I'm pretty sure The Wanted will beat Cee-Lo next week. I think people are underestimating their fanbase, which has only grown since their first single.

 

It'll soon get to the stage where their whole fanbase will buy their new songs the week it's released, causing them to get heavy first week sales.

 

I guess so.

 

Let the 1-6-12-35-outs resume then.

Or, worst case scenario, Mike frikking Posner -_-

 

*best

 

Or rather second best. The very best scenario would be 'Mine' getting to #1, but that won't happen.

 

Mike Posner's new song i'm addicted to right now :music:

I guess so.

 

Let the 1-6-12-35-outs resume then.

But a lot of people thought the same about 'All Time Low', and now it's still in the charts quite high.

But a lot of people thought the same about 'All Time Low', and now it's still in the charts quite high.

 

Law of diminishing returns.

 

If ATL was their BA, HV will be their EIL.

 

Sorry acronym haters. Scroll over to see what they stand for if you so wish.

 

cooler than me is #8 now and joe is down to #9 poor joe!

 

cheryl will get number 1 anyway prob

 

 

Edited October 13, 201014 yr by Brooke_x

Brooke Please put a spoiler around it, not alot of people want to know who's appearing on the xfactor.

doesnt matter edited it now :)

Edited October 13, 201014 yr by Brooke_x

But a lot of people thought the same about 'All Time Low', and now it's still in the charts quite high.

 

...but 'All Time Low' is easily the better track and The Wanted have benefitted from performing on some live TV events so the song has enjoyed a boost - otherwise I'm sure the song would've dived downwards as the song quickly becomes nothing but a distant memory to most of the UK public.

 

I'm almost convinced if 'Heart Vacancy' gets to no. 1 next week, it will plummet the week after. It will only sustain sales if they bag some extra TV performances/promotion (like Royal Variety?). Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Bray.

I'm convinced The Wanted won't be #1 next week, most likely Duck Sauce

I don't say that they *won't* plummet, I tend to think the same way - that they will. I just think it could be quite less obvious than it looks firstly.

 

Anyway, I'm for Cee-Lo next week, just to make a bloody three-weeker after all! The last one was Roll Deep back in May.

We've had a couple of three weekers this year. Emphasis on 'couple', as Owl City is the only other one aside from Roll Deep.

 

What we really 'need' (although I prefer quickfire #1s) is a 4 weeker. Lily Allen's The Fear is STILL the last song to spend 4 straight weeks at the summit.

Edited October 13, 201014 yr by ~ braysephone ~

I don't like it when songs spend more than 1 week at #1 though. I remember when Break Your Heart was #1 for 3 weeks after, it was just so boring. It seemed like 3 months. Seriously, I think people here would've exploded if the Black Eyed Peas were #1 for 26 weeks like in the US.

^ Not at all. :lol: I prefer songs to spend a couple of weeks at no. 1 to prove their worthy (well, 26 weeks is pushing it a bit too much!!! :P ). If a song goes to no. 1 but plummets 01-05-17-33-OUT then in retrospect it really should've just entered at #2 instead.

 

That's why 2008 was brilliant for no. 1 singles; there were 20 in total and the vast majority definitely deserved to get there, imo. By holding at no. 1 for a few weeks, they proved their worth instead of just being yet another one week wonder.

^ Not at all. :lol: I prefer songs to spend a couple of weeks at no. 1 to prove their worthy (well, 26 weeks is pushing it a bit too much!!! :P ). If a song goes to no. 1 but plummets 01-05-17-33-OUT then it really should've just entered at #2 instead.

 

That's why 2008 was brilliant for no. 1 singles; there were 20 in total and the vast majority definitely deserved to get there, imo. By holding at no. 1 for a few weeks week, they've proved their worth instead of just being yet another one week wonder.

 

'One week wonders' aren't necessarily undeserving #1s though. Airplanes, OMG and We No Speak Americano, for example, were all 'one week wonders' in that they spent only 1 week at #1, yet they are all within the top 10 best sellers of the year.

