I know songs that get to number 1 for just a week every week does get a tad irritating, it does also get boring having the same number 1 for weeks and weeks (precisely why I found 2007 unbelievably boring)

 

tbh, theres been some one weekers who have sold very well- but they are kept off by something that catches the public interest, yet then falls away very quickly after the hype dies, but this here today gone tomorrow interest prevents songs from having a genuinely deserved run at number 1 the exception this year has been Owl City- who lasted a well deserved three weeks and kept off Jedward, who were an exact example of a pure 'atm' act and their chart run shows thise

 

(deleted the rest to prevent too much scrolling for everyone else)

I think you're right, and indeed if you remove the songs that didn't even last 10 weeks and extended the run of the #1 before then it'd be a much better and representative list.

 

It has been encouraging to see these type of songs fail to hit the top spot these last few weeks though. Just imagine if Robbie & Gary had beaten Cee Lo, or Joe had somehow made it to #1. Would have been two more non-#1s for certain. Ditto if The Wanted had made it this week, judging by how they're already plummeting on iTunes. Ok, it's not much, but the last few weeks have definitely been better than that awful period in the summer...

OMG and Nothin' On You also both almost reclimed to #1, and Dynamite would've done if Just the Way You Are wasn't released early.

 

Also, anybody notice that all the people that got to #1 and spent less than 10 weeks in the top 10 (Helping Haiti, Scouting For Girls, Diana Vickers, Dizzee Rascal, Roll Deep, Shout for England, Olly Murs and Alexandra Burker) are all from the UK. The only person to get #1 and spend less than 10 weeks in the top 40 who's not from the UK is Ne-Yo.

 

Also, none of the people who climbed to #1 (listed in a post above) are from the UK.

 

Do we think that this might have something to do with it too?

OMG and Nothin' On You also both almost reclimed to #1, and Dynamite would've done if Just the Way You Are wasn't released early.

 

Also, anybody notice that all the people that got to #1 and spent less than 10 weeks in the top 10 (Helping Haiti, Scouting For Girls, Diana Vickers, Dizzee Rascal, Roll Deep, Shout for England, Olly Murs and Alexandra Burker) are all from the UK. The only person to get #1 and spend less than 10 weeks in the top 40 who's not from the UK is Ne-Yo.

 

Also, none of the people who climbed to #1 (listed in a post above) are from the UK.

 

Do we think that this might have something to do with it too?

 

This would mostly be because UK acts never release their stuff early. UK record labels are too dumb to do so. International record labels generally respond when there's clearly big demand before the planned release.

This would mostly be because UK acts never release their stuff early. UK record labels are too dumb to do so. International record labels generally respond when there's clearly big demand before the planned release.

 

Well, clearly it's not "dumb" to do so if you're aiming for #1. The statistics show this; that songs that don't sell much and/or don't spend a long time in the top 40 can get to #1 if you release them late so you get a high percentage of the overall sales bunched into one week, giving you a higher peak position in the chart.

 

It's not really "dumb". It's a clever thing to do if you want a #1, although I do agree that it is annoying at times, when you can't buy a song because the label are using that strategy.

^i disagree i just think that the nuk labels know how to manipulate the chart better and their aim is to get to no1 no matter how long their top 40 career is.they hold them back and get the first week of big sales to hit no1.whereas us labels are happy just to release sometimes at the same time as they are released in america and then they have the artist lined up for promo 2 months or so later eg commander by kelly rowland,eminem not afraid etc.

 

Overall its a complicated question but i would rather all songs be released within a week of radio/tv airplay.this would hopefully lead to a steady rise of the most popular hits but its complex too as any big international artist would go top 10 anyway whereas the new artists would need large airplay to rise.

 

its a dilemma for record companies as to whether they want a top 10 single or a slow burner which may only go top 20 but stay top 40 for a long time - eg train was top 40 for 20 weeks but only peaked at no21 i think?!

Even some US hits have been held back, so that they can have massive first week sales, such as California Gurls and Dynamite. No way would those songs have sold over 100,000 in any week if they were available to download from their premieres.

 

I can't actually think of many songs that have climbed up the chart and sold over 100,000 in a week. Meet Me Halfway from last year did. There's probably loads of really obvious ones I'm forgetting. :lol:

 

To be honest though, I'm not so bothered if tracks debut at their peak. Plus, it's the download era, so album tracks, such as Telephone, Airplanes, Ridin' Solo, etc. all climb and fall. It's just songs not already on albums which people can hold back and prevent us from buying.

