V1 :

 

NB. Please read the notes at the end.

 

Pos Artist Song YTD

1 Bruno Mars Grenade 149834

2 Rihanna ft Drake What's My Name 95945

3 Jessie J Do It Like A Dude 89533

4 Matt Cardle When We Collide 78800

5 Katy B ft Ms Dynamite Lights On 71800

6 Black Eyed Peas Time (The Dirty Bit) 62000

7 David Guetta ft Rihanna Who's That Chick 54540

8 Far East Movement Like A G6 52800

9 Ellie Goulding Your Song 50462

10 Rihanna Only Girl (In The World) 48904

11 Katy Perry Firework 47800

12 Tinie Tempah ft Kelly Rowland Invincible 46000

13 Cee-Lo Green f*** You 42600

14 Adele Make You Feel My Love 39600

15 Willow Smith Whip My Hair 38400

16 Nero Me & You 37000

17 Bruno Mars Just The Way You Are 34600

18 Cheryl Cole Flood 32400

19 Take That Flood 32200

20 Olly Murs Thinking Of Me 30200

 

Notes (apologies if this seems like nagging, but the same issues keep coming up, so I thought I'd better clarify them) :

 

1. I’ve only been monitoring sales since 2009, so unless Music Week have specifically mentioned a total figure for a single/album, I’m unlikely to be able to help with lifetime sales for anything released before then. I recommend asking on the Haven chart forum for older figures; Andy for singles, Dave for albums.

 

2. Also, I only track current year singles/albums that I estimate are in the YTD T200, and/or those that have continuous chart runs to date. Therefore I'm unlikely to be able to help with oldies from previous years, unless thay are still selling consistantly.

 

3. Next, while I am happy to answer sales requests for songs/albums, please remember to state specifically which you want, and hold back on multiple requests until Thursday each week. Also, please try not to ask about the same songs/albums every week, especially if they are out of the top 40, since they won't change much week-to-week down there.

 

4. Its better if you post requests in the YTD T40 singles/albums threads, rather than the Sales one, as I sometimes miss them if they are in the latter.

 

5. Finally, since I post to both Buzzjack & Haven, it might be a good idea to check both forums before asking a question, as you may find someone has already requested the info you want elsewhere.

Edited January 20, 201114 yr by vidcapper

Love the way you lie- Eminem?

Love the way you lie- Eminem?

 

#34 YTD - haven't done its sales yet.

 

BTW, hope I haven't scared off *all* the sales requests with those notes. :)

i'll ask for sales on thursday/friday when i find out if they are in the top 200 singles or not :)

Cheryl is doing well for a song that will miss the top 10 :)

i'll ask for sales on thursday/friday when i find out if they are in the top 200 singles or not :)

 

Who?

Who?

 

don't know yet, i was just saying if there was an artist that i wanted sales for that wasn't in the top 100, i would wait until thursday when the top 200 is revealed

Cheryl is doing well for a song that will miss the top 10 :)

 

yeah, every song has reached the top 10 in the charts but hers (except from tinie tempah and nero, but those songs will probably rise into the top 10)

don't know yet, i was just saying if there was an artist that i wanted sales for that wasn't in the top 100, i would wait until thursday when the top 200 is revealed

 

Oh, right. :)

In case anyone is wondering, Matt C *has* now taken over as the best-seller of the decade so far - he's ahead of Em/Ri by ~15k

yeah, every song has reached the top 10 in the charts but hers (except from tinie tempah and nero, but those songs will probably rise into the top 10)

 

I don't think either Tinie or Nero can get top 10 now, although they both deserved to. :( Cheryl deserved to also, but only for one week imo. :lol:

 

In case anyone is wondering, Matt C *has* now taken over as the best-seller of the decade so far - he's ahead of Em/Ri by ~15k

 

I actually want to scream. Well, actually I don't. :lol: I think Love the Way You Lie will re-overtake When We Collide in a few years.

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

Who cares if they get top 10 or not? They've still been hits.

