So no #2 single has EVER been stuck behind so many different #1's without getting there itself up to now? This is Maroon 5's record then if they miss out again, the farce of held back releases being made clear to see. It seems to be a novelty if a song only drops to #2 nowadays after leaving the top spot, everything seems to falling right down to #3/4/5 at the moment.

All-4-One's I Swear in 1994 perhaps? Initially I'd thought of Shaggy's It Wasn't Me but the 5 weeks that that spent at #2 were interrupted by a week at #3, likewise Kate Nash's Foundations, Shakira's Hips Don't Lie and Celine Dion's My Heart Will Go On which both had five weeks at #2 interspersed by weeks at other positions.

 

I can think of quite a few '4 consecutive weeks at #2' since then (Rule The World, Lose My Breath, Price Tag, It Wasn't Me) but no other five week straight stints.

You've missed La Roux 'In For the Kill'. (They were behind Calvin Harris 'You're Not Alone' [1 Week] and Tinchy Stryder 'Number 1' [3 Weeks])

You've missed La Roux 'In For the Kill'. (They were behind Calvin Harris 'You're Not Alone' [1 Week] and Tinchy Stryder 'Number 1' [3 Weeks])

 

I wasn't giving an exhaustive list, just ones that came to me at that moment in time :lol:

 

I know there were loads others besides those four, Kelis' Milkshake for example!

I wasn't giving an exhaustive list, just ones that came to me at that moment in time :lol:

 

I know there were loads others besides those four, Kelis' Milkshake for example!

Ah right. I didn't realise there were that many tbh. :o

So no #2 single has EVER been stuck behind so many different #1's without getting there itself up to now? This is Maroon 5's record then if they miss out again, the farce of held back releases being made clear to see. It seems to be a novelty if a song only drops to #2 nowadays after leaving the top spot, everything seems to falling right down to #3/4/5 at the moment.

 

Since 1980, not necessarily ever. I'd think if a similar thing happened before it would have been in the early days of the charts.

 

(Also, Moves Like Jagger was a held-back release itself, it just didn't get much support at first so it's increased its sales over time in contrast to most other songs released these days :P)

Edited October 5, 201113 yr by Bré

Since 1980, not necessarily ever. I'd think if a similar thing happened before it would have been in the early days of the charts.

 

(Also, Moves Like Jagger was a held-back release itself, it just didn't get much support at first so it's increased its sales over time in contrast to most other songs released these days :P)

 

The #1 turnover was incredibly slow in the 50s and 60s, I'm certain that Moves Like Jagger would be the first EVER song to chart at #2 behind six different #1's without even having to research it. All of those long running #2's from the 50s would have been held at bay by either the same song at #1 for the duration or maybe two or three at a push, not six!

 

Ok, let me rephrase that - the farce of record companies releasing one major single per week to ensure that they get the #1 spot being made clear to see. At least when this practice was going on in 2000 there were 4-7 new entries per week in the top ten and there was often a genuine battle for the top. Even if it was always a foregone conclusion that there'd be a new #1 each week, it wasn't always obvious what it would be like it is these days. Now we generally have 1-3 top ten new entries per week, usually a major release, and a couple of other big releases if we're lucky but nothing that would threaten the major release from going to #1.

what about Madonna's Crazy For You? I know it went to number 2 for 2 weeks on its reissue in 1991...and also it was number 2 on it's original release in 1984..but i dont remember how many weeks it was number 2 then?.... :thinking:

Ok, let me rephrase that - the farce of record companies releasing one major single per week to ensure that they get the #1 spot being made clear to see. At least when this practice was going on in 2000 there were 4-7 new entries per week in the top ten and there was often a genuine battle for the top. Even if it was always a foregone conclusion that there'd be a new #1 each week, it wasn't always obvious what it would be like it is these days. Now we generally have 1-3 top ten new entries per week, usually a major release, and a couple of other big releases if we're lucky but nothing that would threaten the major release from going to #1.

 

Agreed.

The charts are an absolute farce at the moment. The UK record industry has no reason to complain about illegal downloading, they are encouraging it IMO.

The thing I find interesting about the chart at the moment is the fact that, were we to get a monthly chart in place of a weekly one, none of the last few no.1s would get the top spot and not just because of the competition. The no.1s aren't representing true popularity at the moment but I think that'll change this week whoever is no.1 because I can see Rihanna having good longevity. It's only 2 weeks since it debuted on air so the buildup hasn't been as big as for the last few no.1s.

what about Madonna's Crazy For You? I know it went to number 2 for 2 weeks on its reissue in 1991...and also it was number 2 on it's original release in 1984..but i dont remember how many weeks it was number 2 then?.... :thinking:

It only made no 2 for one week in 1985 :)

The thing I find interesting about the chart at the moment is the fact that, were we to get a monthly chart in place of a weekly one, none of the last few no.1s would get the top spot and not just because of the competition. The no.1s aren't representing true popularity at the moment but I think that'll change this week whoever is no.1 because I can see Rihanna having good longevity. It's only 2 weeks since it debuted on air so the buildup hasn't been as big as for the last few no.1s.