I hate songs getting to number one that don't actually deserve it :angry:

 

Our chart should, like the Billboard chart, include airplay to stop X Factor winner singles, (X Factor) charity songs and campaigns (RATM, etc.) from being number one and make the chart give a better reflection of what is popular.

 

No way should airplay ever be included! :(

 

Would you really want radio stations & moronic DJ's having even more say over what's in the charts, than they do now??

 

In any case, airplay inclusion *wouldn't* stop XF & charity singles from going to #1 - their sales are so concentrated that they swamp any airplay weighting, as the Billboard T100 proves.

 

Every year is different though - look at 2001 (I think that was the year anyway) - loads of 1 week number 1's. Last year we had quite a number of 2 - 3 weekers.

 

This year we've had a load of 1 week number 1's with high first week sales dropping away.

 

I'm pretty certain next year will be a different kettle of fish once again

 

I don't think so, myself.

 

What I've seen since 2007, is the download sales benefit gradually work its way up the charts (in terms of average sale per chart position), but it was not until this year it finally reached #1. We're now seeing a modified version of front-loaded sales pattern that prevailed before the first inclusion of downlaods.

 

Only pre-album singles now have very front-loaded sales. Thanks to cherry-picking, post-album releases still climb the charts in a more traditional way. The main difference to the pre-download era, is that sales have the opportunity to tail off very slowly, which couldn't happen with finite stocks of physical singles.

 

This would mostly be because UK acts never release their stuff early. UK record labels are too dumb to do so. International record labels generally respond when there's clearly big demand before the planned release.

 

That's interesting - I never realised there was a UK/international divide over early releases. I guess that's why recent British urban songs have lacked longevity.

Well, clearly it's not "dumb" to do so if you're aiming for #1. The statistics show this; that songs that don't sell much and/or don't spend a long time in the top 40 can get to #1 if you release them late so you get a high percentage of the overall sales bunched into one week, giving you a higher peak position in the chart.

 

It's not really "dumb". It's a clever thing to do if you want a #1, although I do agree that it is annoying at times, when you can't buy a song because the label are using that strategy.

 

Don't forget that the above strategy also invites opportunistic covers, and piracy...

That's interesting - I never realised there was a UK/international divide over early releases. I guess that's why recent British urban songs have lacked longevity.

 

And it proves an interesting point I think, to say that there are barely any British songs in the YTD top 20, yet it's packed with US songs which were readily available as soon as consumers wanted to download them. It seems to me that the likes of Tinie and Taio who both held back their release for weeks, even months, on end, probably both lost a couple of hundred thousand potential sales in total, and had they both been released alongside the radio premiere, could be on sales of 750k+ when all is said and done...the only benefit British artists are getting from this age old tactic still being used is a higher chance of getting that UK #1...but who would favour that over 200,000 potential extra sales when the likelihood is, if everything was released alongside its premiere, the chances are that these two songs would have at some point got to #1 anyway...

 

I really don't understand why British record companies can't understand that if you hold a popular song back for six weeks, most people will just download it illegally rather than wait for that length of time to get hold of it, thus losing more and more sales as every week it's not available passes. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people who would have otherwise bought it legally, won't bother buying it at all because radio will have worn it out before it's even released and everyone will be sick to death of it already.

I really don't understand why British record companies can't understand that if you hold a popular song back for six weeks, most people will just download it illegally rather than wait for that length of time to get hold of it, thus losing more and more sales as every week it's not available passes. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people who would have otherwise bought it legally, won't bother buying it at all because radio will have worn it out before it's even released and everyone will be sick to death of it already.

 

The best recent example of this being 'Shame' by Robbie & Gary - regardless of whether people love or loathe the song. I'm still convinced that had the greedy record company released this three weeks earlier than they did, 'Shame' would've definitely got to no. 1 and probably selling more than the 72k it did sell when finally released. Why? Because there was more of a buzz surrounding the song as it had only gone to radio/music channels the previous week and was even on the news. Great promotion in itself. I also reckon there were people who would have bought 'Shame' if released earlier who didn't bother in the end because they were already bored of the song by the time it was released.

 

Once again, record company FAIL!!! :manson:

 

On the other hand, look at how Nelly 'Just A Dream' has rocketed up the chart considering this was supposed to be released in mid-November. By releasing early it's allowed Nelly's track to build up its sales as the song grows in popularity - the video only premiered earlier this week and will no doubt gain mass radio airplay.

