a record in-chart climb?
Excluding leaks, it might well be. Although of course albums have re-
entered higher.
> >> Next Week
> >> ---------
> >> Singles
> >> -------
> >> Seems likely that Rihanna will hold on at #1, as the competition isn't
> >> particularly strong.
>
> >I would tend to agree, although obviously my predictions won't be
> >their best this week.
>
> At least you have an excuse. :)
This week anyway.
> >> Some of the below seem unlike to hang around for more than a week
> >> though, given the nature of their fanbases.
>
> >> Top 5 : Duffy
>
> >This not one of the above.
>
> But previous album sales will hurt it.
Relatively, yes. But they obviously haven't stopped people downloading
it before the official release date.
> >> Top 30 : Foals
>
> >Seems to have been postponed to June.
>
> That's what happens when I work from an out-of-date NR sched. :(
I only noticed because I was looking something else up.
> >> Top 40 : Alanis Morissette,
>
> >Does anyone really care any more? It certainly hasn't sold downloads.
>
> I sounds OK to me, though - and I'm not a fan of hers.
I haven't even heard it.
> >>Nickelback (Ph)
>
> >Yeah, I always say their name like that too ;-)
> >Is this actually coming out though?
>
> Repeatedly delayed, presumably by continuing sales of Rockstar - now
> listed for 23rd June.
I suppose they don't want to kill their career off too soon.
> >> Albums
> >> ------
> >> Despite the indifferent reception for the lead single, Usher seems
> >> likely to have the #1 album, based on past performance.
>
> >Agreed.
>
> Especially as 30k might be enough - a level he should reach even on the
> back of an under-performing single.
Correct.
> >> Top 20 NE : Sandi Thom
>
> >She may just about make it.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder, though.
Even if she charts somewhere in the 18-20 region, that'd be way down
on her first one though.
> >> Others : Ashlee Simpson,
>
> >Anyone's guess.
>
> Should manage T75 at least.
Yes, but I can't really say where.
> >> Yazoo
>
> >The pricetag might discourage early purchases.
>
> Didn't notice it was a multi-disc.
Yes - it's both albums, plus an extra disc of non-album tracks and a
DVD.
The digital version looks like good value though.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>> >> Singles
>> >> -------
>> >> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
>> >> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
>>
>> >I guess it's done its job then.
>>
>> What job? Scraping to #1 on relatively low sales?
>
>In a way, yes - people who look this up in twenty years' time won't
>remember how low the sales were. And more to the point, it's drawn
>attention to her reissue.
But possibly not *good* attention.
>
>> >> New Entries/New Peaks
>> >> ---------------------
>
>> >> Gabriella Cilmi #18,
>>
>> >HMV is now listing a re-issue of the CD single in a couple of weeks'
>> >time, though the value isn't obvious.
>>
>> The renewed airplay is kicking in - it rose from #125 to #37 last week!
>
>So that should send it tumbling back down... ;-)
The album took an unexpected tumble this week : 8-16.
>
>> >> Taio Cruz #19
>>
>> >Quite well ahead of physical release
>>
>> One day is 'well ahead'??
>
>Nope - "quite well" is a phrase, not "well ahead". It didn't look
>right with a comma
But would have been less confusing.
>>
>> But post-CD climbs tend to occur when a song has only been released to
>> download a week or two before, obviously not the case with this.
>
>Er, Scouting For Girls?
Err... perhaps people dismissed it as 'just another SFG song' without
really listening to it initially, only later discovering it's actually
quite good.
>
>> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>
>> >Now eligible for the chart, of course, as part of their album. But
>> >since the download single is still (presumably) ruled out, it might be
>> >selling even more than this.
>>
>> It'll be interesting to see if this goes much higher.
>
>My suspicion is that it won't, unless of course it's intentionally re-
>released.
Probably not - but if it *does* significantly climb, they may be kicking
themselves at making the original release ineligible...
>
>> >> Gusto #34,
>>
>> >Not only is dance music seemingly dominated by inferior retreads of
>> >records that weren't much cop to start with,
>> >they aren't even
>> >especially popular.
>>
>> And you worked that out from their modest chart position - amazing! :)
>
>If you can find something more interesting to say about this track, be
>my guest.
I thought I did. :)
>
>> >> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
>>
>> Two album track downloads in the top 50 - has that happened before?
>
>By the same act you mean? I don't think so, although Leona came close.
>I suppose if this climbs a few places (and I'm not predicting that it
>will)
Worked for Feist...
> they'd have their first three Top 40 entries in consecutive
>weeks.
Though that would be far from unique.
>
>> I wonder how many others charted lower down.
>
>My guess is not that many, since the three tracks that have charted
>were all promoted.
But many unpromoted album tracks chart lower down - almost the whole of
Arctic Monkey's last album for example - and I dare say the same will
apply to Coldplay's album in a couple of weeks.
BTW, I notice it's being listed for release on Thursday 12th rather than
Monday 9th.
Not that that'll stop it being #1 of course, it would surely sell more,
even on 1 day, than anything else would in the entire week.
>
>> >> Albums
>> >> ------
>> >> As expected, the Ting Tings claim the #1 spot with their debut album 'We
>> >> Started Nothing'.
>>
>> The chart show played one of their 30 second montages of the tracks from
>> the album - sounded OK.
>
>I presume they weren't playing a full track, as they'd have two in the
>show anyway.
Correct.
>
>> >> New Entries/New Peaks
>> >> ---------------------
>> >> Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6,
>>
>> >Debut album from the Peruvian-born UK jazz crossover star, co-written
>> >largely by Roy Castle's son. Not bad stuff, from what I've heard.
