I guess we just have different classifications of lucky #1s. A lucky #1 to me is something that hardly sold anything in the end and had a swift chart run i.e. Nero.

I kind of think of both as lucky #1s, depending on the circumstances. Something like Ja Rule is definitely a lucky #1 to me as it was a perfect case of the circumstances all falling into place perfectly as I outlined in my post at the top of the last page, with other new releases faltering and not selling as much as expected. Nobody could have really predicted things would play out as they did, I think. But Bray is right that some record labels deliberately released their songs knowing it would be a comparatively dead week - which, if so, would go against the entire meaning of it being a lucky #1 if it actually happened - after all, luck is defined as an unexpected fluke-like occurence that you had no part in. If you're deliberately picking dead weeks then you're making your own "luck", really.

 

Then again, maybe it was the same with something like Steve Brookstein - with Simon Cowell knowing Band Aid 20 would fall like a rock being a Christmas single and there would be nothing else to challenge him. Gosh, I'm confusing myself now :D

Edited October 28, 201113 yr by superbossanova

The most fortunate No 1, or surely the one that got there under the most unusual of circumstances must be Queen's "Innuendo" in 1991 which had the gulf war to thank- bizarrely!!

they've been mentioned but no one has said they were unlucky but RATM...

And I also think Roll Deep, both with getting green light to #1, and getting a second week at #2 with good times.

The most fortunate No 1, or surely the one that got there under the most unusual of circumstances must be Queen's "Innuendo" in 1991 which had the gulf war to thank- bizarrely!!

 

Do elaborate on that?

 

Mint Royale's Singin' In The Rain could be described as a lucky #1 because it got there without the record label having to do anything (except possibly giving the producers of BGT consent to use the track?) several years after the song's initial promotion.

Do elaborate on that?

 

Mint Royale's Singin' In The Rain could be described as a lucky #1 because it got there without the record label having to do anything (except possibly giving the producers of BGT consent to use the track?) several years after the song's initial promotion.

Well to save my poor hands, and again to refer to the closest races to No 1 thread (which surely holds the question to all chart secrets :lol: ) post 344 explains all queen post

I kind of think of both as lucky #1s, depending on the circumstances. Something like Ja Rule is definitely a lucky #1 to me as it was a perfect case of the circumstances all falling into place perfectly as I outlined in my post at the top of the last page, with other new releases faltering and not selling as much as expected. Nobody could have really predicted things would play out as they did, I think. But Bray is right that some record labels deliberately released their songs knowing it would be a comparatively dead week - which, if so, would go against the entire meaning of it being a lucky #1 if it actually happened - after all, luck is defined as an unexpected fluke-like occurence that you had no part in. If you're deliberately picking dead weeks then you're making your own "luck", really.

 

Then again, maybe it was the same with something like Steve Brookstein - with Simon Cowell knowing Band Aid 20 would fall like a rock being a Christmas single and there would be nothing else to challenge him. Gosh, I'm confusing myself now :D

 

You could argue that they were lucky that a "dead week" existed though? To be fair.

You could argue that they were lucky that a "dead week" existed though? To be fair.

 

You get dead weeks all the time, there can't be enough massive songs to fill up a 52-week period with massive #1s, there are bound to be weeks dotted around with subpar sales for #1.

they've been mentioned but no one has said they were unlucky but RATM...

And I also think Roll Deep, both with getting green light to #1, and getting a second week at #2 with good times.

 

Good Times got 3 weeks at #1 didn't it?

 

It was certainly "lucky" to get such a "long" run at #1 though. That must surely be the only time where the (joint) longest-running #1 of the year also missed the year-end top 40.

Well, considering that most acts want to release singles every two or three months you could say they were lucky there happened to be a dead week in the preferred timeframe of release. Not incredibly lucky but still, lucky.

Orson's first week (at #5) was on physicals + downloads (it was not until the following week that pre-release downloads were first allowed to chart).

 

Tomcraft - Loneliness is another relatively low-selling #1 that deserves a mention.

2000

 

The bolded tracks are easily the "luckiest" in terms of sales and comparing sales with other chart toppers from the same period:

 

22.10.00 Steps Stomp 48,250

 

As GD rightly pointed, Steps' sales for no. 1 were appalling. Even A1's not exactly brilliant opening week of sales looks decent in comparison.

Lets not forget though that Stomp managed to stop that god-awful "Who Let The Dogs Out" from getting #1.