 

I don't understand the obsession with the top 10 by some people on this site. Brings me back to The Saturdays fans acting like #11 would have been the end of the world, but #10 is somehow great when 'Higher' was released. Bizarre... I was just sat there scratching my head wondering if it would really make any difference :D

 

Re:Nero, though - I imagine their next single will be bigger, now they're starting to build up their name a bit more. Although it depends on how good it is I suppose, but since they're launching the album off of it I imagine they'll have saved the best for it...

Who cares if they get top 10 or not? They've still been hits.

 

I don't understand the obsession with the top 10 by some people on this site. Brings me back to The Saturdays fans acting like #11 would have been the end of the world, but #10 is somehow great when 'Higher' was released. Bizarre... I was just sat there scratching my head wondering if it would really make any difference :D

 

Re:Nero, though - I imagine their next single will be bigger, now they're starting to build up their name a bit more. Although it depends on how good it is I suppose, but since they're launching the album off of it I imagine they'll have saved the best for it...

 

Going top 10 is similar to getting #1. It's just a nice title for a song. It's like a trophy, if you will. I was literally devastated and overjoyed at the same time, when Higher got top 10, and Check It Out didn't.

 

It makes a difference, because in a few years time, when you look at your favourite artists chart history, you'll see their #11 peak, and you'll just die inside.

Going top 10 is similar to getting #1. It's just a nice title for a song. It's like a trophy, if you will. I was literally devastated and overjoyed at the same time, when Higher got top 10, and Check It Out didn't.

 

It makes a difference, because in a few years time, when you look at your favourite artists chart history, you'll see their #11 peak, and you'll just die inside.

But what difference does it make? There is no difference between a #11 and a #10 hit (except in sales obviously), just like there isn't any between a #26 and #27. The only reason people think it's somehow important to be in the top 10 is because certain chart fans seem to like to split the charts into some kind of barriers (I can only assume for easier classifications) that go:

 

Top 10 - Big Hit

Top 20 - Minor Hit

Top 40 or lower - Flop!!

 

Of course, it also doesn't help that things like the Guiness Book of Records have records for top 10 hits. This prestige is all just imaginary and made-up at the end of the day and you can't just split the charts up like a tennis tournament by the round :lol: You can certainly bet any artist doesn't look at things in that way... only the likes of Westlife might care about getting top 10 compared to "only" top 20 so they can keep up their irrelevant top 10 streak.

 

And getting to #1 is obviously very different. If you get #1, you're going to be listed on every chart website that has a list of #1 records. You're going to be played when VH1 or whatever has a rundown of every #1s of the 2000s/1990s whatever. People will remember things like Wet Wet Wet, Rihanna, Bryan Adams etc having their long reigns at #1 because they were the most popular record in the country for so long that they became practically iconic solely because of it. Nobody would care apart from chart fans if Rihanna spent ten weeks at #2. Nobody remembers a record for getting to #2 (apart from in very famous cases like Ultravox 'Vienna') but people do remember a song for getting to #1. That goes down to EVERY other position in the chart.

 

Basically, in chart terms, there's #1, and then there's everything else that quickly becomes irrelevant as soon as the next week rolls along. So really being upset because something got #11 instead of #10 (or even #20 instead of #10) is just, well... stupid (no offence!). As I said they were both big hits, and the gaps in sales away from the top positions is so minor when you really think about it that the difference in how popular they both were is really quite miniscule in most cases...

But what difference does it make? There is no difference between a #11 and a #10 hit (except in sales obviously), just like there isn't any between a #26 and #27. The only reason people think it's somehow important to be in the top 10 is because certain chart fans seem to like to split the charts into some kind of barriers (I can only assume for easier classifications) that go:

 

Top 10 - Big Hit

Top 20 - Minor Hit

Top 40 or lower - Flop!!

 

Of course, it also doesn't help that things like the Guiness Book of Records have records for top 10 hits. This prestige is all just imaginary and made-up at the end of the day and you can't just split the charts up like a tennis tournament by the round :lol: You can certainly bet any artist doesn't look at things in that way... only the likes of Westlife might care about getting top 10 compared to "only" top 20 so they can keep up their irrelevant top 10 streak.