 

It works the other way around as well. While Roll Deep held the #1 for 3 weeks, 'Good Times' was, last week, as low as number thirty-four in the year's highest sellers, possibly even lower this week. It was even released before 2 of the 3 examples above.

Edited October 13, 201014 yr by ~ braysephone ~

'One week wonders' aren't necessarily undeserving #1s though. Airplanes, OMG and We No Speak Americano, for example, were all 'one week wonders' in that they spent only 1 week at #1, yet they are all within the top 10 best sellers of the year.

 

It works the other way around as well. While Roll Deep held the #1 for 3 weeks, 'Good Times' was, last week, as low as number thirty-four in the year's highest sellers, possibly even lower this week. It was even released before 2 of the 3 examples above.

 

...but they climbed to no. 1 so they remove the "one week wonder" tag. My definition of a "one week wonder" is a song that enters at no. 1 and quickly drops down never to be seen again...and in the age of downloads (unlimited downloads, never running out of stock) it's terrible. :lol: Ie; any UK #1 that's spent less than 8 weeks inside the top 40.

 

'Good Times' may have had three weeks at no. 1 but Yolanda Be Cool hit #1 in its third week, 'OMG' in its fourth and 'Airplanes' in its seventh - all three songs increased sales week on week. 'Good Times' sold its highest sales total in its release week. Its sales decreased every week after that so it's no surprise it's so low down the best selling singles YTD.

...but they climbed to no. 1 so they remove the "one week wonder" tag. My definition of a "one week wonder" is a song that enters at no. 1 and quickly drops down never to be seen again...and in the age of downloads (unlimited downloads, never running out of stock) it's terrible. :lol: Ie; any UK #1 that's spent less than 8 weeks inside the top 40.

 

Would you consider Good Times a 'one week wonder'?

It only spent 8 weeks top 40. Shouldn't be stripped of the tag just because it had a luck-influenced extended stay at #1.

Edited October 13, 201014 yr by ~ braysephone ~

Would you consider Good Times a 'one week wonder'?

It only spent 8 weeks top 40. Shouldn't be stripped of the tag just because it had a luck-influenced extended stay at #1.

 

Not at all, it had three weeks at no. 1 - it just so happens it wasn't a big selling single overall. 'Break Your Heart' was the same for Taio Cruz last year; three weeks at no. 1 but not exactly one of the biggest selling #1 hits of 2009 - still wouldn't say it was a one week wonder. A non-no. 1 maybe, but not a one week wonder. :lol:

There's nothing boring about songs spending more than one week at #1. It's not like the rest of the chart stays the same!

 

Personally, I wasn't even bored during Rihanna's infamous 10-week reign as there were always new songs coming up to challenge her and it was interesting to see if they would manage to do it or ultimately fail. The chart doesn't begin and end at #1, you know...

 

Although, saying that, it sure must have been boring in summer 1994 when Wet Wet Wet and All-4-One were a non-moving top 2 for seven weeks in a row. Thankfully I was only three years old at the time so don't remember it. ^_^

Would you consider Good Times a 'one week wonder'?

It only spent 8 weeks top 40. Shouldn't be stripped of the tag just because it had a luck-influenced extended stay at #1.

 

Good Times didn't spend a 2nd and 3rd week at #1 due to luck!?!?

 

It had to beat, literally, thousands, and thousands of songs. There's an absolute plethora of songs that people could've bought, but those weeks Good Times outsold every single one of them. Every single one. That week it sold more than any song that any other artist has released, ever. It's a pity that none of the other tens of thousands of track available for downloads on iTunes didn't sell more in those weeks. I can't fathom how any #1 is down to luck, unless people are using a random number generator in order to choose which songs to buy.

 

Is any #1 down to luck? Like when JLS were #1, was it because they picked the right card out of a hat or something?

 

Every song that got #1 this year deserves it, and none of them are down to luck, that I know of (even though I don't like many of them. :lol:). I don't think it really matters what their total sales are, or what their chart run is.

 

Btw, sorry if I come across as a bit too passionate. :lol: