(Contractual) friendship never ends. :teresa:

OMG I almost spit out my coffee reading this

As far as the UK charts go...I usually found the doom and gloom around their placings to be odd. I live in the US. I guess I just don't get it. In 2001, Britney Spears released the Britney album. The singles off that got to #27 (I'm a Slave 4 U) and #86 (Overprotected) in the US charts. The further singles off the album didn't make the top 100 at all. I flat-out don't remember if there were many articles written about this at the time...but I can tell you from being a teen during that era, there wasn't a feeling that her career was over. (I'll add...it's important to note the album itself hit #1...and perhaps that's all that mattered)

 

Anyway. I say all of that because I remember when the Scream If You Wanna Go Faster single landed at #8 in the UK. My immediate thought was just...oh, cool. Geri got another top ten single. But the fans in the forums were acting like this was a total disaster. I didn't understand at all. Why was that so bad? Wouldn't there have been, like, nine Spice-related singles (and a whopping four albums and a re-issue of Northern Star) released in the year before the Scream single? Were people just expecting the Spices to be at #1 for half the year?

 

It's basically the British press being completely insane and anti-Spice at the time. Any slight mistake or going to #2 instead of #1 (as in with Stop), it was all over the press that they were over :blink:

 

That Chanel 4 documentary last year was really insightful on this. Basically when Simon Fuller left, the mostly-male dominated press turned on them because they now had a female press agent and they didnt like it. Plus, they were digusting to female pop acts, specially british ones. It's disgusting really...

Headlines missing the top 10 is definitely, for me personally, one of the more shocking chart moments. I think it was obvious it was not going to follow the success of their other hits, but it being the big comeback AND the Children in Need single surely made it seem like it would go top 5 at least. Especially with Downtown going top 5 the previous year.

 

Stop and Forever both missing the #1 was mostly very disappointing, but their competition at the same was so strong that I would not call it a shock.

 

SIYWGF only getting to #8 was pretty shocking as well, especially after her run of four #1's and It's Raining Men doing so well. She seemed to be on top of the pop world and was always in the media around the time, so that is pretty strange. It's a good song as well.

Outside of the Spice Girls, during the 90s and 00s charts, I'd say there was an attitude that going Top 5 was the expectation of where a single would peak if it was truly a hit. Top 10 was somewhat okay but in some circumstances considered quite disappointing, and outside of the Top 10 usually ranged from a meh reaction to it being regarded as an outright flop.

 

I think this general attitude was heightened when it came to the Spice Girls.

 

Geri had achieved this run of positions with singles and albums, from Wannabe to the album Scream If You Wanna Go Faster (I've put album positions in brackets) - 1-1-[1]-1-1-1-[1]-1-2-1-2-[4]-1-1-1-1-[5] (+ the England United single went to #9, but that's more of a footnote).

 

Every Spice Girls or Geri Halliwell single had either reached #1 or #2. We know that the #2 peaks of Stop and Look at Me weren't exactly celebrated, the response was pretty much "oh they missed #1, oops". I think this is why Scream If You Wanna Go Faster single reaching #8 felt like an underperformance at best, and a disaster at worst. Definitely not a position to be happy with. For many other artists it would have been absolutely fine. I'm sure EMI would have been pretty satisfied if a Louise post-album single reached #8. But Geri? It was below the very high standards she had consistently set for herself. It's unfortunate, but I think that was the culture of the time.

 

I don't think the UK chart really has that sort of pressure or expectations attached to it anymore, because it's pretty hard for any artist to maintain a consecutive string of #1s, Top 5s or Top 10s these days. Even Ed Sheeran has the occasional miss, usually with collaborations, but no one really bats an eyelid.

I don't think you can compare the US charts to the UK charts at the time - US charts were heavily reliant on airplay and the physical format had all but died a slow death in the early 00s when those Britney singles were released. So if you didn't get airplay that crossed over to multiple station formats, you didn't get high peaking singles. The UK charts were always based on sales until they decided to include streaming - add that there was a certain culture in the UK that if you didn't go top ten you were done entirely. Top five was fine. But the goal was always for pop acts, in order to be considered big, to go top three if not number one. Add that Spice Girls got a lot of pressure due to their successful run of number one singles.

Mel B charting at #453 in the album chart was a shock, I think most expected there was enough fans to see the album at least gain a Top 200 placement if not Top 100.

Spice Girls missing the Top 10 with Headlines, the single was handled badly and not their best but Top 10 felt guaranteed on name alone.

"Stop" missing #1, back than it was shocking.