>>
>> But what *have* you heard from it?
>
>Both singles
I didn't even know there was a second!
>
>> >> New outside the top 20 :
>
>> >>Johnny Ray #67
>>
>> One that didn't even appear on the mids.
>
>Late week climb, presumably.
Why is another matter though.
>
>> >> Next Week
>> >> ---------
>> >> Singles
>> >> -------
>> > obviously my predictions won't be
>> >their best this week.
>>
>> At least you have an excuse. :)
>
>This week anyway.
But you won't have that excuse next week?
Maybe then you could blame jet-lag? :)
>
>> >> Albums
>> >> ------
>
>> >> Others : Ashlee Simpson,
>>
>> >Anyone's guess.
>>
>> Should manage T75 at least.
>
>Yes, but I can't really say where.
Outside the T40, surely.
Fred X
wrote:
> On May 25, 2:59 pm, Paul Hyett <vidcap...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote:
>> Singles
>> -------
>> After being narrowly thwarted last week, Rihanna climbs to #1 with the
>> (mediocre) 'Take A Bow'
>
> I guess it's done its job then.
> But it still doesn't seem to gel somehow.
I'd have thought that you would like all of her records! :)
Fred X
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 at 07:17:53, Chris Brown <extreme_r...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
> >> >> Singles
> >> >> -------
> >> >> ---------------------
> >> >> Taio Cruz #19
>
> >> >Quite well ahead of physical release
>
> >> One day is 'well ahead'??
>
> >Nope - "quite well" is a phrase, not "well ahead". It didn't look
> >right with a comma
>
> But would have been less confusing.
Fair point. I'll try and remember that next time.
> >> But post-CD climbs tend to occur when a song has only been released to
> >> download a week or two before, obviously not the case with this.
>
> >Er, Scouting For Girls?
>
> Err... perhaps people dismissed it as 'just another SFG song' without
> really listening to it initially, only later discovering it's actually
> quite good.
I still don't understand how anybody can prefer one of their records
to any of the others.
> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>
> >> >Now eligible for the chart, of course, as part of their album. But
> >> >since the download single is still (presumably) ruled out, it might be
> >> >selling even more than this.
>
> >> It'll be interesting to see if this goes much higher.
>
> >My suspicion is that it won't, unless of course it's intentionally re-
> >released.
>
> Probably not - but if it *does* significantly climb, they may be kicking
> themselves at making the original release ineligible...
Although we (or at least I) still don't know if that was entirely
through choice.
> >> >> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
>
> >> Two album track downloads in the top 50 - has that happened before?
>
> >By the same act you mean? I don't think so, although Leona came close.
> >I suppose if this climbs a few places (and I'm not predicting that it
> >will)
>
> Worked for Feist...
>
> > they'd have their first three Top 40 entries in consecutive
> >weeks.
>
> Though that would be far from unique.
Really? Who's done it before?
> >> I wonder how many others charted lower down.
>
> >My guess is not that many, since the three tracks that have charted
> >were all promoted.
>
> But many unpromoted album tracks chart lower down - almost the whole of
> Arctic Monkey's last album for example - and I dare say the same will
> apply to Coldplay's album in a couple of weeks.
Yeah, but the Arctic Monkeys tracks had a slightly artificial boost at
least early in the week, and that was a much bigger release anyway.
> BTW, I notice it's being listed for release on Thursday 12th rather than
> Monday 9th.
Yep.
> Not that that'll stop it being #1 of course, it would surely sell more,
> even on 1 day, than anything else would in the entire week.
Quite possibly, but it's another reason to damp down expectation about
the total first week sales. Er, even though the all-time record holder
was released on a Thursday too.
> >> >> Albums
> >> >> ------
> >> >> New Entries/New Peaks
> >> >> ---------------------
> >> >> Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6,
>
> >> >Debut album from the Peruvian-born UK jazz crossover star, co-written
> >> >largely by Roy Castle's son. Not bad stuff, from what I've heard.
>
> >> But what *have* you heard from it?
>
> >Both singles
>
> I didn't even know there was a second!
Yes - 'Oh My Life' and 'So Sublime'. I presume it's only those two...
Actually, there was apparently a Beth Rowley EP in December, including
her version of 'I Shall Be Released'.
> >> >> New outside the top 20 :
>
> >> >>Johnny Ray #67
>
> >> One that didn't even appear on the mids.
>
> >Late week climb, presumably.
>
> Why is another matter though.
People presumably wouldn't be impatient to get it, as it's not new
material, not by a long chalk.
> >> >> Next Week
> >> >> ---------
> >> >> Singles
> >> >> -------
> >> > obviously my predictions won't be
> >> >their best this week.
>
> >> At least you have an excuse. :)
>
> >This week anyway.
>
> But you won't have that excuse next week?
>
> Maybe then you could blame jet-lag? :)
Even then I'll be a couple of weeks' worth of promo behind.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>
>> >> >> Singles
>> >> >> -------
>> >> >> New Entries/New Peaks
>> >> >> ---------------------
>> >> download a week or two before, obviously not the case with this.
>>
>> >Er, Scouting For Girls?
>>
>> Err... perhaps people dismissed it as 'just another SFG song' without
>> really listening to it initially, only later discovering it's actually
>> quite good.
>
>I still don't understand how anybody can prefer one of their records
>to any of the others.
*I* prefer this one, though.
>
>> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>
>> >> It'll be interesting to see if this goes much higher.
>>
>> >My suspicion is that it won't, unless of course it's intentionally re-
>> >released.
