From memory? :o

And would complete super flops that missed the top 75/100 count? All Saint's most recent single; Chick Fit was still a single even if it had a cancelled physical. It charted at around #250 :lol:

Since it didn't make top75 i suppose in a weird way it wouldn't count! Since even the industry chart only goes to 200 there's no real way to measure it. I had a feeling they had done something after Rock Steady but couldn't seem to find anything- now i know why :rofl: They would still have a run of 9 but just couldn't add to it if it was their last attempt at a single. Interesting to note of their 9 hits 5 were no1s- Basically they got more no1s that other positions combined :o

Spicefunk, The Beatles had 18 Top 10 Hits in a row, if you count 'Ain't She Sweet',

(No.29 in 1964). That is correct. However, you indicate that if you don't count that

Hit, (as it was not an Official Beatles Single), they had 6 Top 10 Hits before it - making

24 in a row for The Beatles. This is NOT correct. You are misunderstanding the Guinness

Book. That Book makes it look like 'Love Me Do' was a No.4 Hit in 1962. It wasn't.

It Peaked at No.17. It did not reach No.4 until 1982. Guinness combined its 1962 &

1982 Entries, & made it look like it was No.4 in 1962.

The Beatles never had more than 23 Top 10 Hits in a row. It was never 24. 'Love

Me Do', should not be counted. As I said - it was a No.17 Hit in 1962 - not No.4.

Zeus i have looked into this as you got me intrigued with the technicalities. Love me do indeed as their debut reached no17 on its first foray in the charts. It then re-entered exactly 20 years later on and reached a peak of 4. While this is a long gap, it had the same catalogue number and was not officially a re-issue (unlike some of their other singles which have been), so in fact counts as a re-entry. Since the convention of recording a single's peak next to its release date is adhered to (NOT the date it reached its peak), and guinness themselves used to list these records, i will reinsert this as a possible +1 to their run. However, i also note their 4th release was a duet with Tony Sheridan which only reached #48 so would break this run anyway (unless we exclude duets/featuring credits as we have given the option on for other artists). Therefore i will list it as 18 (+3 from the duet not including aint she sweet) (+3 from debut not including the duet). Basically their run should just be 18 but i'm trying to be inclusive here to keep everyone happy! :P

 

Madonna is in a similar situation. She holds the record with 34 but if you count holiday (the 1st time) and borderline erroneously as reissues rather than re-entries her run looks to be 35 (The Virgin book does this annoyingly)

What exactly is the INCENTIVE for someone to download a track from an album they already own?

 

None! So fan base purchases are now being lost when previously people would collect CD singles for extra tracks and remixes.

 

The law of diminishing returns now kicks in as soon as the album is released. It’s all about new material.

 

How do artists now build up long runs of top10 hits?

 

· Release more than one single before the album release.

· Deluxe it! A chance to release new material from the same album – bonus!

· Release stopgap singles e.g. Take That or Dizzee Rascal.

What exactly is the INCENTIVE for someone to download a track from an album they already own?

 

None! So fan base purchases are now being lost when previously people would collect CD singles for extra tracks and remixes.

 

The law of diminishing returns now kicks in as soon as the album is released. It’s all about new material.

 

How do artists now build up long runs of top10 hits?

 

· Release more than one single before the album release.

· Deluxe it! A chance to release new material from the same album – bonus!

· Release stopgap singles e.g. Take That or Dizzee Rascal.

Excellent point and ideas here! We can already see the record companies cashing in from deluxe versions, though i'm not sure that always translates to the singles doing better like it should- Leona is a force of nature so doesn't count! But looking at Duffy rain on your parade- did better than stepping stone but still not great. Rihanna did it well with Take a Bow though which lets face it was a pretty mediocre song so probably did well as it wasn't available elsewhere. Although pretty much whatever Rihanna releases at the moment is successful.

RTW by take that was kind of stop gap and still is selling brilliantly, but it also shifted $h!tloads of Beautiful World the album too as they did a tour edition (a deluxe of sorts) which was limited and included it. I'm sure a huge amount of those buying it already had the original BW.

2 singles b4 an album used to be quite common, but really is getting rare now unless its your debut album, and sometimes not even then. In the 90s many artists wouldn't dream of rolling out album #1 until they had released at least 2 singles! Weirdly, there is also the phenomenon of releasing the 2nd single right after the album, rather than releasing the album right after 1st single, like Call the Shots by GA. This shouldn't logically work, but CTS did great for them! :wacko:

This debate is pretty much nonsense, the official singles chart is just that a run down of the top 75 selling songs in the UK, now that downloads are included any song that enters the top 75 is a single, ie one song, and therefore becomes part of that acts run.......this debate would not be happening if all of these download songs had hit the top ten, people would have no trouble claiming them as part of that run.

 

It's unfortunate your favourite acts top ten run ended but get over it, it did. There is no spin which can end that fact. The reality is always having top ten hits doesn't mean much. Except to fans, and by saying lets exclude this song cause it doesn't have a video, well that would mean all the songs of the 50's and 60's would be excluded, or this song if it doesn't have a physical release (chart rules were changed a few years ago to specifically include them). If a song enters the top 75 wether you like it or not it becomes a part of their chart record, end of story, so GA, Kylie, Madonna etc...... have ended their runs in the top ten.

 

And another thing just because the media say GA have a run of 19 top tens doesn't make it true, lots of lazy journalists don't research their facts properly.

This debate is pretty much nonsense, the official singles chart is just that a run down of the top 75 selling songs in the UK, now that downloads are included any song that enters the top 75 is a single, ie one song, and therefore becomes part of that acts run.......this debate would not be happening if all of these download songs had hit the top ten, people would have no trouble claiming them as part of that run.

