Hi my huns

 

I just came in here to see if we had any chart updates or discussion and looks like I have walked right in the middle of something. I am quietly going to exit now my huns and I will pop back in here later. Hopefully when the conversation turns back to the correct topic and not arguing over 2 iconic women huns.

 

Just Carol Honey ❤️

Y'all are always pitting successful females against each other when the real enemies are Ed Sheeran, Harry Styles and Lewis Capaldi. SORT YOUR SHIT AND PRIORITIES OUT BUZZJACK!!!!

:whistle:

 

Gonna have to disagree here, agree with the first half but there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be aloud to like both Taylor and Ed , Harry, Lewis because I for 1 enjoy all of them and all deserve their respective success

I don't hate Taylor Swift at all, I love her song Anti hero, I stream it loads. What I don't like is chart manipulation, imo it's not a new album and my mind won't be charged by anyone. When Ed Sheeran does it, people complain but when it comes to Taylor Swift you can't say nothing. I guess she could always get some signed CDs in again. When Leona Lewis released a deluxe version of Spirit it wasn't classed as a new album even though it had new songs and a bonus DVD. It's one rule for one and not the other. That is what I'm complaining about.

Leona Lewis did not entirely recreate Spirit from scratch for its deluxe release.

To be fair, I think it’s easy enough to see why people don’t think that Red and Red (Taylor’s Version) should be classed as separate number ones - or indeed any other album that may have hit #1 twice in separate versions, although not sure it has happened before? That part of the argument is reasonably valid imo and, as others have said, it’s more of a grumble about the OCC than Taylor herself.

Bit harsh to blame OCC for that when every chart company over the world is doing the same

- or indeed any other album that may have hit #1 twice in separate versions, although not sure it has happened before?

The Rolling Stones got 2 extra number one albums when they re-released Exile on main street and Goats head soup.

The Beatles got an extra number one with Abbey Road but not with Sgt. Pepper (both albums had extra tracks).

 

The OCC are inconsistent.

Edited July 11, 20232 yr by ben08

Bit harsh to blame OCC for that when every chart company over the world is doing the same

Not really harsh at all? It’s not like we’re accusing them of anything remotely serious, some people just don’t agree with this rule and the OCC implement the rule. That’s all there is to it.

 

Plus my point was more that it isn’t Taylor who makes the rules

The Rolling Stones got 2 extra number one albums when they re-released Exile on main street and Goats head soup.

The Beatles got an extra number one with Abbey Road but not with Sgt. Pepper (both albums had extra tracks).

 

The OCC are inconsistent.

Really strange about Abbey Road. In particular because the site seems to suggest the OCC have added its 2019 run to a 1987 version so it’s therefore not even like they classed the 2019 release as new.

To be fair, I think it’s easy enough to see why people don’t think that Red and Red (Taylor’s Version) should be classed as separate number ones - or indeed any other album that may have hit #1 twice in separate versions, although not sure it has happened before? That part of the argument is reasonably valid imo and, as others have said, it’s more of a grumble about the OCC than Taylor herself.

 

Thank you, at least someone can see what I'm saying and see the unfairness of it all.

 

Thank you, at least someone can see what I'm saying and see the unfairness of it all.

What's unfair about it, though? Any artist could re-record their album and release it with some previously unheard tracks, they just haven't had the need to like Taylor has. If any artist did that same thing their albums would count separately.

 

It's not the same thing as just re-releasing an album with 3 new songs and a DVD.

I don't get this debate at all... there are plenty of "recreated" songs and albums out there and they always count as separate entries as they are new albums with different catalogue number. The ones by Swift even have different titles with (Taylor's Version) added.

I will say I don’t know why the OCC counts the Rolling Stones ones separately. As far as i’m aware they are straight re-releases.

I will say I don’t know why the OCC counts the Rolling Stones ones separately. As far as i’m aware they are straight re-releases.

Comment section on OCC site: "In the Albums chart Exile on Main Street was a new number 1 because it was on a different record label with a different catalogue number." (checked and it's a same for the other duplicate #1)

 

This feels like much more of a technicality than the Taylor situation IMO.

Seems quite an odd decision, but then catalogue numbers seem to cause them all sorts of problem with the archive chart runs. One of the things i’d hoped the website update might solve.

