 |
  |
| The Non No 1 thread, 2016 update |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
  17th May 2012, 03:58 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341 
     |
Hello fellow chart geeks,
During my time on Buzzjack (15 months) I've seen a couple of threads regarding the notion of the "non-No 1" which is ostensibly a track which made No 1 but is ultimately forgotten about or only acheived thanks to a large fanbase which bought it on the first week before a quick slump. Well this thread will examine this notion with the science of "sales" applied. I should firstly state that I don't have the sales for every top 10 single in every week of the chart but I've used the data which I supply to Jester every sunday for the retro to alter the way the weekly chart might look under a new system. Pay Attention- the "Science bit" The way I have worked this out is by grouping 3 weeks of sales into the making of 1 weeks chart on a rolling basis, for example Sales of records going into the chart of 4th January 1997 would consist of the weeks of 28.12.96, 04.1.97 and 11.1.97 Sales of records going into the chart of 11th January 1997 would consist of the weeks of 04.01.97, 11.01.97 and 18.1.97 and so forth. This would work against records that are heavily frontloaded and reward longer sellers. Obviously tracks which did spend three weeks at No 1 or more would still top this chart, singles which spent 2 weeks at the top would probably still top this chart but those with just one week at the top would have to sell well and in more than just one week to get the same position here. I know this is a perhaps a complicated notion to get your heads around but it should all become clear- any questions just ask! I will focus on those songs that either become NEW number ones, or those that become sales wise, NON number ones. Whilst this isn't a definitive way of deciding it is perhaps a more objective one- we'll cover 1997-2012 so if we could keep to the period that is being posted at that point it will make the thread more enjoyable and more readable. Please post your own thoughts on the records that come up as to whether you agree or not- YOU'RE what makes the thread a good read or otherwise!  Enjoy! |
 |
 
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:13 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
 |
QUOTE(Gezza7T6 @ May 17 2012, 04:58 PM)  Pay Attention- the "Science bit" The way I have worked this out is by grouping 3 weeks of sales into the making of 1 weeks chart on a rolling basis, for example Sales of records going into the chart of 4th January 1997 would consist of the weeks of 28.12.96, 04.1.97 and 11.1.97 Sales of records going into the chart of 11th January 1997 would consist of the weeks of 04.01.97, 11.01.97 and 18.1.97 and so forth. This would work against records that are heavily frontloaded and reward longer sellers. Unless we're talking XF/charity singles which sell such *enormous* amounts, that even 1 week's sales outweigh 3 weeks of more normal-selling big hits... |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:22 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
BLUR- BEETLEBUM - NON NUMBER ONE
 NEW CHART PEAK No 3 It isn't long before we come across our first Non No 1, and given it's initial chart run of 1-7-29 it was always going to run that risk under the threads rules. On this chart it spends a fortnight at No 3 behind White Town and a song that's up next, written about Albarn's drugs experiences with then girlfriend Frischmann it was the lead single from the album "Blur". Had it not have hit the top in the real chart come February 1997 there would have been a lot of eyebrows raised such was the band's profile post the big brit pop battle of just 18 months previously. As to whether it merits the non No 1 tag well sales wise the answer is a most definite yes! |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:23 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 The owls are not what they seem
Pronouns: He/him
Joined: 11 July 2009 Posts: 37,125 User: 9,232
         |
I'm not sure I understand the science bit at this point
 but this should be a very interesting thread I think Beetlebum had the worst number 1 run ever at some point? (that wasn't charity related) I dunno if it still has it, but that's a pretty certain non number 1, I don't think I've actually heard it before This post has been edited by C.W: 17th May 2012, 04:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:24 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ May 17 2012, 05:13 PM) Unless we're talking XF/charity singles which sell such *enormous* amounts, that even 1 week's sales outweigh 3 weeks of more normal-selling big hits... Of course- but then again as I state there is no PERFECT way of defining the phenomenon- this is just a little more scientific perhaps?! |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:34 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
8TH FEBRUARY 1997- NO MERCY- WHERE DO YOU GO? (2 Weeks)- NEW NUMBER ONE
 Readers of my recent Boyband thread will of course be aware that this is a cover of 1995 La Bouche record that bombed over here but proved just the ticket for this unlikely pop trio. In all fairness and from memory it was certainly a more played and heard track than most others of the time. They were searching for a follow up to a minor european hit version of Everything But The Girl's "Missing" and stumbled up on this version to record, in the real world it spent a fortnight languishing at the No 2 spot but the two records that denied it are both relegated to Non No 1 status here, talking of which..... |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:39 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
  |
"Beetlebum" is amazing but is a complete non-#1. I'm really looking forward to the rest of this thread!