>>
>> Probably not - but if it *does* significantly climb, they may be kicking
>> themselves at making the original release ineligible...
>
>Although we (or at least I) still don't know if that was entirely
>through choice.
I don't believe that - record companies know perfectly well what the
chart rules are, and even if they didn't they could easily find out.
>
>> >> >> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
>>
>> >> Two album track downloads in the top 50 - has that happened before?
>>
>> >By the same act you mean? I don't think so, although Leona came close.
>> >I suppose if this climbs a few places (and I'm not predicting that it
>> >will)
>>
>> Worked for Feist...
>>
>> > they'd have their first three Top 40 entries in consecutive
>> >weeks.
>>
>> Though that would be far from unique.
>
>Really? Who's done it before?
Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries for a
number of consecutive weeks.
>
>> BTW, I notice it's being listed for release on Thursday 12th rather than
>> Monday 9th.
>
>Yep.
>
>> Not that that'll stop it being #1 of course, it would surely sell more,
>> even on 1 day, than anything else would in the entire week.
>
>Quite possibly, but it's another reason to damp down expectation about
>the total first week sales.
They could still shift 200k in 3 days, though - and probably almost the
same in the full week following.
>Er, even though the all-time record holder
>was released on a Thursday too.
But wasn't that Oasis total calculated from the first 7 days sales, even
though that was split between 2 chart weeks?
>
>> >> >> Albums
>> >> >> ------
>
>> >> >> New Entries/New Peaks
>> >> >> ---------------------
>> >> >> Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6,
>>
>> >> >Debut album from the Peruvian-born UK jazz crossover star, co-written
>> >> >largely by Roy Castle's son. Not bad stuff, from what I've heard.
>>
>> >> But what *have* you heard from it?
>>
>> >Both singles
>>
>> I didn't even know there was a second!
>
>Yes - 'Oh My Life' and 'So Sublime'. I presume it's only those two...
>Actually, there was apparently a Beth Rowley EP in December, including
>her version of 'I Shall Be Released'.
It either didn't chart, or was ineligible.
>
>> >> >> New outside the top 20 :
>>
>> >> >>Johnny Ray #67
>>
>> >> One that didn't even appear on the mids.
>>
>> >Late week climb, presumably.
>>
>> Why is another matter though.
>
>People presumably wouldn't be impatient to get it, as it's not new
>material, not by a long chalk.
But that's a reason not to buy it at all, rather than just wait until
Saturday to do so.
>
>> >> >> Next Week
>> >> >> ---------
>> >> >> Singles
>> >> >> -------
>> >> > obviously my predictions won't be
>> >> >their best this week.
>>
>> >> At least you have an excuse. :)
>>
>> >This week anyway.
>>
>> But you won't have that excuse next week?
>>
>> Maybe then you could blame jet-lag? :)
>
>Even then I'll be a couple of weeks' worth of promo behind.
>
But the only promo *I* see before making my predictions are the videos,
which is only a small part of the overall picture - and you could watch
*those* from where you are, via Youtube.
Chris Brown
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 at 14:22:15, Chris Brown <extreme_r...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> Singles
> >> >> >> -------
> >> >> >> New Entries/New Peaks
> >> >> >> ---------------------
> >> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>
> >> >> It'll be interesting to see if this goes much higher.
>
> >> >My suspicion is that it won't, unless of course it's intentionally re-
> >> >released.
>
> >> Probably not - but if it *does* significantly climb, they may be kicking
> >> themselves at making the original release ineligible...
>
> >Although we (or at least I) still don't know if that was entirely
> >through choice.
>
> I don't believe that - record companies know perfectly well what the
> chart rules are, and even if they didn't they could easily find out.
In most cases, yes. But the specific regulation this seems to have
fallen foul of isn't explicit in the published rules: Rule 5.2 says a
free product is not eligible, but it doesn't state that a paid-for
copy of a freebie isn't.
> >> >> >> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
>
> >> >> Two album track downloads in the top 50 - has that happened before?
>
> >> >By the same act you mean? I don't think so, although Leona came close.
> >> >I suppose if this climbs a few places (and I'm not predicting that it
> >> >will)
>
> >> Worked for Feist...
It did, but she didn't have other singles competing with it, and she
wasn't selling as many albums. Anyway, I'm not saying they won't
either - I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't making a prediction.
> >> > they'd have their first three Top 40 entries in consecutive
> >> >weeks.
>
> >> Though that would be far from unique.
>
> >Really? Who's done it before?
>
> Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries for a
> number of consecutive weeks.
Indeed, but those were (by definition) not their first Top 40 hits.
> >> BTW, I notice it's being listed for release on Thursday 12th rather than
> >> Monday 9th.
>
> >Yep.
>
> >> Not that that'll stop it being #1 of course, it would surely sell more,
> >> even on 1 day, than anything else would in the entire week.
>
> >Quite possibly, but it's another reason to damp down expectation about
> >the total first week sales.
>
> They could still shift 200k in 3 days, though - and probably almost the
> same in the full week following.
>
> >Er, even though the all-time record holder
> >was released on a Thursday too.
>
> But wasn't that Oasis total calculated from the first 7 days sales, even
> though that was split between 2 chart weeks?
You could be right actually (although the first chart week for most
albums is only six days, of course).
> >> >> >> Albums
> >> >> >> ------
>
> >> >> >> New Entries/New Peaks
> >> >> >> ---------------------
> >> >> >> Top 10 : Beth Rowley #6,
>
> >> >> >Debut album from the Peruvian-born UK jazz crossover star, co-written
> >> >> >largely by Roy Castle's son. Not bad stuff, from what I've heard.
