The top 40 rides again

After years of disposable dross, the charts are returning to a golden age. Dorian Lynskey explains why

 

Dorian Lynskey

The Guardian, Thursday 22 January 2009

 

Download diva ... Beyoncé's new single isn't out till next month, yet it has already spent seven weeks in the top 40.

Is the top 40 dying? Has the decision, two years ago, to allow downloads to chart without an accompanying physical release broken the back of a British institution?

 

Well, it depends who you ask. Recently, the passionate and perceptive pop blog Freaky Trigger posted a graph demonstrating that the number of new entries is in freefall.

 

Last year, only 202 songs entered the top 40, the lowest number since 1988. At the same time, a single's average chart run passed 10 weeks for the first time ever. The result, argued Freaky Trigger in a piece headlined The Strange Death of the UK Charts, is less drama and less fun.

 

If you agree that the vitality of the charts depends on the number of singles heading in and out of the top 40 every week, then the future indeed looks bleak. Prior to downloads, record companies could control supply and thus manipulate demand: a single's life began on its release date and ended when it was either deleted to make way for the follow-up, or removed from the shelves to allow new stock in. But, by permitting limitless supply, downloads have given rise to a new phenomenon: the stubbornly tenacious chart hog.

 

Take Beyoncé's new release, Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It), which isn't officially out until 9 February but has already been in the top 40 for seven weeks. Or Kings of Leon's last two, Sex On Fire and Use Somebody, which have been pinballing around the top 75 since September. Or Snow Patrol's Chasing Cars, which clocked up a phenomenal 91 weeks in the top 75. Contrary to Chris Anderson's influential book The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, pop is actually selling more of less.

 

Should a large number of new entries necessarily be considered healthy, anyway? Between 1992 and 2005, the charts experienced a freak period, which stockmarket analysts would term "irrational exuberance".

 

In 1987, there were 159 new entries; 10 years later, there were 729, a record-breaking figure that transformed the whole dynamic of the charts. From the charts' birth in 1952 up to 1994, only 38 singles went straight in at No 1, an average of just less than one a year. Yet in 2000 alone, there were 41 - most of which then promptly vanished. So the "climber", the song that enters low and worms its way into the nation's affections, was all but dead.

 

The main reason for this bubble was marketing. In the early 1990s, Radio 1 began playing singles way in advance of their release, stoking demand to unprecedented levels. Meanwhile, labels offered retailers a first-week discount of up to 50% (customers might pay £1.99 for the single, rather than £3.99). Some singles were released on two CDs, each with different bonus tracks or remixes, and also on vinyl. Music fans therefore had a clear financial incentive to buy singles early, often on more than one format. But when the discount was lifted demand tailed off and retailers, faced with more releases vying for the same limited display space, quickly pulled singles that were more than three weeks old off the shelves. A month after its release, the average single was out of sight and out of mind.

 

For avid chart-watchers, the bubble was exciting, especially as it coincided with a boom in such single-friendly genres as dance, hip-hop and R&B. But for the average pop fan, it devalued the top 40. You no longer needed to know what was No 1, because, with a few exceptions, it would soon be forgotten. Who now remembers such 2000 chart-toppers as Billie Piper's Day & Night or A1's Same Old Brand New You? By contrast, recent No 1s such as Estelle's American Boy, the Ting Tings' That's Not My Name or Katy Perry's I Kissed a Girl have, by virtue of the fact that they've remained in the charts for so long, had the time to gain real cultural traction.

 

So the charts we have now are closer to those of the 1970s and 80s, when hits were genuinely, enduringly, unifyingly popular, rather than transient blips. Downloads not only pushed total single sales to an all-time high in 2008, but have enabled a return to pop songs that stay around long enough to define their times, albeit at the cost of the busy variety of the past two decades.

 

A truly populist, democratic chart would be fertile ground for the rumoured return of Top of the Pops, which in turn could make the top 40 a teatime talking point once more. Far from killing the charts, downloads have put the popular back into pop.

soon be forgotten. Who now remembers such 2000 chart-toppers as Billie Piper's Day & Night or A1's Same Old Brand New You?