 

And getting to #1 is obviously very different. If you get #1, you're going to be listed on every chart website that has a list of #1 records. You're going to be played when VH1 or whatever has a rundown of every #1s of the 2000s/1990s whatever. People will remember things like Wet Wet Wet, Rihanna, Bryan Adams etc having their long reigns at #1 because they were the most popular record in the country for so long that they became practically iconic solely because of it. Nobody would care apart from chart fans if Rihanna spent ten weeks at #2. Nobody remembers a record for getting to #2 (apart from in very famous cases like Ultravox 'Vienna') but people do remember a song for getting to #1. That goes down to EVERY other position in the chart.

 

Basically, in chart terms, there's #1, and then there's everything else that quickly becomes irrelevant as soon as the next week rolls along. So really being upset because something got #11 instead of #10 (or even #20 instead of #10) is just, well... stupid (no offence!). As I said they were both big hits, and the gaps in sales away from the top positions is so minor when you really think about it that the difference in how popular they both were is really quite miniscule in most cases...

 

I think what you're saying is certainly true of the current chart climate but not 5 years and more ago when peaks were important because tracks bombed down the charts faster than a whore's knickers. I personally don't think it's a shame if a song misses the top 10 now because they don't need to make it to be classified as a hit or whatever. Yeah it looks nicer on an artist's discography to say they've had X top 10 singles but at the end of the day, can anybody even remember songs that missed the top 10 in 2004? 2002? etc whereas now a lot of tracks that DO go on to become quite well known hits don't essentially have to grab the elusive #1 spot.

 

For example the likes of Train who get a #18 peak but sell more than a quarter of a million copies, more than some #1s have managed. I'm sure songs like 'Hey Soul Sister', 'Love The Way You Lie', 'The Man Who Can't Be Moved', 'Tik Tok', 'Hot N Cold', 'Single Ladies' yadda yadda will be remembered in a decade's time. Some people even now can't remember that Dizzee Rascal had a #1 last year for god's sake :lol:

 

But what difference does it make? There is no difference between a #11 and a #10 hit (except in sales obviously), just like there isn't any between a #26 and #27. The only reason people think it's somehow important to be in the top 10 is because certain chart fans seem to like to split the charts into some kind of barriers (I can only assume for easier classifications) that go:

 

Top 10 - Big Hit

Top 20 - Minor Hit

Top 40 or lower - Flop!!

 

Of course, it also doesn't help that things like the Guiness Book of Records have records for top 10 hits. This prestige is all just imaginary and made-up at the end of the day and you can't just split the charts up like a tennis tournament by the round :lol: You can certainly bet any artist doesn't look at things in that way... only the likes of Westlife might care about getting top 10 compared to "only" top 20 so they can keep up their irrelevant top 10 streak.

 

And getting to #1 is obviously very different. If you get #1, you're going to be listed on every chart website that has a list of #1 records. You're going to be played when VH1 or whatever has a rundown of every #1s of the 2000s/1990s whatever. People will remember things like Wet Wet Wet, Rihanna, Bryan Adams etc having their long reigns at #1 because they were the most popular record in the country for so long that they became practically iconic solely because of it. Nobody would care apart from chart fans if Rihanna spent ten weeks at #2. Nobody remembers a record for getting to #2 (apart from in very famous cases like Ultravox 'Vienna') but people do remember a song for getting to #1. That goes down to EVERY other position in the chart.

 

Basically, in chart terms, there's #1, and then there's everything else that quickly becomes irrelevant as soon as the next week rolls along. So really being upset because something got #11 instead of #10 (or even #20 instead of #10) is just, well... stupid (no offence!). As I said they were both big hits, and the gaps in sales away from the top positions is so minor when you really think about it that the difference in how popular they both were is really quite miniscule in most cases...

 

Okay. To put it simply. Everything with humans naturally revolves around the number 10 because we have 10 fingers.

 

If humans had 3 hands each containing 3 fingers, then we'd probably be obsessed with songs getting top 3, top 9 and top 27.