>
> >> >> But what *have* you heard from it?
>
> >> >Both singles
>
> >> I didn't even know there was a second!
>
> >Yes - 'Oh My Life' and 'So Sublime'. I presume it's only those two...
> >Actually, there was apparently a Beth Rowley EP in December, including
> >her version of 'I Shall Be Released'.
>
> It either didn't chart, or was ineligible.
Available evidence suggests the former.
> >> >> >> New outside the top 20 :
>
> >> >> >>Johnny Ray #67
>
> >> >> One that didn't even appear on the mids.
>
> >> >Late week climb, presumably.
>
> >> Why is another matter though.
>
> >People presumably wouldn't be impatient to get it, as it's not new
> >material, not by a long chalk.
>
> But that's a reason not to buy it at all, rather than just wait until
> Saturday to do so.
Indeed - but my point was that you wouldn't be queing up outside to
get it ASAP, because if you were in that much of a hurry you could
have obtained the tracks elsewhere.
> >> >> >> Next Week
> >> >> >> ---------
> >> >> >> Singles
> >> >> >> -------
> >> >> > obviously my predictions won't be
> >> >> >their best this week.
>
> >> >> At least you have an excuse. :)
>
> >> >This week anyway.
>
> >> But you won't have that excuse next week?
>
> >> Maybe then you could blame jet-lag? :)
>
> >Even then I'll be a couple of weeks' worth of promo behind.
>
> But the only promo *I* see before making my predictions are the videos,
> which is only a small part of the overall picture - and you could watch
> *those* from where you are, via Youtube.
Perhaps there's something in that...
Anyway, in my case I can get some clues from radio too.
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>> >> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>> >> if it *does* significantly climb, they may be kicking
>> >> themselves at making the original release ineligible...
>>
>> >Although we (or at least I) still don't know if that was entirely
>> >through choice.
>>
>> I don't believe that - record companies know perfectly well what the
>> chart rules are, and even if they didn't they could easily find out.
>
>In most cases, yes. But the specific regulation this seems to have
>fallen foul of isn't explicit in the published rules: Rule 5.2 says a
>free product is not eligible, but it doesn't state that a paid-for
>copy of a freebie isn't.
All I can think is that the freebie version of GDJ must have had the
same catalogue number as the paid-for one, otherwise the latter could
have been tallied separately & therefore been chart-eligible.
>
>> >> >> >> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
>> >> >I suppose if this climbs a few places (and I'm not predicting that it
>> >> >will)
>>
>> >> Worked for Feist...
>
>It did, but she didn't have other singles competing with it, and she
>wasn't selling as many albums. Anyway, I'm not saying they won't
>either - I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't making a prediction.
Perhaps you should have risked it, looking at the mids. :)
>>
>> >Really? Who's done it before?
>>
>> Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries for a
>> number of consecutive weeks.
>
>Indeed, but those were (by definition) not their first Top 40 hits.
I didn't realise that was a stipulation.
>>
>> >Er, even though the all-time record holder
>> >was released on a Thursday too.
>>
>> But wasn't that Oasis total calculated from the first 7 days sales, even
>> though that was split between 2 chart weeks?
>
>You could be right actually (although the first chart week for most
>albums is only six days, of course).
Or *was*, back in the mid-90's when few if any music outlets were open
on Sundays...
I wonder *why* Coldplay are releasing on Thursday, anyway? I see nothing
released on the following Monday that's likely to prevent them having a
2nd week at #1 (or indeed the week after, for a 3rd).
>
>> >> >> >> Next Week
>> >> >> >> ---------
>> >> >> >> Singles
>> >> >> >> -------
>> >> >> > obviously my predictions won't be
>> >> >> >their best this week.
>>
>> >> >> At least you have an excuse. :)
>>
>> >> >This week anyway.
>>
>> >> But you won't have that excuse next week?
>>
>> >> Maybe then you could blame jet-lag? :)
>>
>> >Even then I'll be a couple of weeks' worth of promo behind.
>>
>> But the only promo *I* see before making my predictions are the videos,
>> which is only a small part of the overall picture - and you could watch
>> *those* from where you are, via Youtube.
>
>Perhaps there's something in that...
>Anyway, in my case I can get some clues from radio too.
US radio?
Chris Brown
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 14:14:18, Chris Brown <extreme_r...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
> >> >> if it *does* significantly climb, they may be kicking
> >> >> themselves at making the original release ineligible...
>
> >> >Although we (or at least I) still don't know if that was entirely
> >> >through choice.
>
> >> I don't believe that - record companies know perfectly well what the
> >> chart rules are, and even if they didn't they could easily find out.
>
> >In most cases, yes. But the specific regulation this seems to have
> >fallen foul of isn't explicit in the published rules: Rule 5.2 says a
> >free product is not eligible, but it doesn't state that a paid-for
> >copy of a freebie isn't.
>
> All I can think is that the freebie version of GDJ must have had the
> same catalogue number as the paid-for one, otherwise the latter could
> have been tallied separately & therefore been chart-eligible.
That appears to have been it. Presumably that in itself wouldn't have
precluded it from charting on eligible physical sales or downloads
from other sites - but since iTunes accounts for so much of the
market, I guess the label didn't think it worthwhile.
> >> >> >> >> Ting Tings (SUALMG) #49,
> >> >> >I suppose if this climbs a few places (and I'm not predicting that it
> >> >> >will)
>
> >> >> Worked for Feist...