Even some US hits have been held back, so that they can have massive first week sales, such as California Gurls and Dynamite. No way would those songs have sold over 100,000 in any week if they were available to download from their premieres.

 

I can't actually think of many songs that have climbed up the chart and sold over 100,000 in a week. Meet Me Halfway from last year did. There's probably loads of really obvious ones I'm forgetting. :lol:

 

To be honest though, I'm not so bothered if tracks debut at their peak. Plus, it's the download era, so album tracks, such as Telephone, Airplanes, Ridin' Solo, etc. all climb and fall. It's just songs not already on albums which people can hold back and prevent us from buying.

 

Dynamite is by Taio Cruz = British.

 

I have no idea why Taio started giving the States his material way earlier than the UK the minute he started getting some success in the US...

Dynamite is by Taio Cruz = British.

 

I have no idea why Taio started giving the States his material way earlier than the UK the minute he started getting some success in the US...

 

Other than the US market being far bigger, perhaps? :P

Other than the US market being far bigger, perhaps? :P

 

Why is that an excuse to start treating his original UK fans like crap?

 

There was a full 3 months between the US release and the UK release.

Edited October 23, 201014 yr by ~ braysammich ~

Dynamite was getting airplay on UK radio only a few weeks after it started getting airplay in the US. The difference is Dynamite's US Radio premiere and its release date were, I think, within 48 hours of each other, whilst in the UK, I don't know when the song premiered, but I first heard it in June, and it was released at the end of August.

 

A similar thing happened with California Gurls.

 

However, if we did it like the US, and many other European countries, where the song is available immediately, I'm sure we'd be getting threads complaining about why Tinie Tempah is the only UK artist this year to get to #1, and why Everybody Hurts and Shout were the only two songs this year to get weekly sales of over 100,000.

Surely it's a simple fact that British artists wouls rather have the status of a #1 in their home country whereas with US artists, the record companies step in and do what's best for sales? A few big US hits (Nothin' On You would be a prime example, I'm pretty sure the only reason it tailed off so quickly was because of Airplanes) actually timed it pretty decently as was proved when NOY almost returned to #1 in its third week. Can you imagine a Dizzee Rascal single doing that this year?

Well, if Nothin' On You had returned to #1, it would've had the largest fall from #1 of the year, dropping 1-8, but I think Nothin' On You is a bit of an exception too, because B.o.B was a new artist. I can understand new US artists not releasing their songs straight away in the UK, seeing as you can't be 100% sure of whether you'll flop in the US, and the first single would probably require you to concentrate more on one country at a time. You can't 100% rely on radio stations playing your song without you having to ask them until you've had a few hits.

 

If anything, getting #1 in the US helps you promote yourself around the world, as people are bound to take notice then (see Fireflies). Like a G6 will probably do a similar thing.

Well, if Nothin' On You had returned to #1, it would've had the largest fall from #1 of the year, dropping 1-8, but I think Nothin' On You is a bit of an exception too, because B.o.B was a new artist. I can understand new US artists not releasing their songs straight away in the UK, seeing as you can't be 100% sure of whether you'll flop in the US, and the first single would probably require you to concentrate more on one country at a time. You can't 100% rely on radio stations playing your song without you having to ask them until you've had a few hits.

 

If anything, getting #1 in the US helps you promote yourself around the world, as people are bound to take notice then (see Fireflies). Like a G6 will probably do a similar thing.

 

Everybody Hurts went 1-9

And it proves an interesting point I think, to say that there are barely any British songs in the YTD top 20, yet it's packed with US songs which were readily available as soon as consumers wanted to download them. It seems to me that the likes of Tinie and Taio who both held back their release for weeks, even months, on end, probably both lost a couple of hundred thousand potential sales in total, and had they both been released alongside the radio premiere, could be on sales of 750k+ when all is said and done...the only benefit British artists are getting from this age old tactic still being used is a higher chance of getting that UK #1...but who would favour that over 200,000 potential extra sales when the likelihood is, if everything was released alongside its premiere, the chances are that these two songs would have at some point got to #1 anyway...

 

I really don't understand why British record companies can't understand that if you hold a popular song back for six weeks, most people will just download it illegally rather than wait for that length of time to get hold of it, thus losing more and more sales as every week it's not available passes. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people who would have otherwise bought it legally, won't bother buying it at all because radio will have worn it out before it's even released and everyone will be sick to death of it already.

 

 

exactly right....artists have to stick up for themselves more and demand they release singles immediately or at least a week after first being premiered.