I thought it make an interesting discussion topic.

 

I prefer Climbers, makes the chart more interesting after a certain amount of weeks in the chart and finally peaking at #1

 

LMFAO has had an interesting chartrun so far... 22-3-2-1-1-

 

So far this year only Bruno Mars, Jessie, Nicole and Jennifer debuted straight in at #1

 

Chris Brown would make a great adddition finally peaking at #1, well hopefully....

Climbers definitely. I've been listening to the Charts since 1977, and I like to see records move up the chart and then slide slowly back down. About 6 new entries per week in the top 40 is about right for me.

Climbers for me!

Oh gosh, I'm not sure. I like a mixture of both. 2010 was good, where all the British songs debuted at #1, and all the American songs climbed there. :lol:

Climbers are more interesting to me. But I don't mind songs debuting. As long as they don't last too long there. LOL

Edited April 25, 201114 yr by FM11

Debut.

 

Usually by the time a track has climbed to #1 E.G. 'Party Rock Anthem' i'm already bored sh!tless of it.

The chart seems to have switched back to the 80s/early 90s era a bit where more tracks are climbing to #1 instead of debuted every week at #1, it was hardly heard off in the 80s, maybe the odd track would debut at #1, like The Police - Don't Stand So Close To Me. I prefer it this way.

I'm not sure really- I voted climbers as they make it more interesting, but debuts do make the chart faster- in these stale charts, I'd kill for a number 1 debut

 

so yeah, come to think of it, I should have voted debuts :drama:

Edited April 25, 201114 yr by chart wizard

Both :D

Climbers, because they make it less predictable..

Climbers definitely. I've been listening to the Charts since 1977, and I like to see records move up the chart and then slide slowly back down. About 6 new entries per week in the top 40 is about right for me.

 

I first started following the charts properly in 1980 and still remember The Jam coming straight in at no.1 with 'Going Underground'. Little did I know at the time how unusual that was, the first time for 7 years. Throughout the 80s it only happened once every couple of years or so. Even coming straight in to the top 10 was pretty unusual.

So yes, it's climbers for me, if only for nostalgia purposes to be like the charts I was 'brought up' with.

The nightmare period for me was 1995-2005 when singles tended to crash in at their highest position then usually rapidly disappear. A true chart climber became as rare as rocking horse $h!t. Whilst it is true in the mid-late 90s I was losing interest in chart music generally anyway, the way the chart behaved certainly didn't help hold my interest. Once a single had debuted, it was only ever going to fall, so beyond the one week excitement of where it would enter there was little interest.

I have high hopes that the 'On air, on sale' policy will return the charts roughly to where they were in the 1980s in terms of climbers/new entries. However in the 1980s once singles had peaked they tended to fall rapidly out of the chart compared to today. Now singles can take months or even years to finally dissapear.

i would def prefere climbers as it proves the true hits of the time, whereas debut entries at no1 occur due to a bands current popularity or holding back the release date to chart higher and have 6 weeks promo.

I first started following the charts properly in 1980 and still remember The Jam coming straight in at no.1 with 'Going Underground'. Little did I know at the time how unusual that was, the first time for 7 years. Throughout the 80s it only happened once every couple of years or so. Even coming straight in to the top 10 was pretty unusual.

So yes, it's climbers for me, if only for nostalgia purposes to be like the charts I was 'brought up' with.

The nightmare period for me was 1995-2005 when singles tended to crash in at their highest position then usually rapidly disappear. A true chart climber became as rare as rocking horse $h!t. Whilst it is true in the mid-late 90s I was losing interest in chart music generally anyway, the way the chart behaved certainly didn't help hold my interest. Once a single had debuted, it was only ever going to fall, so beyond the one week excitement of where it would enter there was little interest.

I have high hopes that the 'On air, on sale' policy will return the charts roughly to where they were in the 1980s in terms of climbers/new entries. However in the 1980s once singles had peaked they tended to fall rapidly out of the chart compared to today. Singles can take months or even years to finally dissapear.

 

 

was the jam the first song since slade to debut at no1 in 1980??

was the jam the first song since slade to debut at no1 in 1980??

 

Yes.

4 tracks came straight in at no.1 in 1973, 3 by Slade and one by Gary Glitter.

I have heard it said that 1973 was something of an anomaly in chart terms

in that it made entering at no.1 rather easier that it was before.

'Get Back' by The Beatles in 1969 was the previous one, and before that Cliff

Richard with 'The Young Ones' in 1962.

Climbers. I prefer to watch the journey of the song and see how high it gets, as opposed to it débuting at #1, as it has nowhere to go but down from there.

Yes.

4 tracks came straight in at no.1 in 1973, 3 by Slade and one by Gary Glitter.

I have heard it said that 1973 was something of an anomaly in chart terms

in that it made entering at no.1 rather easier that it was before.

'Get Back' by The Beatles in 1969 was the previous one, and before that Cliff

Richard with 'The Young Ones' in 1962.

 

i wonder why this occured in 1973?i would have thought that after 1963 any new beatles track would have been a sure fire new entry at no1 because of their popularity?wonder how songs rose back then...where they available to buy in record stores before they had been given air play and so rose as the weeks went by?

Climbing works more for me, most songs don't peak in peoples affections immediately and it's nice when the chart reflects that. Either way I hate having a revolving door for the #1 single or album, that's much more tedious.

i wonder why this occured in 1973?i would have thought that after 1963 any new beatles track would have been a sure fire new entry at no1 because of their popularity?wonder how songs rose back then...where they available to buy in record stores before they had been given air play and so rose as the weeks went by?

 

The whole chart system pre 1983 has to be viewed with suspicion- it relied on Couriers and punch cards from what i can gather and were heavily reliant on stores keeping accurate records so the system was wide open to corruption. i 've heard stories of whole weeks of chart data being dreamed up on a friday afternoon in the pub by store managers and shops being promised free stock in return for "swelling" the sales of singles. There was a World In action programme in 1980 that highlighted the kind of practices that went on.

I'd say Climbers more as it provides more interesting chart runs and that it's always best for a song to take it's time to grow more in popularity. Debuts on the odd occasion are good but sometimes I dislike song debuting at no.1 because most are undeserving to get there and are just hyped up too much. My opinion personally.

Edited April 25, 201114 yr by Rob Summers

youre last post has just destroyed my view of music history, so the beatles never really sold enough to have 17 uk no1s!!!!!!!!!!