 

I see your point. It is very abritrary for us to be so obsessed with a song we like getting into the top 10, but it's just the way it is. 10 is a "nice number" to humans since we can count that number using our fingers. If the human race had 3 hand each with 3 fingers, 10 wouldn't be a nice number, just like something like 7 isn't a nice number to us now.

 

But that's why we care. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but it's just like an achievement to go top 10 I guess. :lol:

But what difference does it make? There is no difference between a #11 and a #10 hit (except in sales obviously), just like there isn't any between a #26 and #27. The only reason people think it's somehow important to be in the top 10 is because certain chart fans seem to like to split the charts into some kind of barriers (I can only assume for easier classifications) that go:

 

Top 10 - Big Hit

Top 20 - Minor Hit

Top 40 or lower - Flop!!

 

Of course, it also doesn't help that things like the Guiness Book of Records have records for top 10 hits. This prestige is all just imaginary and made-up at the end of the day and you can't just split the charts up like a tennis tournament by the round :lol: You can certainly bet any artist doesn't look at things in that way... only the likes of Westlife might care about getting top 10 compared to "only" top 20 so they can keep up their irrelevant top 10 streak.

 

And getting to #1 is obviously very different. If you get #1, you're going to be listed on every chart website that has a list of #1 records. You're going to be played when VH1 or whatever has a rundown of every #1s of the 2000s/1990s whatever. People will remember things like Wet Wet Wet, Rihanna, Bryan Adams etc having their long reigns at #1 because they were the most popular record in the country for so long that they became practically iconic solely because of it. Nobody would care apart from chart fans if Rihanna spent ten weeks at #2. Nobody remembers a record for getting to #2 (apart from in very famous cases like Ultravox 'Vienna') but people do remember a song for getting to #1. That goes down to EVERY other position in the chart.

 

Basically, in chart terms, there's #1, and then there's everything else that quickly becomes irrelevant as soon as the next week rolls along. So really being upset because something got #11 instead of #10 (or even #20 instead of #10) is just, well... stupid (no offence!). As I said they were both big hits, and the gaps in sales away from the top positions is so minor when you really think about it that the difference in how popular they both were is really quite miniscule in most cases...

 

There is essentially no difference but the top 10 is a major milestone so it makes a difference psychologically I guess? - you get loads of top 10 countdowns of blah blah blah but you don't see many top 11/12/13... countdowns. Same applies to a few other multiples of 5/10 (5, 15, 20, 40, 50, 75, 100). It just seems better even though there'd be no major difference if it was one lower.

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by ★BlindFaithBray★

Okay. To put it simply. Everything with humans naturally revolves around the number 10 because we have 10 fingers.

 

If humans had 3 hands each containing 3 fingers, then we'd probably be obsessed with songs getting top 3, top 9 and top 27.

 

I see your point. It is very abritrary for us to be so obsessed with a song we like getting into the top 10, but it's just the way it is. 10 is a "nice number" to humans since we can count that number using our fingers. If the human race had 3 hand each with 3 fingers, 10 wouldn't be a nice number, just like something like 7 isn't a nice number to us now.

 

I think it's more to do with the fact we count in base 10.

 

If we were all robots it'd be top 2, 4, 8, 16 etc. we'd be 'obsessed with'

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by ★BlindFaithBray★

I think what you're saying is certainly true of the current chart climate but not 5 years and more ago when peaks were important because tracks bombed down the charts faster than a whore's knickers. I personally don't think it's a shame if a song misses the top 10 now because they don't need to make it to be classified as a hit or whatever. Yeah it looks nicer on an artist's discography to say they've had X top 10 singles but at the end of the day, can anybody even remember songs that missed the top 10 in 2004? 2002? etc whereas now a lot of tracks that DO go on to become quite well known hits don't essentially have to grab the elusive #1 spot.

