October 29, 20232 yr I love Taylor but I can't be having DNA missing out on Top 10 because of ha domination
October 29, 20232 yr I’m assuming it’s the usual Sunday one. Prada is often ahead on Sunday before overtaken again by Monday
October 29, 20232 yr 3 Taylor Swift - Is It Over Now? (Taylor's Version) 2 Taylor Swift - Style (Taylor's Version) 1 Taylor Swift - "Slut!" (Taylor's Version) Taylor Swift’s blockbuster 1989 (Taylor’s Version) is set to overtake the Official Charts, with three of the re-recorded LP’s tracks looking to dominate the Top 3 – and challenge for Number 1. Taylor is on the lookout for her third UK Number 1 single, but it’s a close race between $l*t! (Taylor’s Version) (1), Style (Taylor’s Version) (2) and Is It Over Now (Taylor’s Version) (3), with just over 200 chart units separating the trio. $l*t! (written by Taylor, Jack Antonoff and Patrik Berger) and Is It Over Now (written by Taylor and Antonoff) are two of the LP's 'vault' tracks, songs that were originally written during the original 1989 sessions, but never made the cut the first time around. Style, of course, is already recognised to be one of Taylor's greatest pop accomplishments. Originally written by Taylor, Max Martin, Shellback and Ali Payami, it was released as 1989's third single and reached Number 21 in the UK. With a brand new re-recorded vocal from Taylor and a new stab at the production from Christopher Rowe, Style (Taylor's Version) could very much outpeak the original. Elsewhere this week, Billy Gillies and Hannah Laing could rebound two places to reach a new peak of Number 11 on DNA (Loving You). Chase & Status, Hedex and ArrDee continue to make moves upwards with Liquor & Cigarettes now expected to jump even higher to Number 14.
October 29, 20232 yr First time hearing $l*t on first look now - not grabbing me at all, would have been filler on 1989
October 29, 20232 yr 3 Taylor Swift - Is It Over Now? (Taylor's Version) 2 Taylor Swift - Style (Taylor's Version) 1 Taylor Swift - "Slut!" (Taylor's Version) *Boleyn
October 29, 20232 yr That's the OCC article - their mistake, not mine! It was never your mistake just a highlight
Create an account or sign in to comment