Before downloads it would have meant the physical being on sale in a shop the following day or the next Monday after it's radio premiere. I'm sure Westlife would have never had that many number ones. A lot of forgotten gems particulary from the late 90s and early 2000s would have been more memorable. Can you imagine how exiting the top 40 would have been then?

 

 

Before downloads it would have meant the physical being on sale in a shop the following day or the next Monday after it's radio premiere. I'm sure Westlife would have never had that many number ones. A lot of forgotten gems particulary from the late 90s and early 2000s would have been more memorable. Can you imagine how exiting the top 40 would have been then?

 

I expect it would have been the same as exiting the top 40 now.

Edited June 15, 201114 yr by Bray

It surely depends on which record companies took part - as I understand it, independents are under no obligation to join in with OA/OS.

Before some time in the 1990s that's pretty much what happened. New singles were rarely played more than a week before they were in the shops and very often they weren't played until the day they arrived in the shops.

It surely depends on which record companies took part - as I understand it, independents are under no obligation to join in with OA/OS.

 

Not even major labels are obliged to. They're just encouraged to, to help prevent piracy.

 

Before some time in the 1990s that's pretty much what happened. New singles were rarely played more than a week before they were in the shops and very often they weren't played until the day they arrived in the shops.

 

Is that the reason so many 70s/80s/90s chart runs are ridiculous like 64-10-1? :lol:

Is that the reason so many 70s/80s/90s chart runs are ridiculous like 64-10-1? :lol:

 

I wish I'd been around in those days. So much more exciting. :(

I'm sure Westlife would have never had that many number ones.

Maybe, but if there's one thing Westlife('s management) were is smart and opportunistic. They would have likely concentrated all their promotion (remember there were far more opportunities for promotion in the physical era than these days) into one week, probably the one where they would have had the best chance of #1 (similar to how they did in the late 1990s with avoiding the obvious big records). Plus with no front-loading, sales would have been naturally lower on both the strong weeks and the weak weeks, which would have dropped to around 50-60k at the very least surely, making it even easier for Westlife to target a week at #1 with a big push.

 

I wonder if we would have seen acts holding back one of the CDs in the late 90s? I can certainly imagine this would have happened. Release the first format, watch all the fans buy it, then weeks later release another format with an even BETTER tracklisting (more exclusives, etc) to entice the fans to buy it again as well as the casual fans that are hearing it on the radio. Back in those days they released all formats together to get a bigger push to #1 but in an OA/OS climate it would have made more business sense to not do that, unless they were aiming for a push to #1 purely on their first week?

 

I expect it would have been the same as exiting the top 40 now.

I think it would be MUCH faster, as there were far more records being released with mainstream promotion then there are now. Plus there's the issue of reducing stock, limited area to display (we're talking relatively small stores here) so I imagine more recent releases would be favoured over the old, and record companies stopped producing more copies of certain singles when they wanted it to drop out of the chart to make room for the next single, etc - things that are not problems or issues at all with downloads.

 

I guess it wouldn't have been as fast as it actually was back then, but probably more of a halfway point between now and then? Back then it was pretty incredible when a song passed 20 weeks in the top 40. And if you made it to 30 weeks like LeAnn Rimes did then it was just beyond belief!!!

I would certainly hope the charts would've been faster than they are now. Although, to be fair, it's practically impossible to have a slower moving chart. Most things in the charts now just seem to move a few places every week nowadays. And people get excited to see 3 new entries in the top 10 these days.

Edited June 15, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

I wish I'd been around in those days. So much more exciting. :(

 

I was around in those days and although that chart rise quoted is a bit extreme, 39-11-3-2-1 might have been more typical there were more climbers than today though OAOS is increasing them to a more healthy number. There were certainly very few new entries at no.1 and even new entries in the top 10 were fairly rare in the early 80s. What you didn't get in those days was massive hits making their way painfully down the charts like 'Someone Like You' is doing at the moment. Even million sellers that had spent weeks at no.1 usually disappeared fairly quickly. 'Come on Eileen' by Dexy's Midnight runners in 1982 went 2-3-9-14-20-36-52-66 after it fell from no.1. Just 8 weeks in the top 75. By comparison SLY was still as high as no.17 8 weeks after dropping from no.1 and surely has many weeks left in the top 40, let alone the top 75.

Edited June 15, 201114 yr by Col1967

I was around in those days and although that chart rise quoted is a bit extreme, 39-11-3-2-1 might have been more typical there were more climbers than today though OAOS is increasing them to a more healthy number. There were certainly very few new entries at no.1 and even new entries in the top 10 were fairly rare in the early 80s.

