Does anyone know about milestone number ones in the UK

 

e.g what was the 50th song to get to number one?

100th?

250th?

500th?

1000th?

1500th?

Other milestone numbers?

 

Might be interesting :D

We had a thread somewhere i'm sure (or the info was somewhere!). Will see what I can find for you :D

I did put it in the search engine but the thread might of been called something else

100th Anthony Newley - Do You Mind 1960

250th Union Gap featuring Gary Puckett - Young Girl 1968

500th Nicole- A Little Peace 1982

1000th Elvis Presley - One Night/I Got Stung 2005

 

There have been 1158 different #1s so far.

 

http://www.bittersuiteband.com/music_uk-no1-hits-singles.htm

Well I know 1500th doesn't exist, you just have to wait another 10 years to get there.

 

Of the top of my head

 

Nicole - A Little Peace [500th]

T'pau - China In Your Hands [600th] I think or was it PSB?

Chaka Demus & Pliers - Tease Me [700th]

Elivs Presley - One Night/I Got Stung [1000th]

Cascada - Evacate The Dancefloor [1100th]

100 Anthony Newley – Do You Mind?

200 The Beatles – Help!

250 Gary Puckett And The Union Gap – Young Girl

300 Dawn – Knock Three Times

400 Julie Covington – Don’t Cry For Me Argentina

500 Nicole – A Little Peace

600 T’Pau – China In Your Hand

700 Chaka Demus And Pliers – Twist And Shout

800 All Saints – Bootie Call

900 Christina Aguilera, Lil’ Kim, Mya & Pink – Lady Mamalade

1000 Elvis Presley – One Night / I Got Stung

1100 Cascada – Evacuate The Dancefloor

 

100 Anthony Newley – Do You Mind?

200 The Beatles – Help!

250 Gary Puckett And The Union Gap – Young Girl

300 Dawn – Knock Three Times

400 Julie Covington – Don’t Cry For Me Argentina

500 Nicole – A Little Peace

600 T’Pau – China In Your Hand

700 Chaka Demus And Pliers – Twist And Shout

800 All Saints – Bootie Call

900 Christina Aguilera, Lil’ Kim, Mya & Pink – Lady Mamalade

1000 Elvis Presley – One Night / I Got Stung

1100 Cascada – Evacuate The Dancefloor

 

Great to see classics like these have milestone numbers. Not great to see a complete non-number one as the 800th song and also great to see Cascada get a milestone too, even if it's not a classic in the slightest. We could get 1200 number ones soon, maybe next year.

 

This is assuming "Young Girl" is THE Young Girl I'm thinking about "young girl, get outta my mind, youre love for me is way out of kind you betta run girl etc."

Edited March 27, 201114 yr by danielGaGa

800 All Saints – Bootie Call

 

Trust me to forget that track, I just couldn't remember who had the 800th hit.

 

I'm not sure but isn't that list only valid if you consider certain songs which got to #1 twice as separate #1s? (Three Lions is definitely counted twice in that list AFAIA, but the OCC now consider it one song - I think My Sweet Lord is counted twice too, as well as Bohemian Rhapsody and obviously the three Elvis re-issues as one of them is actually on the list :lol:)

 

EDIT: I looked it up on everyhit and they are all counted as being 2 separate #1s. So if you don't count those as being separate, the revised list is as follows:

 

100 Anthony Newley - Do You Mind?

200 The Beatles - Help!

250 Gary Puckett And The Union Gap - Young Girl

300 Dawn - Knock Three Times

400 Julie Covington - Don't Cry For Me Argentina

500 Nicole - A Little Peace

600 T'Pau - China In Your Hand

(changes start here)

700 D:Ream - Things Can Only Get Better

800 Melanie B feat. Missy Elliott - I Want You Back

900 Roger Sanchez - Another Chance

1000 Nelly feat. Tim McGraw - Over And Over

1100 Jay-Z feat. Rihanna and Kanye West - Run This Town

 

That's assuming I haven't forgotten any songs that got to #1 in two separate chart runs - I believe Queen, George, Three Lions and Elvis x3 are the only ones.

Edited March 27, 201114 yr by Bray

Great to see classics like these have milestone numbers. Not great to see a complete non-number one as the 800th song and also great to see Cascada get a milestone too, even if it's not a classic in the slightest. We could get 1200 number ones soon, maybe next year.

