July 7, 201015 yr You may as well just base the 500 No.1's Chart on the Top 75. The OCC + Virgin still 'only' use the Top 75 for Chart Facts & Feats, & Statistics. The OCC have the Top 100 Charts on their Site, but they definitely still just use the Top 75 for the Acts with Most Chart Weeks, & Singles, (or Albums), with the Most Chart Weeks. That is what the 'Hit Singles' Book, (November 2010), is based on - the Top 75.There will be no Data in it, for Positions 76 to 100.
July 7, 201015 yr Author You may as well just base the 500 No.1's Chart on the Top 75. The OCC + Virgin still 'only' use the Top 75 for Chart Facts & Feats, & Statistics. The OCC have the Top 100 Charts on their Site, but they definitely still just use the Top 75 for the Acts with Most Chart Weeks, & Singles, (or Albums), with the Most Chart Weeks. That is what the 'Hit Singles' Book, (November 2010), is based on - the Top 75.There will be no Data in it, for Positions 76 to 100. As I said before. It is based on the top 75. The only reason why im waiting till they leave the top 100 is becuase songs seems to re-enter a lot after they left the top 75 so to be sure they wont re-enter, I wait till a song leaves the top 100.
July 7, 201014 yr OK - so your Top 500 will be based on the Top 75. I misunderstood. You will find that your No.1's List is dominated by several 1950's Hits, & even more from about 2006 onwards. In the 1950's less Singles were released, so many No.1's stayed in the Top 10 etc. for ages. Since about 2006, Downloads mean that Hits no longer need to be in the Shops, to carry on Charting - which is why so many of them spend a long time in the Top 75. As a result, a No.1's List will make it look like both the 1950's, & the past 5 Years, (or so), have had many of the biggest Hits of all time. This is not the case - but long Chart Runs distort Points Lists. 'Back For Good', by Take That, was a far bigger UK Seller than their 'Patience' & 'Shine' No.1's. But, 'Back For Good', 'only' Charted for 13 Weeks, & 'Patience', (40 Weeks), & 'Shine', (42 Weeks), Charted for far longer - so they will be in your 500 No.1's List, & it is touch & go, if 'Back For Good' will make it at all. I've already seen a List of the 'All Time' UK Hits, based on Points, & it is 100% obvious that Downloads have made many Number 1's, from recent Years, score far more Points, than Million Sellers, from the 1960's, 1970's, & 1980's etc. Points Lists are fun, but they can never replace Sales Lists for accuracy.....
July 7, 201014 yr Points Lists are fun, but they can never replace Sales Lists for accuracy..... But where did accuracy go in the mid 00s? Sales were horrendous because only official sales were counted. So songs that you might presume to be big sellers - Crazy in Love for example - sold terribly in All Time terms. Point lists level this off. However, you are quite correct in saying that since 2006 the era of downloads makes a mockery of a points list. I'd like to see a list that goes just up to the end of 2005.
July 8, 201014 yr Author I actually think chart runs are more reliable about how popular a song is generally. A song can have massive fanbase frontloaded sales but then drop off very fast. Yet songs generally liked by the masses last longer and obv have more appeal.
July 8, 201014 yr Dannyboy - I wasn't dismissing your Top 500's. I realise that you put a lot of work into them. It takes a big effort to work out such Lists/Charts. Your No.2's Top 500 was very interesting. As will be your No.1's Top 500. I was just pointing out that such Lists can in no way reflect Sales. I realise that Downloads show which Hits keep on Selling, but Elvis, Cliff, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, ABBA, & Queen etc., would have spent far longer on the Singles Chart, had there been Downloads in the 1950's, 1960's, & 1970's. So, several 2006 to 2010 No.1 Hits - & the Acts who have them - have a big advantage - as will be reflected in the higher Positions in your Top 500 No.1 Hits.
July 8, 201014 yr Author Dannyboy - I wasn't dismissing your Top 500's. I realise that you put a lot of work into them. It takes a big effort to work out such Lists/Charts. Your No.2's Top 500 was very interesting. As will be your No.1's Top 500. I was just pointing out that such Lists can in no way reflect Sales. I realise that Downloads show which Hits keep on Selling, but Elvis, Cliff, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, ABBA, & Queen etc., would have spent far longer on the Singles Chart, had there been Downloads in the 1950's, 1960's, & 1970's. So, several 2006 to 2010 No.1 Hits - & the Acts who have them - have a big advantage - as will be reflected in the higher Positions in your Top 500 No.1 Hits. Dont worry. I wasnt assuming you were dismissing my countdown. Its only really the laste 90s early 2000s where chart runs were shorter. I still think a long chart run is more importnat than sales when t comes to popularity. Charity singles or acts like McFly have big first week sales esp chartity singles which sell huge but have rubbish chart runs. But an act can be in the chart longer and be remembered more and sell just as much. Sales arent everything. Id rather an act have a song sell 300,000 and be in the charts for 3-4 month than sell 300,000 and be in the chart for 7 weeks.
July 8, 201014 yr All Time charts are always longevity biased, but there are ways to limit this by awarding extra points for singles that peak higher up the chart i.e. number one etc. I do prefer sales list as they are the only definitive guide to the biggest hits, though points system is also good in its own way, and fun to compile. However most sales figures pre the mid 80's are no longer available, so hence points based charts have become popular way of making lists among chart fans.
August 30, 201014 yr According to my calculations, "Bad Romance" became the 13th Number One to pass the 2,000 points mark on Sunday.
August 30, 201014 yr Author According to my calculations, "Bad Romance" became the 13th Number One to pass the 2,000 points mark on Sunday. Im waiting for Bad Romance to leave the top 75, then ill be counting down the top 500 number 1 singles.
August 30, 201014 yr Author According to my calculations, "Bad Romance" became the 13th Number One to pass the 2,000 points mark on Sunday. Plus its actually not number 13.
September 21, 201014 yr Author With "I got a feeling" leaving the top 75 and "Bad Romance" on its way out soon. I should be starting the new countdown of the Top 500 Number 1 singles soon, based on their chart run.
September 21, 201014 yr Would be really intersting to do this chart again to see where Eminem/Rihanna is! :rolleyes:
September 21, 201014 yr Author Would be really intersting to do this chart again to see where Eminem/Rihanna is! :rolleyes: It would be roughly 177 at the moment
September 23, 201014 yr With "I got a feeling" leaving the top 75 and "Bad Romance" on its way out soon. I should be starting the new countdown of the Top 500 Number 1 singles soon, based on their chart run. Because they are so high up - couldn't you start the countdown anyway and by the time you get to their positions they may have left the chart. They are not going to fall in this countdown at this stage so it wont matter.
September 23, 201014 yr Author Because they are so high up - couldn't you start the countdown anyway and by the time you get to their positions they may have left the chart. They are not going to fall in this countdown at this stage so it wont matter. I was thinking of that actually. Bad Romance can still climb a place or so but I think it will out of teh top 75 this week so maybe I should.
Create an account or sign in to comment