 

None of which impacts the Taylor situation though, it’s a new recording. It would be like insisting a live album shouldn’t count as a seperate record just because the songs aren’t new.

Sorry to butt in but I’d say they do class is different albums as they’ve been re-recorded, so the songs are different to the original album. I might be the same singer singing the songs, but it’s different people working on the albums, so different album credits. Otherwise the people working on this wouldn’t be credited if sales were lumped together.

 

Interestingly, if we take this argument and apply it to Greatest Hits albums. Abba Gold has obviously been re-released many times and multiple times at #1 with each time it goes back to #1 added to the original tally. If Abba were to re-record Abba Gold, and the tracklisting stayed the same and still called Abba Gold (Re-records) would the sales go towards the original album - thus probably way overtaking and being the biggest selling album of all time by a collassal distance - somethings which Queen couldn’t catch up with. Or treated as a new album with its own individual sales? And would either of these instances be thought of as chart manipulation? Either become the biggest album ever, or have an extra #1 album to the list?

Edited July 11, 20232 yr by Knightr634

Y'all are always pitting successful females against each other when the real enemies are Ed Sheeran, Harry Styles and Lewis Capaldi. SORT YOUR SHIT AND PRIORITIES OUT BUZZJACK!!!!

:whistle:

 

Omfg THIS!!!!!!!!!!! CHEESY FAD!!!!!! You also forgot TALENTLESS DRAKE and TALENTLESS SAUSAGE ROLL MAN!!! Harry is okay, but overhyped. He is in NO WAY more talnted than Mal C. She should have been getting this success, but thr music industry is sexist.

Seems quite an odd decision, but then catalogue numbers seem to cause them all sorts of problem with the archive chart runs. One of the things i’d hoped the website update might solve.

This is beyond the website, it'll be part of the OCC database!

Also, y'all Madonna vs Taylor fans sound like us authentic, neo-punk-pop, singer-songwriter Spice Girls fans vs Cowell's puppet band fans!!

 

Besides, y'all Madonna fans should worry more about Rihanna. On sales alone, SHE is the next Madonna!! GaGa woukd have been the next Madonna, but she doesn't get the sales. She and Katy flopped. Beyonce could also be a Madonna candidate, but again, sales. It's between Rihanna and Taylor, but Rihanna has mammoth sales.

Taylor must have sold way more albums than Rihanna at this point, besides Rihanna has done barely any music since 2016 and her comeback single last year wasn’t half as big as her at her peak so Taylor is clearly the bigger name at the moment.

The OCC's 'official' list of artists with the most #1 albums has 15 for The Beatles - so not including the reissues - and lists The Rolling Stones' total as 13 with an asterisk clarifying that it is double counting the reissues "due to the volume of new material present and formats available". The article in that link also refers to The Rolling Stones' tally interchangeably as either 11 or 13.

 

I think it'd be valid to suggest that Taylor's total should maybe at least include an asterisk for Red TV (and the future 1989 TV and reputation TV assuming they both get to #1) as well, although I do think there's more validity to considering them to be different albums since they are fully re-recorded. I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning the OCC's logic for double counting, for example I'll always consider Elvis as having 18 #1 singles despite him 'canonically' having 21 due to catalogue number technicalities. (Not excusing some of the other complete bollocks posted in here of course, and I don't get why people are piping up with the 'shouldn't be double counted' argument again right now when 'Speak Now (Taylor's Version)' is unambiguously a new #1 album whether or not you consider it to be different to the original).

 

There are a couple more cases of albums being (possibly?) canonically double counted as #1s - Amy Winehouse's 'Back To Black' is imo the most contentious example, the deluxe edition initially charted separately from the original so it counts as 2 different #1s for her, but just after her death they changed their mind and combined the sales of the original and deluxe back into just the one chart entry, which of course returned to #1 again which just muddies the logic for whether or not it should really be considered as more than one #1. The other one I was going to mention was George Michael with 'Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1' which I thought the OCC counted as a different #1 when it was re-released packaged with MTV Unplugged, but actually the list posted above does not count that separately (it is counted separately on Wikipedia, I had kind of assumed the canon there was the same as the OCC's but apparently not).

 

I'd say there's arguably more difference between 'Red' and 'Red (Taylor's Version)' than there is between, say, the first two Steps greatest hits which both went to #1, the latter of which is almost just the same tracklist in a different order, with just a couple of slight differences.