Well, yes, its very subjective, but going on sales alone, I'd say total sales to date.

which gives

(Not sure how up to date these are, but they'll do as an example. :)

 

1 Candle In The Wind 97 Elton John 4.86

2 Do They Know It's Christmas? Band Aid 3.55

3 Bohemian Rhapsody Queen 2.13

4 Mull Of Kintyre Wings 2.05

5 Rivers of Bablyon / Brown Girl In the Ring Boney M 1.98

6 You're The One That I Want John Travolta & Olivia Newton-John 1.97

7 Relax Frankie Goes To Hollywood 1.91

8 She Loves You The Beatles 1.89

9 Unchained Melody Robson & Jerome 1.84

10 Mary's Boychild / Oh My Lord Boney M 1.79

 

Source pubquizhelp

 

Some of those are definatly not my idea of quality, but as an objective measure??..

Edited November 19, 200915 yr by Olympus

Total sales/Total weeks in chart.

Total sales in almost every single case.

 

Total sales should be % adjusted when comparing tracks from different years/decades to reflect differing sales climates - e.g. 2005's sales were far lower than 1999 therefore 2005's sales need to be adjusted upwards to compare, as far as is possible, like for like.

 

Peak position is nonsense - I've used the example before that Leon Jackson's Don't Call This Love chart peak (#4) and Robbie Williams Angel's chart peak (#4) were the same, yet there is no way on earth those 2 songs have the same quality (the overall sales are a far better indicator, with Robbie trouncing Leon).

I think most tracks from reality TV artists can be discounted (e.g. the winner's song), and would say that total sales (minus the first week) is probably the best indication. Next would be how many copies the track is selling five years on, and whether or not it still gets occasional airplay in the decade after release.

Actually, having read the thread, I REALLY think this would provide a great overall indication.

Total sales in almost every single case.

 

Total sales should be % adjusted when comparing tracks from different years/decades to reflect differing sales climates - e.g. 2005's sales were far lower than 1999 therefore 2005's sales need to be adjusted upwards to compare, as far as is possible, like for like.

 

 

Total sales is the best choice but it doesn't tell the whole story. I will also use the "Angels" B) example. It is one of the most legendary song in the uk (probably the greatest of the last 20 years) and it has sold the same amount as Hallelujah :puke2: of AB!!!! LOLOLOLOL obviously no comparison, hallelujah is NOT a legendary song not EVEN a good song. In general the xf hypes up contestants sales in totally unfair way. Appart from the xf effect sales are not always accurate in determining which song is the best song... but there is simply no rule how to do that and sales is a strong factor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peak position is nonsense - I've used the example before that Leon Jackson's Don't Call This Love chart peak (#4) and Robbie Williams Angel's chart peak (#4) were the same, yet there is no way on earth those 2 songs have the same quality (the overall sales are a far better indicator, with Robbie trouncing Leon).

 

Total sales is an ok indicator for any given time period but it makes comparing songs across decades tricky due to overall changes to total sales. Perhaps use a singles total sales over its time in the top 75 compared to the average top 75 chart single sales over the same period.

So:

Quality = SALES during stay in top 75 divided by average sales for same period.

 

An 'average' song will have a value of 1. Poorly performing songs will have values below 1. best songs will be the higest number but always above 1

 

Only trouble is someone needs to supply the total sales for the period (ie every week since records began !!!) so we can devide it by 75 to get the average sales

 

None of the chart data listed can determine "quality".

 

Your question should have been:

• What chart data is most useful to determine "popularity"