 

For example the likes of Train who get a #18 peak but sell more than a quarter of a million copies, more than some #1s have managed. I'm sure songs like 'Hey Soul Sister', 'Love The Way You Lie', 'The Man Who Can't Be Moved', 'Tik Tok', 'Hot N Cold', 'Single Ladies' yadda yadda will be remembered in a decade's time. Some people even now can't remember that Dizzee Rascal had a #1 last year for god's sake :lol:

Oh I agree that it's sales that are important at the end of the day. But then you have to remember that sales aren't so widely recorded but peak positions are, which makes it easier to classify things like this for some people, so I can kind of understand it in that respect.

 

Okay. To put it simply. Everything with humans naturally revolves around the number 10 because we have 10 fingers.

 

If humans had 3 hands each containing 3 fingers, then we'd probably be obsessed with songs getting top 3, top 9 and top 27.

 

I see your point. It is very abritrary for us to be so obsessed with a song we like getting into the top 10, but it's just the way it is. 10 is a "nice number" to humans since we can count that number using our fingers. If the human race had 3 hand each with 3 fingers, 10 wouldn't be a nice number, just like something like 7 isn't a nice number to us now.

 

But that's why we care. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but it's just like an achievement to go top 10 I guess. :lol:

:lol: Interesting way of explaining it but I really don't think it's anything to do with fingers and thumbs.

 

I would guess that psychologically we've had it built into our head that "zero" is a round figure (which it is of course is, shape-wise). Even in maths people sometimes round up to the nearest zero at the end of their calculation. When telling the time people don't say "14:33" but round down to "14:30". There's loads of other examples how we have this thing being built into our heads being at use in everyday life. Therefore by the same token people (except me, apparently!) like to apply these same things to the charts and "round up success" to top 10/20/30/40 etc. So it leads to this kind of grouping I was talking about done in the chart. I could probably go further explaining this but I can't be assed really right now, and I think you can kind of get the point anyway?

 

There is essentially no difference but the top 10 is a major milestone so it makes a difference psychologically I guess? - you get loads of top 10 countdowns of blah blah blah but you don't see many top 11/12/13... countdowns. Same applies to a few other multiples of 5/10 (5, 15, 20, 40, 50, 75, 100). It just seems better even though there'd be no major difference if it was one lower.

This is indeed true. But it shouldn't really apply to the UK chart which is an entire top 40 countdown on the radio.

 

I think maybe the singles figure thing is another theory too, and then it goes back to people rounding up to zero to get to 10. Maybe psychologically to people once you get out of single figures you're getting into bigger numbers because it has two digits? Just thinking of random ideas now though really.

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by superbossanova

I think it's more to do with the fact we count in base 10.

 

If we were all robots it'd be top 2, 4, 8, 16 etc. we'd be 'obsessed with'

 

And we count in base 10 because we have 10 fingers. :lol:

 

I would guess that psychologically we've had it built into our head that "zero" is a round figure (which it is of course is, shape-wise). Even in maths people sometimes round up to the nearest zero at the end of their calculation. When telling the time people don't say "14:33" but round down to "14:30". There's loads of other examples how we have this thing being built into our heads being at use in everyday life. Therefore by the same token people (except me, apparently!) like to apply these same things to the charts and "round up success" to top 10/20/30/40 etc. So it leads to this kind of grouping I was talking about done in the chart. I could probably go further explaining this but I can't be assed really right now, and I think you can kind of get the point anyway?

This is indeed true. But it shouldn't really apply to the UK chart which is an entire top 40 countdown on the radio.

 

The number 0 didn't actually came into existance until a lot later than the number 1, 2, 3, and so on, but rounding to the nearest number ending in a digit "0" (or back in the early days of numbers, rounding to the nearest number without units) is rounding to the nearest 10, not rounding to the nearest 0. If you round to the nearest 0, you always end up with zero, because there's only one multiple of zero (itself), whilst there's an infinite amount of multiples of 10. Numbers are man-made. As Bray said, we count in base 10, and the reason we do so is because we have 10 fingers. Trust me, I had 13 maths lessons every week in my last year of school. I learnt a lot more than I wanted to about the history of numbers. :lol: I'll try and find an article about it or something, because I'm not very good at explaining it, and I've probably forgotten a bit of it too.

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob