Girls Aloud didnt do a video for ST, It was just footage of the last few mins of the movie!

 

I dont count this as one of their songs and I dont think it affects the chart success same with Leona either!

Girls Aloud didnt do a video for ST, It was just footage of the last few mins of the movie!

 

I dont count this as one of their songs and I dont think it affects the chart success same with Leona either!

 

I do actually agree with discounting the GA release unless the OCC decide otherwise - The same with Leona her chart run looks shocking due to album tracks, double A-sides etc,

 

Leona's Chart Performance:

 

A Moment Like This #1

Forgiveness #46

Bleeding Love #1

First Time Ever I Saw Your Face #73

Whatever It Takes #61

Footprints In The Sand #25

Better In Time #23

Better In Time/Footprints In The Sand #2

Forgive Me #5

Run #1

 

But on the other hand the Guiness Hit Singles book defines a hit single as any track which has charted in the Top 75 which is why some OCC clarity is needed in the download era.

Girls Aloud didnt do a video for ST, It was just footage of the last few mins of the movie!

 

I dont count this as one of their songs and I dont think it affects the chart success same with Leona either!

 

The record company authorised them appearing. They authorised the recording of the song. They authorised the release of it to iTunes. They authorised the release of the video. A can't see a clearer case of a single.

The record company authorised them appearing. They authorised the recording of the song. They authorised the release of it to iTunes. They authorised the release of the video. A can't see a clearer case of a single.

 

you must think back to the essence of a single, a properly released physical that would contain one song off of an artist in the form of a record.

All this changed with the download era. Let's say a song that becomes quite popular from a new album released by P!nk charts in the top 40, momentum build up with the repeated appearance of it in the chart show and rises to the top 20. Unless there is an OFFICIAL statement by the record company or the artist's website claiming that the song is the new single, it is by NO MEANS in this modern age a "single". In any case this would definitely be a "CHARTING TRACK".

 

I agree with whoever it was that said the definition of a single should be re-mapped to fit in with the digital age. Going by this, the madonna, kylie and mcfly records would be broken, while the westlife and girls aloud remain.

 

If GA had another 3 St Trinians that charted at 75, 34 and 46, I would still think they have 19 consecutive top ten singles. If a proper single (one which the girls claim is a single, a video is released and actively promoted), on the other hand, reached #13, that record would be gone.

Edited December 10, 200816 yr by Santa Mark

I'm outta time, if it doesn't climb has ended a 14-year run of 22 top 10 hits for Oasis.

Also, with the download era, this title can actually be ruined by an artist's own success. Girls Aloud have their run broken by St. Trinian's which charted on download as have Westlife from an album track similarly.

 

IMO, album tracks that chart on download do not break such sequences - only officially sanctioned singles that bomb, do.

 

I dont count this as one of their songs and I dont think it affects the chart success same with Leona either!

 

Whose song do you count it as then?? :P

 

At the end of the day, these "consecutive run" records will continue to appear but most of them will have footnotes or exceptions, ie *excluding album tracks or *excluding unofficial singles or, in Girls Aloud's case, *excluding one single which we don't count because it didn't make Top 10 :wacko:

 

As I have said before, artists charting album tracks or unofficial singles are probably proud of the fact that they are popular enough to do so and don't give a damn about "records". It is just the obssessive fans (you know who you are!) who care.

Edited December 9, 200816 yr by Brutarn

this is a good thing, all of the songs by big name artists that have missed the top ten recently all have one thing in common - they are all weaker than said artists' usual output and deserved to flop

 

 

Nah totally disagree just not enough evidence that its so 'down pat'.

 

Whats the chance of ALL of these single chart stalwarts to ALL be producing their crappest work in the SAME time period so that it flops so badly?

 

Also wasn't Robbie a first 'casuality' of this change - can't remember the exact single's name but it had Madonna in its song title....

 

 

Following on from what i said about how the nature of the chart effects relative chart placings I've always thought that the further away in time a chart act is from another the less direct the comparison possible eg at the time of the Beatles, yes they may have been the first + biggest *BUT* there were FAR fewer acts around they had to compete for success with ie they had a larger potential SLICE of the PIE to draw from compared to modern acts....AND not only did they have less competition from other chart acts but the choice of (paid for) entertainment around now ( especially in our IT age) dwarfs that around in the 60's so Pop itself as a pastime has a far smaller slice of the pie - less number and bigger hits perhaps for acts as more casual fans/ people have other things they prefer to spend their £££ on ( same reason why total music sales down now, overall TV viewing down etc )

 

Guess my definition of a flop single differs to many on here. To me it's a single that doesn't have a significant impact on album sales. With downloads costing only 79p, singles are more than ever loss leaders to promote an album. The vast majority won't even cover the video costs.

Yes I know that statement got through to Beatles forums I frequent and they were not happy, as the Beatles song that broke their run of 21 consecutive Top 4 hits (1963-1970) was an old song they recorded in Germany in 1960 before they got a proper record contract with Parlophone (EMI) in 1962 and released on import in 1964.

 

So if GA are going to claim that they have a better chart run than The Beatles because of a non-proper single counting (Ain't She Sweet) then their St Trinians track should count, in which case they failed to beat The Beatles run.