 

It's unfortunate your favourite acts top ten run ended but get over it, it did. There is no spin which can end that fact. The reality is always having top ten hits doesn't mean much. Except to fans, and by saying lets exclude this song cause it doesn't have a video, well that would mean all the songs of the 50's and 60's would be excluded, or this song if it doesn't have a physical release (chart rules were changed a few years ago to specifically include them). If a song enters the top 75 wether you like it or not it becomes a part of their chart record, end of story, so GA, Kylie, Madonna etc...... have ended their runs in the top ten.

 

And another thing just because the media say GA have a run of 19 top tens doesn't make it true, lots of lazy journalists don't research their facts properly.

Quite a few share your opinion- though not all. This is certainly the most stringent view. So many of the acts on the consecutive list are from the 80s and 90s because of the way the singles market was geared then- the record is probably less important now. I too have commented that had certain songs make the top10, fans would of course count them, but i think a decision should be made to count them based on defined criteria, one of which should not be the success of the record in question. Anything which charts on the singles chart is one way of doing this, though do you take that to be only top75 or do you look at 100/200? (top75 is official but this actually means a flop peaking at no76 could work to a band's advantage in that it wouldn't break a run).

 

And you're right about journalists! :rofl:

This debate is pretty much nonsense, the official singles chart is just that a run down of the top 75 selling songs in the UK, now that downloads are included any song that enters the top 75 is a single, ie one song, and therefore becomes part of that acts run.......this debate would not be happening if all of these download songs had hit the top ten, people would have no trouble claiming them as part of that run.

 

It's unfortunate your favourite acts top ten run ended but get over it, it did. There is no spin which can end that fact. The reality is always having top ten hits doesn't mean much. Except to fans, and by saying lets exclude this song cause it doesn't have a video, well that would mean all the songs of the 50's and 60's would be excluded, or this song if it doesn't have a physical release (chart rules were changed a few years ago to specifically include them). If a song enters the top 75 wether you like it or not it becomes a part of their chart record, end of story, so GA, Kylie, Madonna etc...... have ended their runs in the top ten.

 

And another thing just because the media say GA have a run of 19 top tens doesn't make it true, lots of lazy journalists don't research their facts properly.

 

Probably one of the most sensible posts I have read! As has been mentioned previously though any song that makes the Top 75 will always appear in the acts chart run in books such as the 'Guinness Hit Single' etc, so regardless of if people count a download album track that has charted as part of the acts chart run or not it will always be listed when compiling an acts chart run.

Anything which charts on the singles chart is one way of doing this, though do you take that to be only top75 or do you look at 100/200? (top75 is official but this actually means a flop peaking at no76 could work to a band's advantage in that it wouldn't break a run).

 

Indeed - The last Atomic Kitten single 'Anyone Who Had A Heart' reached #77 yet their chart run looks perfect as this is not listed in any chart refrence books etc, and they could continue with their string of Top 10 singles should a future release from them manage to chart highly.

Indeed - The last Atomic Kitten single 'Anyone Who Had A Heart' reached #77 yet their chart run looks perfect as this is not listed in any chart refrence books etc, and they could continue with their string of Top 10 singles should a future release from them manage to chart highly.

trust you to come up with the perfect example! :lol: was that a comeback single, or just them petering out after the GH? interesting anyways :)

trust you to come up with the perfect example! :lol: was that a comeback single, or just them petering out after the GH? interesting anyways :)

 

:P ..It was a comeback single I guess - They recorded it to celebrate Liverpool's year of culture or something and the campaign was to get another act from Liverpool to #1 - As you can see they failed :blink: :lol:

This is a matter of principle, not specific cases. Now that physical sales will soon be close to none, downloads is the only thing that counts. The result? Cherrypicking single tracks off of albums will only increase, not necessarily because of a shift in trends, but because simply more people download music and less physical, and the downloading of non-single tracks will grow in percentage as a result. This WILL lead to several more non-singles hitting the top 75, and it will ruin possibilities of good chart runs. The show of stability a clean chart record is will be gone if every song that hits the top 75 is counted as a single. It can't go on. A single should only be counted as a single if it's released as a single and promoted as a single, otherwise the enthusiast's joy of chart historics and chart runs will be lost forever.

The show of stability a clean chart record is will be gone if every song that hits the top 75 is counted as a single. It can't go on. A single should only be counted as a single if it's released as a single and promoted as a single, otherwise the enthusiast's joy of chart historics and chart runs will be lost forever.

 

I do agree with this and I love chart stats etc, but it will be difficult where to draw a line when it comes to what is classed as a single, For example if an old album track is sung by a contestant on the X-Factor and charts at #17 but has not been released or promoted by the artist as a single then should this be counted towards their chart run or not? As has been mentioned previously in this thread some OCC clarity is needed although I fear our charts will soon become similar to those in America where a huge star can have a very varied and unpredictable chart career with songs charting all over the place.

 

TBH a lot of it comes down to the fact most of us don't want our favourite artists chart runs to be damaged - For example if a Take That non released/promoted album track charted at #12 I would be happy to include it as part of their continuos run of Top 20 hits however if it charted at #38 I would discount it and claim that it should not count etc,

Edited December 12, 200816 yr by PopB!tch

The biggest shock flop recently has definitely been Madonna's Miles Away.

Bottom line: The way the charts are thought of by enthusiasts and the type of statistics compiled are no longer compatible with the way music is sold/promoted/cherry picked etc

Way out? Find new types of statistics that are! A table of most top 75 chart entries by artist would favour modern artists somewhat although it might take a few more years to filter to the very top of that chart, where the likes of Cliff and Elvis look down from. And the longest run for one entry is very skewed to modern releases as another thread on here shows.