Lets not forget though that Stomp managed to stop that god-awful "Who Let The Dogs Out" from getting #1.

 

And WLTDO? massively outsold it in the end and rightfully so. At least WLTDO? has novelty value. Stomp is just awful.

 

(Now THAT'S an unpopular opinion I know, but I'd take Baha Men over Stomp any day).

Edited October 29, 201113 yr by Bré

WLTDO >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stomp.

 

Stomp is just forgettable, I don't remember how it went like. I used to love WTLDO however and its such a guilty pleasure (same with The Cheeky Song, The Fast Food Song which were also stuck at #2. I wish I could add 'Dragostea Den Tei' to this list but a FOOTBALL song beat it there :angry: (4-4-2 'Come On England' at #2) [it spent 5 weeks in the T75 whereas DDT spent 9 weeks T10, even more than Mario Winans the #1 at the time, 7 weeks T10] [/rantover]) I do like some guilty pleasures in a novelty way :P :blush:

 

Tomcraft - Loneliness is another relatively low-selling #1 that deserves a mention.

 

:wub: :wub: I love how this managed to beat two total bores (Craig David and Ronan Keating :puke: :puke:) that are much bigger than one hit wonder Tomcraft. Also great that this didn't add to the long list of great dance records that peaked at #2 :D

Edited October 29, 201113 yr by danielXF

I guess we just have different classifications of lucky #1s. A lucky #1 to me is something that hardly sold anything in the end and had a swift chart run i.e. Nero.

 

I'm with Dandy on this one. 'Bad Romance' may have "only" sold 72k when it climbed to no. 1 but what had the song already sold in the previous five/six weeks on the chart. It's not like 'Bad Romance' was a held back release. Otherwise post-X Factor performance it could've gone straight in at #1 selling over 200k quite easily.

 

Here are some more lucky #1s (Hits' definition list)

 

25.08.02 Blazin' Squad Crossroads 52,599

22.09.02 Pink Just Like A Pill 48,000

04.05.03 Tomcraft Loneliness 36,617

26.07.03 Daniel Bedingfield Never Gonna Leave Your Side 36,500

09.11.03 Kylie Minogue Slow 43,000

22.02.04 Busted Who's David? 30,000

14.03.04 DJ Casper Cha Cha Slide 57,280 <--- climbed to no. 1 selling almost half of what it sold the previous week

31.10.04 Ja Rule feat. R Kelly & Ashanti Wonderful 23,706

16.01.05 Elvis Presley One Night 20,463

 

^ Yes, the UK's 1000th #1 single at the time broke the record for worst sales for a no. 1 single in a week. Of course this record was broken by Orson but still...for the 1000th no. 1, was a sorry affair. :drama: Iirc, TOTP had some Elvis impersonator on the show which really said it all about how terrible the UK charts were in early 2005.

 

04.09.05 Gorillaz feat. Shaun Ryder Dare 26,661

16.12.07 Eva Cassidy & Katie Melua What A Wonderful World 56,114 <--- only available from Tesco iirc?

22.06.08 Coldplay Viva La Vida 23,212

13.09.09 Pixie Lott Boys And Girls 49,623

06.06.10 David Guetta & Chris Willis feat. Fergie & LMFAO Gettin' Over You 48,827

14.08.11 Nero Promises 46,700

 

These are my defining "lucky #1s" because of the sales shown from just one week at #1. Whilst for eg; 'Dirtee Disco' and 'Once' both can be considered at "non #1s" they both opened with 69k each which makes their opening sales figures look better on paper than 'Gettin' Over You' and 'Promises'.

Early 2005 was very pathetic for the charts indeed.....the thing is, there were some gems in those charts which had they made the extra push could have got to the summit!

 

I reckon it was fixed for Elvis to get the 1000th #1.....something tells me that the whole campaign was engineered and a few multi-buys were put in force to make it happen.

Early 2005 was very pathetic for the charts indeed.....the thing is, there were some gems in those charts which had they made the extra push could have got to the summit!

 

I reckon it was fixed for Elvis to get the 1000th #1.....something tells me that the whole campaign was engineered and a few multi-buys were put in force to make it happen.

 

Is there anything that you DON'T think is fixed?

And WLTDO? massively outsold it in the end and rightfully so. At least WLTDO? has novelty value. Stomp is just awful.

 

(Now THAT'S an unpopular opinion I know, but I'd take Baha Men over Stomp any day).

I agree. Stomp is just a bad disco pastiche. Although Steps were the Queens (+Lee) of bad pastiches in general.