 

I bloody well do :angry:

 

Interesting article, and it's kind of right. But I do miss the days when if you had less than 10 new entries, it was a slow week.

Better to sell more than chart high. Good article. :D

I remember those #1s too. And who says people will remember That's Not My Name or Singing In The Rain? Same thing, people will remember the ones they like.

 

Im very pleased sales are getting healthier, but i HATE the lack of new entries and songs spending half a year in the top40...boring uninteresting chart. 2000 probably had too many #1s but it was as insane as the late 90s or even 04/05 when it comes to new entries in the top40. It had the right balance imo.

I agree to some extent, although to say that songs could build no cultural value in the late 90's-mid 00's is a ridiulous over generalisation...the songs that stayed around longer in this period were the ones with the real power; Angels, How Do I Live, I Don't Want To Miss A Thing, Left Outside Along, Hey Ya!, No Scrubs etc...the ones that entered and disappeared quickly were mostly forgettable anyway

 

now songs that really don't deserve the long attention span that they receive are hanging around for 30 weeks too long due to constant unrelentless airplay...Scouting For Girls entire back catalogue springs to mind

 

is Single Ladies really coming out physically next month :lol: what a ridiculous decision if that's true

An excellent informative article, the fast turnover of No1’s between 1996 and 2005 made a mockery of charts. It was more about hyping a product to teens than the quality of the music and devalued the chart. In terms of single longevity we’ve slowed right back down to 1950’s levels.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a single coming close to breaking Bryan Adams record in the next 2 years! It’d only take someone to consistently sell around 70k for a few months then catch a slack sales period…

 

Who now remembers such 2000 chart-toppers as Billie Piper's Day & Night or A1's Same Old Brand New You?

 

Those were two of my favourite songs of 2000.

 

By contrast, recent No 1s such as Estelle's American Boy, the Ting Tings' That's Not My Name or Katy Perry's I Kissed a Girl have, by virtue of the fact that they've remained in the charts for so long, had the time to gain real cultural traction.

 

So, because they've been on the chart for "so long", they'll be remembered in 2016? (Obviously, if they're remembered when Chicago hosts the Olympics, you can quote me on that. You can also quote me if Chicago doesn't get the 2016 Olympics.)

I think the Guardian article was in part inspired by this post on the industry ROTD message board (which in turn was inspired by a similar post on Buzzjack 2-3 weeks back):

 

The sales nadir was 2005/06. Since then thanks to the expansion of the digital market you need to sell far more on average to make Top 75, Top 40, Top 10 and number 1. And the curve continues on an upward trend month by month.

 

The make up of the chart is now starting to resemble how it was in the 70s/80s/early 90s rather than the ridiculous straight in at #1 culture for 1 week of the late 90s/early 2000s which I think is partly what killed TOTP.

 

How could you get to know an artist and grow with them when each week another faceless act debuted at the top and three or four others joined them in the top 10, before they all plummeted with undue haste?

 

Songs in general are now sticking around for longer and have chart careers instead worth monitoring.

 

Culled these stats last week when engaging in a similar discussion - the numbers for the last 29 years refer to how many songs went straight in at number 1 and how many numbers 1s there were in each year. Notice the big change in the pattern 1994/95 which lasted for over a decade and (to me) helped kill TOTP.

 

1960s 18.6 #1s a year on average

1970s 16.8 #1s a year on average

 

Prior to 1980 singles were generally released on a Friday with a Saturday noon cut-off so it was difficult to jump straight in at #1 (only seven occurrences in twenty years). 1980 saw the start of the switch to Monday releases with The Jam being the first act to benefit.

 

1980 1/24

1981 1/19

1982 2/21

1983 1/17

1984 2/14

1985 1/19

1986 0/20

1987 1/19

1988 0/19

1989 4/18

1990 1/18

1991 4/16

1992 1/13

1993 4/16

1994 3/16

1995 10/18

1996 18/24

1997 21/24

1998 27/30

1999 33/35

2000 42/43

2001 29/31

2002 31/31

2003 23/23

2004 28/29

2005 27/29

2006 9/25

2007 6/17

2008 10/20

 

I think this change fundamentally improves the outlook for a new TOTP and it would be a worthwhile exercise once more.

