More/less or equally important as it ever was?

 

Also, a question on sales too...

I'm alone on both counts so far but I've said 'about the same' and 'both'. There may be a lot more #1s and a quicker turnover than there used to be but that doesn't devalue a #1 - what devalues #1 is when sales at the top are allowed to get so low that you end up with such anomaly #1s as 'Promises' or, to use an older example, 'Gym And Tonic'. And peak position is still important, although sales are more important I can't bring myself to vote for just the sales option.

Less than in the past. With no TOTP to play on, getting a chart position is not as pretigious as it used to be.

I went with the rather predictable "less than in the past"/"sales" spread.

i think it's more important now to get a number 1 single than in the past since the chart has become a lot slower, and since sales have gone up... also, back in 2000 we had a new number 1 each week, now we only have 1 number 1 per 3 weeks on average.... plus in the UK Top 75 we had 18 new entries average back in 2000, now it's maximum of 4 to 5 new entries per week....

 

peak postion is more impotant than sales for an artist, just look at Mc Fly, they can claim to have had 7 number 1's but no one remembers how much they sold ( average 70 k per single overall) , only the die hard chart fans remember.....

This question really relates to your comparator. If you're comparing to say 2004-2007 then it's much better now, if you were comparing to the 80s or 90s then your answer would be different in some respects.

I went with "about the same" for the first one because at the end of the day a #1 is a #1. Acts never dined out on it much more than they do now IMO.

 

As for the second, ultimately an act's career lives and dies on how much money they earn for the label and it's sales rather than position that generate income.

"About the same" and "both". A number one is a great achievement, no matter if you sell over 100k in a week to get there or just 30k or less. If you sold more records in a single week than any other artist in the country, that is a great thing.

 

I selected "both" on the second option, as I think there are positive and negative things about having just high sales and just having high peaks. For example, like Big Mistake mentioned McFly have 7 number ones, and people that look at their peak position on Chart Stats or Wikipedia or whatever, and think that it's fantastic. However, if you see how much they've sold, it's not as great, as many of them have struggled to sell over 100k.

 

Today, we have songs such as Florence + the Machine's Dog Days Are Over, Adele's Set Fire to the Rain etc, missing the Top 10 yet selling simillar or even more than what the #1 sells in total. However, if you look at their discography, seeing a song miss the Top 10, you would instantly think it was a flop (if you didn't have a clue of it's sales)

Getting a #1 hit isn't as important as it used to be imo. Nobody pays attention to the charts apart from us geeks on the chart forum :P People in real life don't give a care about a songs sales, peak position or if its gaining 0.00148510% on iTunes pop bars. So I think sales are more important because more people will be aware of the songs existence therefore more album sales and more touring.

I'm joining the "about the same" and "both" group. :D

 

Maybe getting to no. 1 in the 70s/80s was a bigger deal until record companies got greedy and realised they could market singles to the point they debuted at no. 1 with their biggest sale and then plummeted down after that.

 

Things did get more interesting again in 2009 with tracks like 'Poker Face', 'Bad Romance', 'I Gotta Feeling' and 'Meet Me Halfway' climbing to the top and accumulating their sales before having the sales peak. This means the examples given became massive selling no. 1 singles which is what I prefer to see.

 

The only 2012 chart topper that followed this formulae is Gotye feat. Kimbra 'Somebody That I Used To Know' - 11 weeks on the chart and near 700k sold already and will no doubt continue selling well throughout the rest of 2012. A more than likely million seller within the next 8-9 months.

 

Liam makes a good point about 'Dog Days Are Over', a UK #23, which in 2010 outsold 'The Club Is Alive', a UK #1. Proof that no. 1's aren't all they're cracked up to be. It's just going back to days of the greedy record company holding back releases for so long they sell bucketoads first week then decrease in sales about 50% in week 2 and barely sell much else after that.

 

How many UK #1 hits in 2011 didn't make the End of 2011 biggest selling singles top 40?

