I've just checked and it seems that Shaggy's It Wasn't Me spent four weeks over 100k, with 147k in its third week and 104k in its fourth week.

Edited May 25, 201313 yr by Griff

The MW report the other day said Band Aid 20 was the only previous single in the 21st century to sell 100k 4 weeks in a row though?

The MW report the other day said Band Aid 20 was the only previous single in the 21st century to sell 100k 4 weeks in a row though?

 

I think they meant at #1 though. I've checked various Music Weeks and the information I've given is correct.

Pretty much 50/50 whether Daft Punk will sell over 100k -- they were on 78k in last week's Friday midweeks, and ended up selling a further 35k over Friday/Saturday.

 

(Although, atleast I get to be smug about being right when people illogically believed a second version of the same song would somehow magically cause a huge sales increase :P 'Get Lucky' is proof that multiple versions just means sales that would've happened eitherway are split across two different versions rather than all going to one version, it doesn't mean total sales are bigger.)

Edited May 25, 201313 yr by Danny

I don't think one example where a second version hasn't helped disproves the whole idea that having extra versions helps. The effect is less for songs released immediately before albums anyway (but not nonexistent, for example 'Waiting All Night' still increased sales slightly when the album version came out - but 'Feel The Love' and 'Not Giving In' had a much more notable effect). See also all Now! boosts.

I don't think one example where a second version hasn't helped disproves the whole idea that having extra versions helps. The effect is less for songs released immediately before albums anyway (but not nonexistent, for example 'Waiting All Night' still increased sales slightly when the album version came out - but 'Feel The Love' and 'Not Giving In' had a much more notable effect). See also all Now! boosts.

 

But I would argue that those boosts were more because of the extra attention being drawn to them because of the album release. In other words, if at the beginning of the week the single versions of those Rudimental songs had been deleted and the album versions were the only ones available, imo their total sales for the week would still have been exactly the same, because of the attention they were getting and the prominent adverts for the album on the frontpage of iTunes would still have brought those boosts.

 

It just seems totally illogical to me to suggest that people would be sitting there thinking "hmm, I don't feel like buying that version of 'Get Lucky' at #3, but that almost-exactly-the-same version at #5, I want to buy that!" If it's a case where it's a totally different remix, or one version has a featured artist, then it make sense that people who already had a "radio edit" would also want to buy those, or that people who weren't interested in the original version might want to buy a different version if it had a featured artist they liked -- but when we're talking about two versions that are almost identical (I know there's some slight differences to the album version of 'Get Lucky' but they're not really significant) I just can't see why it would have an effect. I mean, why wouldn't record labels always release 10 different identical copies of their songs in the first place if simply having multiple versions on sales meant more sales?

I think they meant at #1 though. I've checked various Music Weeks and the information I've given is correct.

Not quite though- the last song to record sales of 100k for 5 weeks in a row (regardless of position) was Cliff Richard's "Millennium Prayer" in 1999/2000 :D

Not quite though- the last song to record sales of 100k for 5 weeks in a row (regardless of position) was Cliff Richard's "Millennium Prayer" in 1999/2000 :D

 

Out of interest, what was the last to do it for 6 weeks (not that Daft Punk have a chance of doing it :lol: )?

Not quite though- the last song to record sales of 100k for 5 weeks in a row (regardless of position) was Cliff Richard's "Millennium Prayer" in 1999/2000 :D

 

I'm still correct on one point though, Shaggy did spend four weeks over 100k. :P

Out of interest, what was the last to do it for 6 weeks (not that Daft Punk have a chance of doing it :lol: )?

Well then you really are back to Cher in 1998! :lol:

Gezza, do you know which song has spent the most weeks over 100k? :D

Edited May 25, 201313 yr by Griff

Gezza, do you know which song has spent the most weeks over 100k? :D

Not definitively (there would be some contenders in the 80s) but one that we can be sure of was "Barbie Girl" which did 9 weeks non consecutively over 100k :D

Not definitively (there would be some contenders in the 80s) but one that we can be sure of was "Barbie Girl" which did 9 weeks non consecutively over 100k :D

:mellow:

 

The 90s were DARK times.

But I would argue that those boosts were more because of the extra attention being drawn to them because of the album release.

 

So surely the same applies to Daft Punk? The reason additional versions help is because they add an additional album's attention to the song's potential cherrypicks (if that makes sense).

 

N-Trance's 'Set You Free' is a good example of that. Every time a new compilation is released that has that on it, it seems to re-enter the top 200 because of the attention to the album leading to a lot of cherrypicks of it, despite it not being a 'new' version.

Edited May 25, 201313 yr by Bré

:mellow:

 

The 90s were DARK times.

 

Suede says "oh hi there".