Edited January 22, 200916 yr by 6weeksatnumber7

Better to sell more than chart high. Good article. :D

 

I don't know there may have been a quick turnover of No.1s, but sales for the late 90s-2000,

were actually not too bad.

It was around 2003-04 when sales sunk to their lowest level.

 

It's true, the charts are good now saleswise, and that is very good.

 

The downside is that the chart is a lot slow moving with the same records sticking around way

past their sell-by date, but i suppose it is better in the longrun.

I don't know there may have been a quick turnover of No.1s, but sales for the late 90s-2000,

were actually not too bad.

Precisely, in fact, if you look at the year end charts for 2000 and 2008 they're quite similar but slightly higher in 2000. The top seller sold 850-900k and the top 50 all sold over 200k. Songs may be staying around longer now but they're selling similar amounts to what they did in 2000, it's just people are taking longer to discover/decide to buy music these days because songs don't get as much exposure as they did then.

I remember the days when we had 13 to 17 new entries per week, now we hardly reach that, the most I have seen in the past 18 months its most likely around 7 or 8 which includes downloads entries + physicals.

 

In a way its true, its gone back to the 80s when there was minimum chart movement.

It really is starting to p*** me these kind of articles. Yes, sales are getting healthier, but are the charts really getting better? Depends on the perspective. I think have 2 or 3 new entries each week and having songs hang around for half a year is incredibly boring, I'd say the charts ruined. I also dont like how the late 90s and early 00s always get a beating for having many new entries and a fast turnover at the top. I think people keep forgetting this was a HUGE era for sales! It wasnt a fast moving chart cos no one bought records, on the contrary in fact. Sales in 2008 are not on level with 2000 or even 2001, let alone the late 90s... And lets not forget songs in the 2008 charts have months to get these big sales, in the late 90s/early 00s, they sold even more in a much shorter period of time. If they had spent 6 months in the top40, we'd have like 50 million sellers in the year end chart...

 

1996 #50 270k

1997 #50 260k

1998 #50 299k

1999 #50 338k

2000 #50 237k

2001 #50 210k

2008 #50 203k

 

1996 #20 480k

1997 #20 480k

1998 #20 508k

1999 #20 501k

2000 #20 377k

2001 #20 343k

2008 #20 327k

 

1996 #10 730k

1997 #10 780k

1998 #10 646k

1999 #10 671k

2000 #10 482k

2001 #10 487k

2008 #10 429k

 

 

 

so much for this era being irrelevant cos the charts were changed a lot each week. Sales were absolutely huge and so obviously loads of people bought these records and loved these records at the time, many will also remember them. The combined high sales with faster charts, for me makes things a lot more interesting. 2000 may had had loads of #1s, but it was far from the "worst" year when it comes to new entries turnover. 1997 and 2005 were far worse.

Im very pleased sales are getting healthier, but i HATE the lack of new entries and songs spending half a year in the top40...boring uninteresting chart. 2000 probably had too many #1s but it was as insane as the late 90s or even 04/05 when it comes to new entries in the top40. It had the right balance imo.

 

The thing is - how many of those 90's #1's would have had an extended chart run if they'd had the chance? Discounting & rapid deletion denied them it.

 

In any case, the advent of downloads has produced a fundamental shift in the market. The sort of rapid turnover that happened in the 90's *couldn't* happen in a download environment, as both methods that could be used to increase turnover (no unbundling, and early deletion) would kill the goose that lays the golden egg, by encouraging piracy.

An excellent informative article, the fast turnover of No1’s between 1996 and 2005 made a mockery of charts. It was more about hyping a product to teens than the quality of the music and devalued the chart. In terms of single longevity we’ve slowed right back down to 1950’s levels.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a single coming close to breaking Bryan Adams record in the next 2 years! It’d only take someone to consistently sell around 70k for a few months then catch a slack sales period…

 

I can't quite see that happening, myself. True, Rihanna had 10 weeks at #1 in 2007, but towards the end she was selling well under 30k/week, and the download market has matured enough to prevent such low sales levels from being maintained as long now.