 

Mind you they've got off lightly compared to what Simon Cowell said on Saturday's X-Factor about Abba being the greatest band of all-time. :angry:

Are you reading this Bertie? There's always a reason in every fanbase! This is a well known one but sadly (at least in Guinness eyes) is deemed to break their run, so you can see how St. Trinian's/others would share the same fate. Thanks for the info :D just shows how difficult it is getting now

You can't punish an act for making a song that's popular enough to get into the charts off of fans downloading it from an album. It's ridiculous. It was never intended to be a single, never released as a single, so it's not a single. In other words, Westlife and GA still stand.

You can't punish an act for making a song that's popular enough to get into the charts off of fans downloading it from an album. It's ridiculous. It was never intended to be a single, never released as a single, so it's not a single. In other words, Westlife and GA still stand.

 

Exactly. Why do people keep calling it a single? It was an album track? It wasnt even a digital only single because there were no b-sides, official remixes or seperate artwork.

 

The occ has probably not confirmed this as maybe they presume people will have more important things to worry about lol

 

This is all about a few people nitpicking and trying to take away a bit of GA's glory by being all official

Edited December 9, 200816 yr by Robintime11

If you look at artists who were big in the 70s and 80s their chart runs are often all over the place.

 

You could even include the 60s in this way. Even massive acts such as The Hollies, Dave Clark Five, The Tremeloes Small Faces, The Who, Pink Floyd and many more had some comparitive flops (only just making Top30) in between their massive hits.

 

If a big act today has a comparitive flop the could even be in danger of being dropped by their record companies.

 

I don't think this thread was supposed to be about removing personal glory from any one artist but as often happens on buzzjack has turned into a GA debate.

 

Disturbia by Rihanna had no single download available, no physical, but had a video- should we not count this as a single? Run was never planned as a single, yet after the success of live performance they recorded a video and it is only being downloaded as an album track. I doubt many people aren't counting these hits though. Bottom line, if St Trinians had been a success i'm sure you wouldn't be excluding it. I think the whole situation with it was mishandled personally, but the real issue is what counts as a single and doesn't. No-one is trying to alter 56 year old chart rules just to malign Girls Aloud. In the wider picture of the entire singles chart, they're not that important.

 

What i think we need to do is arrive at some sort of decision at how downloads effect records such as these in general, and what does and doesn't count. Someone had the interesting idea of intention- if a record company intended it to be a single, admitted this and perhaps promoted it in some way it should count (regardless of format, video etc). Other ideas have included if it has a physical and/or video it should count regardless (what about radio airplay?). Other ideas is excluding tracks only available as album cherrypicks/B-side cherrypicks (where does this leave Rihanna/Leona?). In years gone by, Guinness would probably have had something to say about this, but Virgin has taken over and only publish data, not records. I believe the OCC only collates and publishes the charts, they don't invent/administrate different invented categories of records. Whatever the consensus i think we need to include/exclude things based on defined criteria, not whether they were successful enough for fans of any band to want to count them

Well, Disturbia is taken from Ri's album GGGB while St. Trinians is not in GA's Tangled Up.

Edited December 9, 200816 yr by funmaker11

Thing is, the media still say that Girls Aloud still have the consecutive thing. After The Promise was #1, they went on GMTV (or This Morning) i can't remember which and they introduced them as "beating ABBA and The Beatles in having more consecutive top 10 hits". When this happens, fans are gonna think that the run is unbroken. This is why we really do need a firm line

 

Beatles had 19 total consecutive top tens. GA have had 17.

If you ignore 'special cases' (st trinians and unchronological beatles releases) its. Beatles 24, GA 19.

even the most positve spin (Ignore st trinians, but count all special cases for beatles its still 19 all.)

(Anyway, its a daft comparison for them to use, cos the Beatles had 17 number ones, GA 4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Anyway, its a daft comparison for them to use, cos the Beatles had 17 number ones, GA 4)

 

Nothing to do with it.

Indeed the criteria is top10s not no1s, obviously when you realise the difference in no1s it shows the beatles were more successful in sales terms.

The point regarding songs not on current studio albums is interesting too- in the case of GA should we also not count walk this way for example if we accept this logic and ignore st trinians?

WTW was a charity SINGLE, thats the key word.

 

The whole point of this is, 'single' to most people is a song that you can buy on cd, that gets a video, airplay etc, a whole campaign. So if GA say we had 20 consecutive top ten singles, thats what it is. If you then said to someone but they did chart at fifty something with an album track on downloads - erm no, officially doesnt really matter, thats the whole point of this. None of GA's singles have flopped and so unofficially, they deserve the status of only having top tens. Leona is the same, to punish an artists record for doing well is ridiculous.

a whole campaign? So you think a single needs a video and physical (as you mentioned as part of this) but doesn't need to be included on a current album. hmmm interesting so we won't be counting Run as that wouldn't be fair to Leona, or Disturbia. I know what you mean though, an artist being so successful to chart some extra stuff doesn't seem fair if it denies them some records, but depending on the criteria that could happen.

 

Zeus, expert of all things chart, any ideas on a solid definition of what counts/which of these it should/shouldn't apply to?