>
> >It did, but she didn't have other singles competing with it, and she
> >wasn't selling as many albums. Anyway, I'm not saying they won't
> >either - I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't making a prediction.
>
> Perhaps you should have risked it, looking at the mids. :)
I know, but I thought I'd be honest for once.
> >> >Really? Who's done it before?
>
> >> Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries for a
> >> number of consecutive weeks.
>
> >Indeed, but those were (by definition) not their first Top 40 hits.
>
> I didn't realise that was a stipulation.
In the sentence I wrote, it was.
> >> >Er, even though the all-time record holder
> >> >was released on a Thursday too.
>
> >> But wasn't that Oasis total calculated from the first 7 days sales, even
> >> though that was split between 2 chart weeks?
>
> >You could be right actually (although the first chart week for most
> >albums is only six days, of course).
>
> Or *was*, back in the mid-90's when few if any music outlets were open
> on Sundays...
Even now, physical albums don't come out until the Monday. Some
digital albums come out on the Sunday, of course, but nobody's going
to break any records there.
> I wonder *why* Coldplay are releasing on Thursday, anyway? I see nothing
> released on the following Monday that's likely to prevent them having a
> 2nd week at #1 (or indeed the week after, for a 3rd).
I heard some vague suggestion that it was coming out on that day in
Thailand or somewhere, so they brought it forward in the rest of the
world. I haven't checked that though.
> >> >> >> >> Next Week
> >> >> >> >> ---------
> >> >> >> >> Singles
> >> >> >> >> -------
> >> >> >> > obviously my predictions won't be
> >> >> >> >their best this week.
>
> >> >> >> At least you have an excuse. :)
>
> >> >> >This week anyway.
>
> >> >> But you won't have that excuse next week?
>
> >> >> Maybe then you could blame jet-lag? :)
>
> >> >Even then I'll be a couple of weeks' worth of promo behind.
>
> >> But the only promo *I* see before making my predictions are the videos,
> >> which is only a small part of the overall picture - and you could watch
> >> *those* from where you are, via Youtube.
>
> >Perhaps there's something in that...
> >Anyway, in my case I can get some clues from radio too.
>
> US radio?
Nope, Uk radio. Which is why I'll need a couple of weeks to catch up.
Chris
Robbie
> On May 28, 3:49 am, Paul Hyett <vidcap...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 14:14:18, Chris Brown <extreme_r...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>>>>> if it *does* significantly climb, they may be kicking
>>>>>> themselves at making the original release ineligible...
>>>>> Although we (or at least I) still don't know if that was entirely
>>>>> through choice.
>>>> I don't believe that - record companies know perfectly well what the
>>>> chart rules are, and even if they didn't they could easily find out.
>>> In most cases, yes. But the specific regulation this seems to have
>>> fallen foul of isn't explicit in the published rules: Rule 5.2 says a
>>> free product is not eligible, but it doesn't state that a paid-for
>>> copy of a freebie isn't.
>> All I can think is that the freebie version of GDJ must have had the
>> same catalogue number as the paid-for one, otherwise the latter could
>> have been tallied separately & therefore been chart-eligible.
>
> That appears to have been it. Presumably that in itself wouldn't have
> precluded it from charting on eligible physical sales or downloads
> from other sites - but since iTunes accounts for so much of the
> market, I guess the label didn't think it worthwhile.
Alan Jones reported that the download was NCQ because it included a widget:
"Neither the 7-inch nor download version of Great DJ was chart eligible,
the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves turned
inside out
and customized, the latter because it included a widget for a competition.
No, I don't know what that means either!
--
Robbie
Paul Hyett
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>
>
>"Neither the 7-inch nor download version of Great DJ was chart eligible,
>the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves turned
>inside out
>and customized
I don't see why *that* would be a problem - all vinyl records come with
a sleeve.
>, the latter because it included a widget for a competition.
>
>No, I don't know what that means either!
>
I guess the OCC did, but ISTM there's an issue over how much that would
have helped an, at the time, virtually unknown & uncharted band?
ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
qualify for the chart...
Paul Hyett
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>
>> same catalogue number as the paid-for one, otherwise the latter could
>> have been tallied separately & therefore been chart-eligible.
>
>That appears to have been it. Presumably that in itself wouldn't have
>precluded it from charting on eligible physical sales or downloads
>from other sites - but since iTunes accounts for so much of the
>market, I guess the label didn't think it worthwhile.
I guess it hasn't climbed this week - at least it hasn't been
specifically listed in the Mids as doing so.
>>
>> >> Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries for a
>> >> number of consecutive weeks.
>>
>> >Indeed, but those were (by definition) not their first Top 40 hits.
>>
>> I didn't realise that was a stipulation.
>
>In the sentence I wrote, it was.
I see you did mention it, but I thought it was only a passing comment,
rather than a stipulation.
>>
>> >You could be right actually (although the first chart week for most
>> >albums is only six days, of course).
>>
>> Or *was*, back in the mid-90's when few if any music outlets were open
>> on Sundays...
>
>Even now, physical albums don't come out until the Monday.
Yes, but for any album not released on a Monday, the first 7 day's sales
*will* include those on the following Sunday.
>
>> I wonder *why* Coldplay are releasing on Thursday, anyway? I see nothing
>> released on the following Monday that's likely to prevent them having a
>> 2nd week at #1 (or indeed the week after, for a 3rd).
>
>I heard some vague suggestion that it was coming out on that day in
>Thailand or somewhere, so they brought it forward in the rest of the
>world.
Right - because those pesky Taiwanese imports would have totally
undercut sales everywhere else in the world... :)
>> >Anyway, in my case I can get some clues from radio too.