 

There actually is a monthly chart produced for the industry, at least I presume it still exists. These charts cover 4 or 5 sales weeks (Sunday to Saturday) with March, June, September and December being the months that get 5. There can't be any doubt that Moves Like Jagger will top this chart for September. It will also end up higher in the year-end chart than most of this years number ones.

LOL I love this type of chart records. 6 weeks behind 6 #1's. Would be fantastic :lol:

I noticed even some #3s are going to outsell most of the #1s this year. S&M and Born This Way, both of which were also not held back. And The A Team, which was held back (kind of).

Edited October 5, 201113 yr by Eric_Blob

I always think back to 1988, and Kylie Minogue's incredible unlucky runs at No 2 with four consecutive singles:

 

- Got To Be Certain - peaked at No 2 (3 consecutive weeks) without ever getting to No 1 (damn you, Wet Wet Wet! :banghead: )

 

- The Loco-Motion - entered and peaked at No 2 (4 consecutive weeks) without ever getting to No 1 (damn you, Yazz! :banghead: )

 

- Je Ne Sais Pas Pourquoi - peaked at No 2 (3 consecutive weeks) without ever getting to No 1 (damn you, Enya! :banghead: )

 

- Especially For You (duet with Jason Donovan) - entered and peaked at No 2 (4 consecutive weeks) (damn you Cliff Richard! :banghead: ), but then finally reached No 1 in the first chart of 1989, and the following two weeks.

 

Wet Wet Wet stopped Kylie Minogue getting to #1 3 times:

 

1988

21 May Wet Wet Wet / Billy Bragg With A Little Help From My Friends / She's Leaving Home *4* (#2: Kylie Minogue "Got To Be Certain")

 

1992

25 Jan Wet Wet Wet "Goodnight Girl" *4* (#2: Kylie Minogue "Give Me Just A Little More Time")

 

1994

4 Jun Wet Wet Wet "Love Is All Around" *15* (#2: Kylie Minogue "Confide In Me")

 

 

It's like the curse of Flo Rida to The Saturdays and Rihanna to Maroon 5. :lol:

Oh Ok then, was from memory so I wasn't sure lol. Can't remember much else lingering at 2 without getting top spot in recent times. I know Frank Chacksfield did it for literally months in 1953 (but with breaks in the run).

 

 

All the weeks Frank Chacksfield was Number Two, "I Believe" by Frankie Laine was number one. In fact, "Terry's Theme" was lower in the chart than "I Believe" for all of its 24 weeks on the chart.

'Stop' by the Spice Girls is now one of the most critically acclaimed, and well known and accosiated songs, yet prior to 2007, it was their only single not to go to #1 (charting at #2)

The thing I find interesting about the chart at the moment is the fact that, were we to get a monthly chart in place of a weekly one, none of the last few no.1s would get the top spot and not just because of the competition. The no.1s aren't representing true popularity at the moment but I think that'll change this week whoever is no.1 because I can see Rihanna having good longevity. It's only 2 weeks since it debuted on air so the buildup hasn't been as big as for the last few no.1s.

 

I agree entirely with what you say here, but I don't think a 'pure' monthly chart would be very interesting. Are you suggesting a rolling monthly chart (i.e. every week the chart consisting of the previous 4 weeks sales?)

 

Alternatively, some form of 'amortised' sales might might the charts more realistic (e.g. weekly sales for chart purposes = 50% this week + 30% last week + 20 % week before). This might allow genuinely 'big' records to get swiftly to the top whilst keeping the minnows down and not being quite so slow as a rolling month long chart. (Whilst also ensuring every sale counts towards the chart at some stage

I agree entirely with what you say here, but I don't think a 'pure' monthly chart would be very interesting. Are you suggesting a rolling monthly chart (i.e. every week the chart consisting of the previous 4 weeks sales?)

 

Alternatively, some form of 'amortised' sales might might the charts more realistic (e.g. weekly sales for chart purposes = 50% this week + 30% last week + 20 % week before). This might allow genuinely 'big' records to get swiftly to the top whilst keeping the minnows down and not being quite so slow as a rolling month long chart. (Whilst also ensuring every sale counts towards the chart at some stage

 

I was more pointing out that a weekly chart just really isn't showcasing true popularity at the moment and is very easily manipulated. I don't really think a monthly chart would work either.

 

I reckon M5 are looking at their 6th week at no.2 as much as I don't want it to happen.