 

This is assuming "Young Girl" is THE Young Girl I'm thinking about "young girl, get outta my mind, youre love for me is way out of kind you betta run girl etc."

That's the one

I'm not sure but isn't that list only valid if you consider certain songs which got to #1 twice as separate #1s? (Three Lions is definitely counted twice in that list AFAIA, but the OCC now consider it one song - I think My Sweet Lord is counted twice too, as well as Bohemian Rhapsody and obviously the three Elvis re-issues as one of them is actually on the list :lol:)

 

EDIT: I looked it up on everyhit and they are all counted as being 2 separate #1s. So if you don't count those as being separate, the revised list is as follows:

 

That's assuming I haven't forgotten any songs that got to #1 in two separate chart runs - I believe Queen, George, Three Lions and Elvis x3 are the only ones.

What is with your attempts to re-write history with this? It's v. annoying.

 

For starters, the Queen song was an AA-side in 1991, so should definitely not be treated as the same #1. These Are The Days Of Our Lives had not even been released before that and was a completely new song, and also got just as much attention from that release as Bohemian Rhapsody did.

 

And the Three Lions 1996 and 1998 versions are quite different, at least lyrically and the general feel of the tracks. The 1996 version is far more historical-based, referencing the past greats of English football and hoping that the current team can do what they did. The 1998 version basically only talks about the then current English side and implies how they're certain to win with such a "good" team. Different lyrics, different implications. I have no idea who decided to combine them at the OCC but it was probably some moron who has never even listened to the songs.

 

Either way, they definitely shouldn't be considered the same #1, and there's no evidence the OCC even do consider them the same #1 when they were released with a different catalogue number, different video, etc.

 

For example, the OCC has ALWAYS combined the sales of the 1975/1991 versions of Bohemian Rhapsody, but never treated them as the same #1. When they published their best-sellers of all-time in 2002, the sales were combined. At the same time they had a numbered list of #1s on their site and they were not combined, and counted in their tally separately, rather than as a 're-entry' at number one. So therefore I would guess they'd do the same with Three Lions now.

Edited March 28, 201114 yr by superbossanova

100th Anthony Newley - Do You Mind 1960

250th Union Gap featuring Gary Puckett - Young Girl 1968

500th Nicole- A Little Peace 1982

1000th Elvis Presley - One Night/I Got Stung 2005

 

There have been 1158 different #1s so far.

 

I'd dispute the term 'different' here, since that '1000th #1', had also been #1 in 1959...

What is with your attempts to re-write history with this? It's v. annoying.

 

For starters, the Queen song was an AA-side in 1991, so should definitely not be treated as the same #1. These Are The Days Of Our Lives had not even been released before that and was a completely new song, and also got just as much attention from that release as Bohemian Rhapsody did.

 

And the Three Lions 1996 and 1998 versions are quite different, at least lyrically and the general feel of the tracks. The 1996 version is far more historical-based, referencing the past greats of English football and hoping that the current team can do what they did. The 1998 version basically only talks about the then current English side and implies how they're certain to win with such a "good" team. Different lyrics, different implications. I have no idea who decided to combine them at the OCC but it was probably some moron who has never even listened to the songs.

 

Either way, they definitely shouldn't be considered the same #1, and there's no evidence the OCC even do consider them the same #1 when they were released with a different catalogue number, different video, etc.

 

For example, the OCC has ALWAYS combined the sales of the 1975/1991 versions of Bohemian Rhapsody, but never treated them as the same #1. When they published their best-sellers of all-time in 2002, the sales were combined. At the same time they had a numbered list of #1s on their site and they were not combined, and counted in their tally separately, rather than as a 're-entry' at number one. So therefore I would guess they'd do the same with Three Lions now.

 

My 'attempts to re-write history with this' is because I don't agree that those 6 songs should each count as two separate #1s because they're exactly the same song (with the exception of Three Lions '98 which was essentially a remix), just with a different CD issue. I don't see why just because it's being released a second time overwrites the fact they're *exactly the same* and deserve to be treated as a return to #1 (like all the other songs that returned to #1 within the same chart run) rather than a new #1. So regardless of how the OCC do treat those songs I don't consider that list to be valid from 700 downwards, so I did a bit of research and showed what it would be like for like-minded people. That's all...