>>
>> US radio?
>
>Nope, Uk radio. Which is why I'll need a couple of weeks to catch up.
>
On the subject of UK radio airplay, the vagaries of it are exposed this
week. Dolly Parton's new single 'Better Get To Living' is #32 this week,
on just 17 spins - presumably (almost) all on R2. Given your present
location, I dare say it will have had a lot more airplay there, though!
Having seen the video on Youtube, needless to say her two best-known
talents are prominent. :)
Robbie
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 at 20:16:31, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote
> in uk.music.charts :
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>
>> Alan Jones reported that the download was NCQ because it included a
>> widget:
>>
>> "Neither the 7-inch nor download version of Great DJ was chart eligible,
>> the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves turned
>> inside out
>> and customized
>
> I don't see why *that* would be a problem - all vinyl records come with
> a sleeve.
The chart rules for packaging for vinyl singles says:
1. The packaging must have no value in its own right and no other use
than to contain the recording.
2. Vinyl formats should be contained within a card, paper or flexible
plastic sleeve. The packaging may have one fold (i.e. a gatefold).
Packaging must be the size of the format. May include a protective inner
or outer sleeve as part of the packaging.
So I assume the packaging either has a value or fell foul of the second
rule.
>
>> , the latter because it included a widget for a competition.
>>
>> No, I don't know what that means either!
>>
> I guess the OCC did, but ISTM there's an issue over how much that would
> have helped an, at the time, virtually unknown & uncharted band?
>
> ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
> market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
> qualify for the chart...
The widget relates the the download. Unless you meant the packaging on
the vinyl single?
--
Robbie
Paul Hyett
in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>> "Neither the 7-inch nor download version of Great DJ was chart eligible,
>>> the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves
>>>turned inside out
>>> and customized
>> I don't see why *that* would be a problem - all vinyl records come
>>with a sleeve.
>
>The chart rules for packaging for vinyl singles says:
>
>1. The packaging must have no value in its own right and no other use
>than to contain the recording.
>
>2. Vinyl formats should be contained within a card, paper or flexible
>plastic sleeve. The packaging may have one fold (i.e. a gatefold).
>Packaging must be the size of the format. May include a protective inner
>or outer sleeve as part of the packaging.
>
>So I assume the packaging either has a value or fell foul of the second
>rule.
Or that the above rules haven't been changed for so many years that they
are now virtually irrelevant?
>
>>>
>> I guess the OCC did, but ISTM there's an issue over how much that
>>would have helped an, at the time, virtually unknown & uncharted band?
>> ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
>>market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
>>qualify for the chart...
>
>The widget relates the the download. Unless you meant the packaging on
>the vinyl single?
>
Well actually, the 2nd paragraph is a separate issue, which by now
you've probably seen me raise at Buzzjack and Haven.
Chris Brown
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 at 10:24:52, Chris Brown <extreme_r...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>
> >> All I can think is that the freebie version of GDJ must have had the
> >> same catalogue number as the paid-for one, otherwise the latter could
> >> have been tallied separately & therefore been chart-eligible.
>
> >That appears to have been it. Presumably that in itself wouldn't have
> >precluded it from charting on eligible physical sales or downloads
> >from other sites - but since iTunes accounts for so much of the
> >market, I guess the label didn't think it worthwhile.
>
> I guess it hasn't climbed this week - at least it hasn't been
> specifically listed in the Mids as doing so.
I haven't seen anyone ask, either.
> >> >> Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries for a
> >> >> number of consecutive weeks.
>
> >> >Indeed, but those were (by definition) not their first Top 40 hits.
>
> >> I didn't realise that was a stipulation.
>
> >In the sentence I wrote, it was.
>
> I see you did mention it, but I thought it was only a passing comment,
> rather than a stipulation.
Well, what I type has no legal force. But doing that with your first
three Top 40 hits is even more remarkable than doing it with another
three.
> >> >You could be right actually (although the first chart week for most
> >> >albums is only six days, of course).
>
> >> Or *was*, back in the mid-90's when few if any music outlets were open
> >> on Sundays...
>
> >Even now, physical albums don't come out until the Monday.
>
> Yes, but for any album not released on a Monday, the first 7 day's sales
> *will* include those on the following Sunday.
Of course - but do we know whether the quoted figures for X&Y, Life
For Rent etc are a full seven days or just the first chart week? I'd
always assumed the latter, especially since I seem to recall them
being announced first thing on the Mondays.
> >> I wonder *why* Coldplay are releasing on Thursday, anyway? I see nothing
> >> released on the following Monday that's likely to prevent them having a
> >> 2nd week at #1 (or indeed the week after, for a 3rd).
>
> >I heard some vague suggestion that it was coming out on that day in
> >Thailand or somewhere, so they brought it forward in the rest of the
> >world.
>
> Right - because those pesky Taiwanese imports would have totally
> undercut sales everywhere else in the world... :)
Well, they would have increased the probability of Internet leaks,
although of course that presupposes that the record wouldn't leak
before it's released anywhere in the world (not a very safe
assumption). Maybe they're just being nice?
> >> >Anyway, in my case I can get some clues from radio too.
>
> >> US radio?
>
> >Nope, Uk radio. Which is why I'll need a couple of weeks to catch up.
>
> On the subject of UK radio airplay, the vagaries of it are exposed this
> week. Dolly Parton's new single 'Better Get To Living' is #32 this week,
> on just 17 spins - presumably (almost) all on R2. Given your present
> location, I dare say it will have had a lot more airplay there, though!
It's actually not in the current Country Top 25, though it may have
been and gone already I suppose.
Chris
Robbie
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 10:07:53, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote
> in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>>
>>>> "Neither the 7-inch nor download version of Great DJ was chart
>>>> eligible,
>>>> the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves
>>>> turned inside out
>>>> and customized
>>> I don't see why *that* would be a problem - all vinyl records come
>>> with a sleeve.
>>
>> The chart rules for packaging for vinyl singles says:
>>
>> 1. The packaging must have no value in its own right and no other use
>> than to contain the recording.
>>
>> 2. Vinyl formats should be contained within a card, paper or flexible
>> plastic sleeve. The packaging may have one fold (i.e. a gatefold).
>> Packaging must be the size of the format. May include a protective inner
>> or outer sleeve as part of the packaging.
>>
>> So I assume the packaging either has a value or fell foul of the
>> second rule.
>
> Or that the above rules haven't been changed for so many years that they
> are now virtually irrelevant?
They've been reworded and tightened a few times, the above is from the
latest version of the chart rules (October 2007).
>>
>>>>
>>> I guess the OCC did, but ISTM there's an issue over how much that
>>> would have helped an, at the time, virtually unknown & uncharted band?
>
>>> ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
>>> market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
>>> qualify for the chart...
>>
>> The widget relates the the download. Unless you meant the packaging on
>> the vinyl single?
>>
> Well actually, the 2nd paragraph is a separate issue, which by now
> you've probably seen me raise at Buzzjack and Haven.
I have, I'm not really sure what could be done to provide incentives
without creating something that has a value all of its own.
--
Robbie
Chris Brown
> in uk.music.charts :
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>
>
> >the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves turned
> >inside out
> >and customized
>
> I don't see why *that* would be a problem - all vinyl records come with
> a sleeve.
They do (although picture discs tend to be in clear plastic ones) but
as Robbie's pointed out the rules do have some specific descriptions
involved which this could have fallen foul of: checking Ebay, it seems
that each copy has a sort of sash wrapped around it which might
conflict with the rules (it also feels like all 500 copies of the
original version of 'That's Not My Name' are listed on there!). It's
also possible that Jones was misinformed and that the 7" was excluded
for some other reason anyway (Dealer price? No barcode?) - if the
description in one listing as a gig-only record is true then there was
never any way they'd count.
What's for certain is that even if this format had been eligible, it
couldn't have contributed enough sales to make the track a hit.
> >, the latter because it included a widget for a competition.
>
> >No, I don't know what that means either!
>
> I guess the OCC did, but ISTM there's an issue over how much that would
> have helped an, at the time, virtually unknown & uncharted band?
You might be able to argue that (or conversely, that a little-known
act would need it more) but that's not the principle by which the OCC
enforce their rules.
> ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
> market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
> qualify for the chart...
Yeah, but that's a download. I don't think you could add a widget to a
7".
In fact, there have been some moves in that direction in the last
couple of revisions. Note that maxi CDs and vinyl formats are restored
to their longer running times, and that free stickers are now
permitted.
Chris
Paul Hyett
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>
>> >Alan Jones reported that the download was NCQ because it included a widget:
>>
>> >"Neither the 7-inch nor download version of Great DJ was chart eligible,
>> >the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves turned
>> >inside out
>> >and customized
>>
>> I don't see why *that* would be a problem - all vinyl records come with
>> a sleeve.
>
>They do (although picture discs tend to be in clear plastic ones) but
>as Robbie's pointed out the rules do have some specific descriptions
>involved which this could have fallen foul of: checking Ebay, it seems
>that each copy has a sort of sash wrapped around it which might
>conflict with the rules (it also feels like all 500 copies of the
>original version of 'That's Not My Name' are listed on there!).
What 'original version'?
>What's for certain is that even if this format had been eligible, it
>couldn't have contributed enough sales to make the track a hit.
True.
>
>> ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
>> market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
>> qualify for the chart...
>
>Yeah, but that's a download. I don't think you could add a widget to a
>7".
I meant in general terms, not just them.
>In fact, there have been some moves in that direction in the last
>couple of revisions. Note that maxi CDs and vinyl formats are restored
>to their longer running times, and that free stickers are now
>permitted.
Too little too late, alas.
Paul Hyett
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>
>> specifically listed in the Mids as doing so.
>
>I haven't seen anyone ask, either.
But album-track downloads normally peak the week the album is released,
except when they are subsequently released as singles (or used in ads).
>
>> >> >> Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries for a
>> >> >> number of consecutive weeks.
>>
>> >> >Indeed, but those were (by definition) not their first Top 40 hits.
>>
>> >> I didn't realise that was a stipulation.
>>
>> >In the sentence I wrote, it was.
>>
>> I see you did mention it, but I thought it was only a passing comment,
>> rather than a stipulation.
>
>Well, what I type has no legal force. But doing that with your first
>three Top 40 hits is even more remarkable than doing it with another
>three.
But to be fair, it's only really been practical to achieve the feat in
the last year or two, so it can't really be compared to anything
previous in a meaningful way.
>>
>> Yes, but for any album not released on a Monday, the first 7 day's sales
>> *will* include those on the following Sunday.
>
>Of course - but do we know whether the quoted figures for X&Y, Life
>For Rent etc are a full seven days or just the first chart week?
That's normally the same thing, though.
>>
>> On the subject of UK radio airplay, the vagaries of it are exposed this
>> week. Dolly Parton's new single 'Better Get To Living' is #32 this week,
>> on just 17 spins - presumably (almost) all on R2. Given your present
>> location, I dare say it will have had a lot more airplay there, though!
