I will definately buy it this week.

 

Hopefully I'll finally be able to retire my battered old copy of Guinness, now.

Hopefully I'll finally be able to retire my battered old copy of Guinness, now.

Me too. I didn't buy the first Virgin book but, as they've put right the things that stopped me buying it, I've ordered this one. I shall pick it u from WH Smith on Thursday.

Ordered mine from Amazon, thanks for the reminder. Hope it's better than the last one, and by the sounds of it, it should be.

After getting an e-mail on Monday saying the book had been despatched I went into WH Smith to pick it up and it hasn't arrived :angry:

 

No copies on display in Waterstone's or HMV which isn't a good sign.

Suedehead2 - My copy arrived, (from Amazon.uk), this afternoon - Thursday 4th November.

 

I'm sure that the Stores will get it in very soon.

 

I'll be looking at the Book tonight, & I'll 'Review' it, tomorrow.

 

It has far, far more detail, & Lists, in it than the 2008 Edition. It is easy to

see that, simply by looking at the Contents, as well as looking at some of

the Lists in it.

 

It is well worth buying. :D

Edited November 4, 201014 yr by zeus555

hey i dropped into waterstones today and bought a copy. They had quite a few prominently stacked in their (small) music section. The guy said "excellent book" when i took it to the counter and asked if it was for me! Perhaps he is a closet chartwatcher!

 

My (jumbled) thoughts:

Its good it tells you the cut-off date for the charts this time around, even if it is a stupid random date - end of year helps more with stats though i appreciate the extra 15 weeks (ish) data vs Guinness.

 

Lots of interesting lists - i preferred guinness who put these all at the end but at least they're indexed at the front of the book for easy access

 

Sales date cut off i'm assuming is roughly the same: Bleeding Love Sales are listed as 990k (it seems to be to the nearest 5k thoughout as is the OCC convention), and I Gotta Feeling does not make it on the million sellers list for example.

 

Re-entries and reissues are listed as separate chart entries which is a bit confusing when counting weeks and runs. e.g. Take That's Rule the World says 66 weeks on 1st entry but is listed a few below with a lower peak and 6 weeks (luckily in the totals lists they've summed these). Don't even get me started on the Leona Better In Time/Footprints in the sand fiasco! (although this is partly the OCC's fault too).

 

They don't have any consecutive weeks/hits records listed though some are mentioned in the artist text. However, they are taking a very basic (and perhaps draconian) approach to this. For example, Oasis are listed as having 18 consecutive top10s rather than 22 as Wibbling Rivalry is listed under Oasis (although is listed as Oas*s to the side of the entry), so clearly they are counting this as breaking the run. Also Girls Aloud are listed as having 17 consecutive top10s - a female band record. (Broken by St Trinians). Further Madonna is listed as having 35 consecutive top 10s rather than the usual 34 - Guinness always considered holiday's subsequent no2 peak a re-entry as the catalogue number was unchanged but as Virgin are listing re-entries and reissues separately by date and not making any distinction between this gives her 35.

 

This approach is sometimes confusing as e.g. Elvis is listed as 21 no1s (without mentioning 3 of these are reissues) but Michael Jackson is given a total of 85 top 40s (which includes his 2007 reissues but not all his 2009 posthumous download re-entries - i suppose downloads have the disadvantage of never recounting as they cannot be "reissued" - again no distinction is made in the text between reentry and reissue - i merely know this from memory).

 

Some GaGa weirdness - her Just Dance re-entry credits Colby O'Donis and Akon but the original entry does not. Also she is credited on "Make her Say", by Kid Cudi, featuring Kanye West, Common, and Lady GaGa. I'm sure i remember seeing this on acharts 1 week but its not credited to her on polyhex that i could find, although it lists her Wale and Beyonce collaborations so i had decided she must be uncredited. Anyway, since she officially is, this increases her chart weeks in 2009 by 2, giving a total of 158 weeks as the new record (not the previously thought 156) - further to that the book mentions Oasis as setting a record for most top75 weeks in '96 with 134 but does not mention in her or their entry this has been bested. There is no "most weeks in a calendar year" record section so this may just be an oversight on their part.

 

Catalogue download sales from anything pre-download era is a cool list!

 

The book's cover design is much more like the old school guinness books, though the inside is still the more minimal virgin layout.

 

Sure lots of other things occurred to me which i forgotten and may add but overall great fun if you follow the charts and well worth the money!

 

The main problem with this is these are the "official" books but so were the Guinness ones and they've moved the goalposts on some records - less arguing ensue!

 

and anyone else feel free to point out mistakes/oddities - sure we could batch them and email for next edition! :lol:

Suedehead2 - My copy arrived, (from Amazon.uk), this afternoon - Thursday 4th November.

 

I haven't got mine yet, but have received their 'item dispatched' email, so shouldn't be long. :)

Thanks for your comments spicefunk.

 

I prefer to see separate entries listed individually. If readers want to apply different rules for records such as successive top ten hits the data allows you to do that unlike the last Guinness book. It also makes it easier to see when a record reached its peak as a re-entry (e.g. Madonna's Holiday).

 

Batching up mistakes/oddities seems like a good idea. I'm sure the publishers would prefer a single comprehensive list rather than lots of individual ones with a lot of duplication. However, general comments are probably best sent individually. If they get lots of comments from people praising the book and thanking them for the improvements they've made, that should help encourage them to continue publishing.

something to get for my birthday next week!!!!

:cheer: :cheer:

I studied the Book last night, & I found it fascinating.

 

These are the Lists in the Book:,

 

1) Acts With The Most Weeks At No.1

2) Top 50 Downloads Of All Time (Based on UK Sales)

3) Acts With the Most Top 40 Hits

4) Top 100 Singles Of All Time (Based on UK Sales)

5) Singles That Have Spent The Most Weeks At No.1

6) Acts With The Most Top 10 Hits

7) Top Acts By Weeks On Chart

8) Top 50 Catalogue Downloads (Singles from before September 2004)

9) Top 40 Acts By Singles Sales

10) Top 40 Acts By Download Sales

11) Singles That Have Spent The Most Weeks On Chart

12) Acts With The Most No.1's

 

A) Top 5 Downloads By UK Sales 2004

B) Top 5 Downloads By UK Sales 2005

C) Top 5 Downloads By UK Sales 2006

D) Top 5 Downloads By UK Sales 2007

E) Top 5 Downloads By UK Sales 2008

F) Top 5 Downloads By UK Sales 2009

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Several of the Lists have actual Sales figures

shown.

 

Also - some of the biggest Acts have their Top 3

Singles shown, with their Sales revealed.

 

PLUS - There is a Section on the 1960 to 1967

EP Chart - showing all the Acts who had Hit EP's,

& their Peaks Positions, & Chart Weeks. As well as

the Weeks at No.1 of the EP's that reached that

Position. (There is an Index for the EP's too).

 

And - unlike the 2008 'Hit Singles' Book - this

one is based on the Top 75, (NOT the Top 40). And

all the No.1 Singles are Listed - as well as Symbols

to show the Hits that went Silver, Gold, or Platinum.

With USA No.1 Hits indicated by a Star Symbol.

 

I think that the Book is excellent, & that it is

worth having for every 'Chart Fan'. A welcome

addition to our Chart Book collections.

 

THE DOWNLOAD ERA - EFFECT ON UK SINGLES CHART

 

Looking at the Entries, for numerous 21st Century

Acts, you can see how Downloads enable many Singles

to stay in the Chart for far longer than they used to.

 

For example, ABBA had 28 Singles Entries, in the

UK, but only 'Dancing Queen' managed 20 Weeks on

Chart. Lady GaGa first Charted in January 2009,

& 6 of hers have managed over 20 Weeks, with 5 of

those Charting for over 35 Weeks. (In fact, 3 of

them were on the Chart for over 40 Weeks).

 

And Take That had 16 Hits from 1991 to 1996, with

none spending more than 15 Weeks on Chart. Since

their 2006 'Reunion', the Download Era has caused

4 of their 'Comeback' Hits to spend over 20 Weeks

on Chart. 3 of them have been on the Chart for 154

Weeks between them - 'Patience', (40 Weeks), 'Shine',

(42 Weeks), & 'Rule The World', (72 Weeks).

 

So, we will see more & more Acts, (who have Hits

in the 'Download Era'), spending longer on the

Charts than Acts from previous Decades. And doing

so quite fast too - for their Singles do not need

to be in the Shops to remain on the Charts.

Edited November 5, 201014 yr by zeus555

I have received my copy today. My only gripe about the book, is the first section, all the #1s to date.

 

They could have done that in table form and split the years, for example in bold 2007, than under that list all the #1s in that year as a table format instead of that awful ongoing list. With another table following that 2008 etc etc, and the most annoying thing, for example last years Comic Relief single, they have listed the surnames only, they could have listed all the artists names in full, for all we know it could be Theodore Gibbs.

 

The rest of the book looks neatly presented and well thought out, I do like the EP section.

 

===

 

In a nutshell you could say this is the first proper book, and it should be Volume 1, and discard the previous one in the bin, as its practically using the Guinness format with the top 75 rule.

Still not got mine but I've been able to have a quick browse through a copy.

 

I agree that it would be useful if there was an indication that a song was a re-entry/re-issue. It doesn't necessarily need to specify which but it would help to have an indication that there are multiple entries for a particular song.

 

There is now a copy in my local Waterstone's. Unfortunately it's the old one :banghead:

Shame so many people are having difficulty getting ahold of it this week. Not a great sign. I thought of ordering it but decided I might not want to wait depending how long it took. My local waterstones is laughably small and morstly given over to kids and coffee now but amazingly had a few copies of the new and old!

 

Thanks for your thoughts on my thoughts suede!

1) The Book goes up to, (& including), the

Chart of Week Ending 10th April 2010.

 

2) There are 'Mini Biogs' of several Acts, too.

 

There is much to read in it.

 

I'm sure that it will be in the Stores very soon.

 

 

Mine arrived today £12.50 from Amazon compared to £18.00 at Waterstones.

Does this book contain any information about the conflicted charts of 1952-1960?

 

If so does anyone know what data is used?

 

Thanks :P

Edited November 5, 201014 yr by Bray

I used to LOVE these books when I was younger, I've got three of the Guinness ones sitting at home. I've ordered this on Amazon too so I hope it's as good! ^_^

Suedehead2 - My copy arrived, (from Amazon.uk), this afternoon - Thursday 4th November.

 

I'm sure that the Stores will get it in very soon.

 

I'll be looking at the Book tonight, & I'll 'Review' it, tomorrow.

 

It has far, far more detail, & Lists, in it than the 2008 Edition. It is easy to

see that, simply by looking at the Contents, as well as looking at some of

the Lists in it.

 

It is well worth buying. :D

Can you confirm that they have corrected the errors from the last edition? I noticed your name in the acknowledgements so I assume they've corrected the ones you pointed out. No doubt there are some new errors but, with luck, mostly only relating to the last couple years.

Suedehead2 - As far as I know, (& can see), the 2010 Book has corrected

the mistakes that were in the 2008 Book.

 

Bray - like the old Guinness Books, the 2010 Book uses the 'New Musical Express'

Charts for the first Years of the Singles Chart. (November 1952 to March 1960).

 

It is interesting that in 1953 - the first full Year of the Singles Chart - Frankie Laine

spent 27 Weeks at No.1, & no-one has managed to equal, (or beat), that since.

 

There would be photos & colour in the Book, if The OCC, & Virgin, could be sure

that 'Chart Fans' would pay the higher price that this would cause these Books to

rise to.

 

They worry that we'd refuse to buy the Books, if they were more costly to buy,

due to being more cosmetically attractive.

 

Basically, the Books would have to be about £20 each, (with no discounts), &

they truly worry that hardly any of us would pay that. Hence why there is no

colour in the Books, (exept on the Cover), & why there are no photos.

 

It is worth buying the 2010 Book, as I truly think that The Internet will cause

Chart Books to die out, in the end - and the old Chart Books will end up being

so rare - & hard to find - that people will be selling old copies for about £140

by 2020, or so! :o (Although I realise that this does not happen with all old

Chart Books).

Edited November 5, 201014 yr by zeus555

The big advantage of the books is that they give a good summary of chart data in a form which isn't available on sites like chartstats and polyhex. Of course the disadvantage is that the data is already six months out of date by the time it is published.