Edited March 28, 201114 yr by Bray

My 'attempts to re-write history with this' is because I don't agree that those 6 songs should each count as two separate #1s because they're exactly the same song (with the exception of Three Lions '98 which was essentially a remix), just with a different CD issue. I don't see why just because it's being released a second time overwrites the fact they're *exactly the same* and deserve to be treated as a return to #1 (like all the other songs that returned to #1 within the same chart run) rather than a new #1. So regardless of how the OCC do treat those songs I don't consider that list to be valid from 700 downwards, so I did a bit of research and showed what it would be like for like-minded people. That's all...

I broadly see your point on George Harrison and the Elvis stuff, but I just can't on Queen and Three Lions for the reasons I already stated above. They are different releases/songs, and have no reason whatsoever to be separated. For all we know everyone who bought the 1991 re-issue of Bohemian Rhapsody could have bought it for These Are The Days of Our Lives. I don't agree with combining the sales of them either, but eh, that's already been done for years now in Queen's case, and now recently in Three Lions case.

 

And the difference between songs returning to No. 1 in the same run and ones like George Harrison is that the former types were never even taken out of the shop. The latter entries were out of print for many years, and then re-released for whatever reason. It's a very different thing to nowadays where My Sweet Lord probably would have rocketed to #1 on iTunes without having to be re-released like what happened with MJ a couple of years ago. So essentially, it WAS treated as the same as every other new release, and sent out to the shops with a new CD, probably a different tracklisting (not sure about this, as I don't own the 1971 one), etc. The fact that the lead track was the exact same that got to #1 in 1971 is irrelevant in this case.

Edited March 28, 201114 yr by superbossanova

I would agree with not double-counting the George Harrison and Elvis Presley ones, definitely counting "Three Lions 98" as different, and can see both sides with the Queen issue.

 

Sorry, that doesn't add much to the discussion, does it?

 

--

Richard

To be honest, i don't know why people find these milestones interesting. Essentially the milestones are just random numbers!

With the 1100th No1 should it have gone to Michael Jackson? Didn't Cascada receive some stick for beating MJ to No1

With the 1100th No1 should it have gone to Michael Jackson? Didn't Cascada receive some stick for beating MJ to No1

 

Yes MJ was leading in the mids with 'Man In The Mirror' only to be overtaken by Cascada at the last minute IIRC!

With the 1100th No1 should it have gone to Michael Jackson? Didn't Cascada receive some stick for beating MJ to No1

 

Yes, Cascada's career has gone downhill ever since she beat him to the top spot. Shame that, she did have some good songs back then but when she started flopping her songs got worse and worse

I broadly see your point on George Harrison and the Elvis stuff, but I just can't on Queen and Three Lions for the reasons I already stated above. They are different releases/songs, and have no reason whatsoever to be separated. For all we know everyone who bought the 1991 re-issue of Bohemian Rhapsody could have bought it for These Are The Days of Our Lives. I don't agree with combining the sales of them either, but eh, that's already been done for years now in Queen's case, and now recently in Three Lions case.

 

And the difference between songs returning to No. 1 in the same run and ones like George Harrison is that the former types were never even taken out of the shop. The latter entries were out of print for many years, and then re-released for whatever reason. It's a very different thing to nowadays where My Sweet Lord probably would have rocketed to #1 on iTunes without having to be re-released like what happened with MJ a couple of years ago. So essentially, it WAS treated as the same as every other new release, and sent out to the shops with a new CD, probably a different tracklisting (not sure about this, as I don't own the 1971 one), etc. The fact that the lead track was the exact same that got to #1 in 1971 is irrelevant in this case.

 

As I stated in my post, I don't understand why this should overwrite the fact it's the same song in terms of counting it as new or not.

 

I can definitely understand why people would see the two versions of TL as different songs and the different tracklisitng does add *some* validity to the argument of keeping them separate. I just don't agree with that mindset is all. George and Elvis x3 I don't understand at all why people would count them twice (for the reason stated above) but each to their own I suppose.

 

I'm not saying people who count them as separate are wrong, just that I disagree with it :P