>
>It's actually not in the current Country Top 25, though it may have
>been and gone already I suppose.
This new single is clearly designed to relaunch her latest album
'Backwoods Barbie' which managed a stunning 1 week at #188 back in
March. :)
On a related subject, I thought her duet with Norah Jones 'Creepin In'
from the latter's 2nd album, would have made a very good single.
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 12:32:33, Chris Brown <extrem...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>>
>>> I guess it hasn't climbed this week - at least it hasn't been
>>> specifically listed in the Mids as doing so.
>>
>>I haven't seen anyone ask, either.
>
> But album-track downloads normally peak the week the album is released,
> except when they are subsequently released as singles (or used in ads).
Agreed. I was just saying I didn't know it for a fact.
>>> >> >> Both the Elvis & MJ re-release sequences - they had new entries
>>> >> >> for a
>>> >> >> number of consecutive weeks.
>>>
>>> >> >Indeed, but those were (by definition) not their first Top 40 hits.
>>>
>>> >> I didn't realise that was a stipulation.
>>>
>>> >In the sentence I wrote, it was.
>>>
>>> I see you did mention it, but I thought it was only a passing comment,
>>> rather than a stipulation.
>>
>>Well, what I type has no legal force. But doing that with your first
>>three Top 40 hits is even more remarkable than doing it with another
>>three.
>
> But to be fair, it's only really been practical to achieve the feat in the
> last year or two, so it can't really be compared to anything previous in a
> meaningful way.
It can't, but there's still some notability in being the first to do
something. Believe me I'm not cheerleading for the Ting Tings!
>>> Yes, but for any album not released on a Monday, the first 7 day's sales
>>> *will* include those on the following Sunday.
>>
>>Of course - but do we know whether the quoted figures for X&Y, Life
>>For Rent etc are a full seven days or just the first chart week?
>
> That's normally the same thing, though.
Well, no it isn't, for the reason I've already mentioned.
In practice of course, those sales won't be decisive.
> On a related subject, I thought her duet with Norah Jones 'Creepin In'
> from the latter's 2nd album, would have made a very good single.
So you said.
Chris
Chris Brown
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 12:53:14, Chris Brown <extrem...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ting Tings (GDJ) #33,
>>>
>>> >Alan Jones reported that the download was NCQ because it included a
>>> >widget:
>>>
>>> >"Neither the 7-inch nor download version of Great DJ was chart
>>> >eligible,
>>> >the former because it was packaged in other old record sleeves turned
>>> >inside out
>>> >and customized
>>>
>>> I don't see why *that* would be a problem - all vinyl records come with
>>> a sleeve.
>>
>>They do (although picture discs tend to be in clear plastic ones) but
>>as Robbie's pointed out the rules do have some specific descriptions
>>involved which this could have fallen foul of: checking Ebay, it seems
>>that each copy has a sort of sash wrapped around it which might
>>conflict with the rules (it also feels like all 500 copies of the
>>original version of 'That's Not My Name' are listed on there!).
>
> What 'original version'?
It came out as a limited 7" at some point last year.
I don't know whether this was any different musically from the chart-topping
version.
>>> ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
>>> market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
>>> qualify for the chart...
>>
>>Yeah, but that's a download. I don't think you could add a widget to a
>>7".
>
> I meant in general terms, not just them.
It doesn't matter who they are, they still can't do it.
>>In fact, there have been some moves in that direction in the last
>>couple of revisions. Note that maxi CDs and vinyl formats are restored
>>to their longer running times, and that free stickers are now
>>permitted.
>
> Too little too late, alas.
Well, isn't that sort of the point?
Chris
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>Well, what I type has no legal force. But doing that with your first
>>>three Top 40 hits is even more remarkable than doing it with another
>>>three.
>>
>> But to be fair, it's only really been practical to achieve the feat in the
>> last year or two, so it can't really be compared to anything previous in a
>> meaningful way.
>
>It can't, but there's still some notability in being the first to do
>something.
So, the first time a record drops from, say, 17-30 in the first week
after Xmas, I'll let you know... :)
>Believe me I'm not cheerleading for the Ting Tings!
Not even if Katie White was wearing the cheerleaders uniform...? :)
>
>> On a related subject, I thought her duet with Norah Jones 'Creepin In'
>> from the latter's 2nd album, would have made a very good single.
>
>So you said.
But I haven't mentioned that for years - I didn't think you were around
back then...
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>They do (although picture discs tend to be in clear plastic ones) but
>>>as Robbie's pointed out the rules do have some specific descriptions
>>>involved which this could have fallen foul of: checking Ebay, it seems
>>>that each copy has a sort of sash wrapped around it which might
>>>conflict with the rules (it also feels like all 500 copies of the
>>>original version of 'That's Not My Name' are listed on there!).
>>
>> What 'original version'?
>
>It came out as a limited 7" at some point last year.
Of course, 500 copies would have been too few to make the T200, even if
they *had* been eligible.
>I don't know whether this was any different musically from the chart-topping
>version.
Maybe that's why people want it?
>
>>>> ISTM an argument could be made to help the ailing physical singles
>>>> market now, by *allowing* sales including such extra 'incentives' to
>>>> qualify for the chart...
>>>
>>>Yeah, but that's a download. I don't think you could add a widget to a
>>>7".
>>
>> I meant in general terms, not just them.
>
>It doesn't matter who they are, they still can't do it.
I thought you didn't even know what a widget is, so how could you know?
:)