 

Plus Who Let The Dogs Out? reminds me of Rugrats In Paris which is hardly a bad thing to the 9-year old still inside of me somewhere.

 

Well, considering that most acts want to release singles every two or three months you could say they were lucky there happened to be a dead week in the preferred timeframe of release. Not incredibly lucky but still, lucky.

If you're a high-profile act with a big fanbase - which essentially refers to most of the big pop acts of the 1990s and beyond - then comparatively there would be a LOT of easy weeks for you to choose from. You'd only have to avoid releasing against the other big pop acts of the time (like The Wanted would never release against JLS, to use a current example) and dodge any expected big hits, instead targeting at their second week where they'd probably drop down to a very beatable total. The odd time it might backfire is if a song does significantly better than expected, or gets some huge boost from somewhere therefore thrawthing you (this pretty much happened with The Wanted last year and that awful Heart Vacancy song...)

 

It's very easy for record labels to predict the charts when everything is front-loaded... the 43 #1s in 2000 especially was hardly coincidental for example, more like record labels being clever and not pitting certain acts against each other and lining them up to knock each other off. It's not AS bad these days but it still exists...

 

Early 2005 was very pathetic for the charts indeed.....the thing is, there were some gems in those charts which had they made the extra push could have got to the summit!

 

I reckon it was fixed for Elvis to get the 1000th #1.....something tells me that the whole campaign was engineered and a few multi-buys were put in force to make it happen.

The week of the 1000th #1 was such a joke week in terms of sales/competition they hardly had to 'fix' anything. The #2 that week was the Manic Street Preachers which sold something truly pathetic like 12k I think?

 

There was nothing else out, sales were dire, the top 5 was filled with fanbase acts like Iron Maiden and Erasure that disappeared to nowhere the following week... easy pickings for a strong fanbase act like Elvis. Once sales increased he only ever sniffed the #1 spot on the odd occasions in the opening midweeks anyway.

I agree. Stomp is just a bad disco pastiche. Although Steps were the Queens (+Lee) of bad pastiches in general.

 

Plus Who Let The Dogs Out? reminds me of Rugrats In Paris which is hardly a bad thing to the 9-year old still inside of me somewhere.

 

The week of the 1000th #1 was such a joke week in terms of sales/competition they hardly had to 'fix' anything. The #2 that week was the Manic Street Preachers which sold something truly pathetic like 12k I think?

 

There was nothing else out, sales were dire, the top 5 was filled with fanbase acts like Iron Maiden and Erasure that disappeared to nowhere the following week... easy pickings for a strong fanbase act like Elvis. Once sales increased he only ever sniffed the #1 spot on the odd occasions in the opening midweeks anyway.

2 points I'd make/ add.....

 

1. WLTDO is deeply annoying and was funny for exactly 2.3 seconds baack in 2000, Steps single was also dire BUT it had the good grace to disappear relatively quickly whereas the Baha men hung around forever!

 

2. Let's look at what would have been No 1 had it NOT been for those Elvis releases....

 

15.01.05 AGAINST ALL ODDS- Steve Brookstein 17,896

22.01.05 EMPTY SOULS- Manic Street Preachers 12,753

05.02.05 ONLY U- Ashanti 20,324

 

So it could be argued it salvaged records from the dubious accolade of lowest selling No 1 of all time, indeed had it not been for Elvis MSP would still hold this record!

Empty Souls is great and I actually really liked that Ashanti song back in the day. Would have been much better as the 1000th #1. I think if downloads were allowed back then (were they?) then Elvis may not have managed to beat her or Steve, but might have done enough over the Manics still.

If you're like me and say bollocks to the OCC's numbering, Elvis wasn't the 1,000th #1 anyway. I count 'My Sweet Lord' (1971 and 2002) as one #1, 'Bohemian Rhapsody' (1975/6 and 1991/2) as one #1, 'Three Lions' (1996 and 1998) as one #1, 'Jailhouse Rock' (1958 and 2005) as one #1, 'One Night' (1959 and 2005) as one #1 and 'It's Now Or Never' (1960 and 2005) as one #1. Which means the 1,000th DIFFERENT #1 was 'Over And Over' by Nelly feat. Tim McGraw. (Or 'Get Right' by Jennifer Lopez if you consider 'Three Lions' to be different to 'Three Lions '98' - the other 5 are undeniably re-releases of the same song).

Edited October 30, 201113 yr by Bré