 

Definitely more important to get a higher peak position.

 

It's only ppl like us (Buzzjack members) who visit chart forums regularly who are aware of (or care about) the actual sales. All most ppl remember is what number it go to.

 

 

I think getting a top 10 is ultimately more important for new artists to achieve, but for the likes of JLS, who've already experienced #1 - getting more #1s has increased value - a #6 peak for 'Proud' suggests they're doing something wrong - yet I'm sure StooShe (as an example of a new artist) would be thrilled with a #6 single.

 

As for sales/peak positions - I think both are equally important. With the BPI/artists slow to register for certifications, looking at artists discography is the best indicator of how successful they've been and how successful particular singles were. If certifications were awarded more frequently, like in New Zealand and Australia, then the focus would hopefully shift more to the overall sales; rather than the chart run/peak position.

Definitely more important to get a higher peak position.

 

It's only ppl like us (Buzzjack members) who visit chart forums regularly who are aware of (or care about) the actual sales. All most ppl remember is what number it go to.

 

Depends whether you think the public perception or what the labels want is more important I guess.

About the same for the first one, outselling every other song available in the UK is still very impressive

 

for the second one though, I would say sales are more important than they were, particularly in these times, I guess if you're a company like Syco, getting a number 1 that then bombs out of the charts is still decent enough, but if a song sells a lot even with a lower peak, then it shows it has lasting appeal and still make a lot of money, more importantly number 1 sales can look very disappointing and not make enough money then that usually isn't great news for the act

 

Definitely more important to get a higher peak position.

 

It's only ppl like us (Buzzjack members) who visit chart forums regularly who are aware of (or care about) the actual sales. All most ppl remember is what number it go to.

But as Brett-Butler said, with no TOTP or even stuff like CD:UK anymore, that's much less so. People know massive hits because they hear them all of the time. None of my friends care about the charts, but if you asked them what's been number one recently they'd mention the big hits, 'Earthquake', 'Wild Ones', 'Moves Like Jagger', I know people get mixed up a lot with the BigTop 40 now too. It's definitely less important to be number one now, there's nowhere near the amount of exposure than when the likes of TOTP were at their peak.

Surely it's more prestigious now? After all, they get a Pointless trophy :D

Surely it's more prestigious now? After all, they get a Pointless trophy :D

I agree that a lot of them now are so forgettable they will help win a Pointless Trophy! :D

 

http://www.ukgameshows.com/p/images/thumb/d/d6/Pointless_trophy.jpg/350px-Pointless_trophy.jpg

I agree that a lot of them now are so forgettable they will help win a Pointless Trophy! :D

 

http://www.ukgameshows.com/p/images/thumb/d/d6/Pointless_trophy.jpg/350px-Pointless_trophy.jpg

Almost certainly :lol:

Are we talking about whether the #1 still has prestige to the artists themselves or the public? There seems to be some confusion within the replies of this thread, and I think the answers to these questions are completely different depending...

 

For the artists themselves, I would agree with this:

 

"About the same" and "both". A number one is a great achievement, no matter if you sell over 100k in a week to get there or just 30k or less. If you sold more records in a single week than any other artist in the country, that is a great thing.

 

For the public perception of it and the charts in general, I would roughly agree with Brett-Butler and RabbitFurCoat. Outside interest in the charts and the #1 position itself is very low, possibly the lowest it's ever been. A lot of the printed media don't seem to care about it anymore either, even compared to 10 years ago. Most of the activity is restricted to online and mostly only in niche places that you wouldn't have a clue about unless you had an interest in the charts in the first place. However, I do think the idea of the "#1" still has prestige to the public - it's still used prominently in advertising of albums and artists for that very reason: to IMPRESS.

When i first started following the charts i thought a #1 was everything, but i now consider sales to be far more important.

 

It's songs that sell a lot and make a cultural impact that are remembered 5/10/20 years after they are released, not songs that just get to #1 :P