 

I'd be surprised if we see any song remain at #1 for more than 6-7 weeks max, in the next couple of years.

 

I remember the days when we had 13 to 17 new entries per week, now we hardly reach that, the most I have seen in the past 18 months its most likely around 7 or 8 which includes downloads entries + physicals.

 

I've noticed that that my singles chart spreadsheet had only about half as many songs last year as it did 3 years ago.

 

I think the chart will pick up a bit of speed again though, once record companies develop new marketing strategies.

 

It really is starting to p*** me these kind of articles. Yes, sales are getting healthier, but are the charts really getting better? Depends on the perspective. I think have 2 or 3 new entries each week and having songs hang around for half a year is incredibly boring, I'd say the charts ruined. I also dont like how the late 90s and early 00s always get a beating for having many new entries and a fast turnover at the top. I think people keep forgetting this was a HUGE era for sales! It wasnt a fast moving chart cos no one bought records, on the contrary in fact. Sales in 2008 are not on level with 2000 or even 2001, let alone the late 90s... And lets not forget songs in the 2008 charts have months to get these big sales, in the late 90s/early 00s, they sold even more in a much shorter period of time. If they had spent 6 months in the top40, we'd have like 50 million sellers in the year end chart...

 

(snip stats)

 

so much for this era being irrelevant cos the charts were changed a lot each week. Sales were absolutely huge and so obviously loads of people bought these records and loved these records at the time, many will also remember them. The combined high sales with faster charts, for me makes things a lot more interesting. 2000 may had had loads of #1s, but it was far from the "worst" year when it comes to new entries turnover. 1997 and 2005 were far worse.

 

Picking up on one of your above points.

 

Sales in the upper regions of the chart are not as high as 10 years ago, that's true, but they *have* been picking up steadily ever since the inclusion of downloads, and there's no sign of that improvement levelling off yet. But IMO the most pertinant aspect is the growth in the overall market. This is at record high levels, thanks to people now being able to buy old tracks that previously just sat in dusty archives.

 

I don't see how that can be a bad thing - especially as people surfing for one particular recording, may well spot others they want at the same time - just as happened on the high st in the golden age of record shops.

 

As for chart longevity, ISTM that we've reverted to the markets natural configuration - it was the ultra-hyped fast-moving charts of the 90's that were the anomaly. The evidence lies in the chart archives - check out the average length of chart runs, and you'll see they were never as short, before or since, as they were in the 90's.

 

 

 

I love how the chart is now. I really do. Sales are healthy, there's some really good music back on the market again after a few years of absolute dross.

 

The only thing I dislike is anceint songs crawling back into the charts because of some TV show. Phil Collins, the disgusting Mint Royale etc. There should be a limit on that - like songs that are older than 5 years shouldn't be allowed in or some such.

I love how the chart is now. I really do. Sales are healthy, there's some really good music back on the market again after a few years of absolute dross.

 

The only thing I dislike is anceint songs crawling back into the charts because of some TV show. Phil Collins, the disgusting Mint Royale etc. There should be a limit on that - like songs that are older than 5 years shouldn't be allowed in or some such.

 

Are you thinking of something like Billboard's Catalogue chart, where old songs are kept apart from the new stuff?

 

 

Are you thinking of something like Billboard's Catalogue chart, where old songs are kept apart from the new stuff?

 

Hmmm possibly. It's just frustrating to me that songs that were released years ago continue to clog up the charts and keep new music from gaining recognition.

 

I definately think there should be a separate chart for them so their sales can be continued to be counted without them ruining the official chart.

 

That's the only problem I have with this new format.

i do sometimes get a bit bored of the same song being number one.

Theres alot of great tracks that missed out on no. because i think people downloaded them before the physical release. Other then that i have no problem with the way it is now.