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:43 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
LL COOL J- AIN'T NOBODY- NON NUMBER ONE
 NEW PEAK POSITION: 4 I think we can all universally agree on this one being a non event. Recorded for the film "Beavis and Butthead do America" it was a genuine headscratcher when it appeared from nowhere to steal a week at the top in the real world especially given that the movie hadn't even been released at the point at which the song topped our charts. It's underwhelming sales though are reflected in a relatively poor No 4 position on this chart selling just 161k after 3 weeks on the sale (it's peak). |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:43 PM
Post
#9
|
|
 is my brain across your walls?
Joined: 14 February 2009
Posts: 115,075 User: 8,300
             |
Interesting idea for a thread, it'll be interesting to see if any classics end up relegated to non-#1 status.
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:45 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
Incidentally at the end of year I will give you the "revised" list of Chart toppers as per this thread!
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:50 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 15 November 2007
Posts: 5,272 User: 4,817
 |
Will Peter Andre, Billie, and Pixie Lott appear here too?
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 04:53 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
And finally for today.......
U2- DISCOTHEQUE- NON NUMBER ONE  NEW PEAK POSITION: 3 I've had to include the David Morales remix, the only version I can find tolerable, of U2's third No 1 and lead track from "Pop". A band famous for the frontloaded nature of their singles even by the late 80s, this did little to buck that trend hurtling 1-6-15 in its first three weeks, nowhere near good enough to overcome No Mercy or No Doubt on this version of the chart selling 197k in those weeks,a little better than LL Cool J but as a yardstick I wouldn't exactly call that a success... |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 05:33 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Sundream
Joined: 31 December 2009
Posts: 14,361 User: 10,347
   |
QUOTE(Ne Plus Ultra @ May 17 2012, 05:50 PM) Will Peter Andre, Billie, and Pixie Lott appear here too? Unlikely for Peter Andre as 'I Feel You' was from late 1996 but clearly that's the biggest non #1 I've ever witnessed in UK chart history, imo. Also I discovered a few months back in another thread on here that No Mercy 'Where Do You Go' was actually the UK's biggest selling single of 1997 for a small period of time - impressive for a track that peaked at #2. |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 06:21 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
Just out of interest The Prodigy would have denied both Andre and Boyzone of the top slot in December 96 with the spice girls denying Dunblane.
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 06:31 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
is my brain across your walls?
Joined: 14 February 2009
Posts: 115,075 User: 8,300
|
QUOTE(Gezza7T6 @ May 17 2012, 07:21 PM) Just out of interest The Prodigy would have denied both Andre and Boyzone of the top slot in December 96 with the spice girls denying Dunblane. If only 
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 06:50 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Sundream
Joined: 31 December 2009
Posts: 14,361 User: 10,347
|
QUOTE(Bré @ May 17 2012, 07:31 PM) If only At least 'Breathe' was a UK #1 though so it's not all bad.
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 06:54 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
BuzzJack Regular
Joined: 20 December 2010
Posts: 284 User: 12,571
 |
What will happen to non-number ones, which sold massively but had poor sales while at Number 1, such as "Never Ever" for example?
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:05 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 5,948 User: 50
|
Oh, this wasn't what I was expecting from your next thread at all.
Ah well, I'll still read I guess.The problem with this system is of course a song can potentially be dubbed a "non-#1" if it keeps a more consistent record, off, even if it had a perfectly respectable "normal" run itself. Annoyingly I think there might be even an example of this later in 1997 with a certain fivesome who kept a famous novelty record off in their first week before the positions flipped, but we'll see. Plus songs that have the misfortune of being #1 a week before a huge selling record took over could also be unlucky here... Still, it's hard to disagree with the examples thus far (even if Beetlebum is amazing and one of the most gloriously weird chart-toppers ever). This post has been edited by superbossanova: 17th May 2012, 08:05 PM |
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:12 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
|
QUOTE(superbossanova @ May 17 2012, 09:05 PM) Oh, this wasn't what I was expecting from your next thread at all. Ah well, I'll still read I guess.The problem with this system is of course a song can potentially be dubbed a "non-#1" if it keeps a more consistent record, off, even if it had a perfectly respectable "normal" run itself. Annoyingly I think there might be even an example of this later in 1997 with a certain fivesome who kept a famous novelty record off in their first week before the positions flipped, but we'll see. Plus songs that have the misfortune of being #1 a week before a huge selling record took over could also be unlucky here... Still, it's hard to disagree with the examples thus far (even if Beetlebum is amazing and one of the most gloriously weird chart-toppers ever). Sorry to disappoint SB but you did have the last thread to your exact requirements Yes there is no perfect system and you may or may not be correct in your guess we'll have to wait and see but as a rule of thumb it does allow the charts more stability (especially in high turnover years). Just out of interest what were you expecting?
|
|
|
|
|
17th May 2012, 09:19 PM
Post
#20
|
|
 Right in front of my salad?!
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 82,478 User: 12
        |
LOVE this idea for a thread even if my beloved Beetlebum has been relegated
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 24th April 2024, 04:16 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