 

That reminds me of LMFAO's chart run actually. :lol:

 

But yeah, to be fair, the climbs in today's chart don't usually seem to bad. Like the songs usually climb quite promptly once their promotion starts, but it's the falling that's the problem. Now they fall like 2 places every weeks and spend 4 months ambling down the top 40. It's just stupid tbh.

Edited June 15, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

I think it would be MUCH faster, as there were far more records being released with mainstream promotion then there are now. Plus there's the issue of reducing stock, limited area to display (we're talking relatively small stores here) so I imagine more recent releases would be favoured over the old, and record companies stopped producing more copies of certain singles when they wanted it to drop out of the chart to make room for the next single, etc - things that are not problems or issues at all with downloads.

 

I guess it wouldn't have been as fast as it actually was back then, but probably more of a halfway point between now and then? Back then it was pretty incredible when a song passed 20 weeks in the top 40. And if you made it to 30 weeks like LeAnn Rimes did then it was just beyond belief!!!

 

I think you missed the point of my post.

I think you missed the point of my post.

Oh, I see it now. It was a very bad joke. Well, I certainly don't feel sorry for missing THAT if it suggests my humour isn't so awful.

 

Regardless, my post is still relevant as the OP was implying leaving the top 40 would have been slow back then, which is what I was disagreeing with ;)

*exciting

That reminds me of LMFAO's chart run actually. :lol:

 

But yeah, to be fair, the climbs in today's chart don't usually seem to bad. Like the songs usually climb quite promptly once their promotion starts, but it's the falling that's the problem. Now they fall like 2 places every weeks and spend 4 months ambling down the top 40. It's just stupid tbh.

 

Yes indeed, I addressed that point in my edit :)

It enables tracks to pile up sales of course but it does clog up the charts with old hits and must surely allow fewer singles to enter the charts which can't be good for new acts wanitng that all important first chart hit. I don't think anything can or indeed *should* be done about it though. The charts should reflect what the public are buying, no more no less.

Yes indeed, I addressed that point in my edit :)

It enables tracks to pile up sales of course but it does clog up the charts with old hits and must surely allow fewer singles to enter the charts which can't be good for new acts wanitng that all important first chart hit. I don't think anything can or indeed *should* be done about it though. The charts should reflect what the public are buying, no more no less.

 

That is true I suppose.

 

There's an urban chart I listen to on the radio sometimes, that's also based on sales, and it removes songs from the chart after 20 weeks. Obviously, it doesn't accurately reflect what is popular (a notable example was S&M, since it took so long to climb up the charts, it got removed from the chart when it was still quite popular), but it makes the chart a bit more entertaining. Although I have to say, even 20 weeks seems a bit too long.

 

It'd make the chart show more entertaining to listen to, but it wouldn't accurately reflect popularity.

 

I was thinking though, perhaps they should start counting down the top 75 on the chart show (obviously just the new entries and large climbers), so some less mainstream songs, which we haven't all heard a million times get to be played on the chart show like in the past.

 

Part of me would like them to play the top 40 in full, but we really, really do not need to hear Price Tag or Don't Hold Your Breath again. Instead of playing those, they could play some of the songs in the top 75 that won't become massive radio hits. It would certainly get more British songs played on the chart show.

Edited June 15, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

Oh, I see it now. It was a very bad joke. Well, I certainly don't feel sorry for missing THAT if it suggests my humour isn't so awful.

 

It wasn't THAT bad. :(

Not even major labels are obliged to. They're just encouraged to, to help prevent piracy.

Is that the reason so many 70s/80s/90s chart runs are ridiculous like 64-10-1? :lol:

As others have implied, yes that is one of the main reasons. After all, only one Beatles song entered at number one. All their other number ones climbed to the top.

Back in the days of physical records, releases by new artists definitely tended to enter lower down. Shops didn't want to order stock that they wouldn't be able to shift, so ordered only in small quantities. And there wasn't the internet or widespread knowledge of release dates way in advance - quite often the first I'd know a single was out was to see a copy of it in the racks of one of my local record shops.

I wish I'd been around in those days. So much more exciting. :(

 

You'd think - but for those of us who *were* around, we just accepted it as normal.

 

What *was* a big deal back then though, were instant #1's!

And people get excited to see 3 new entries in the top 10 these days.

 

Only if I *like* them. :P