Gambo

It's an old and never-to-be-resolved problem, and debate continues on many fora as to the rights and wrongs of it. But on the sheer basis of logic and reasonableness, let us be clear on this: presenting combined sales and 'sales-equivalent' unit tallies is flawed, and given the differences in the two modes of consumption, is essentially meaningless in statistical terms, regardless of how much a of a stamp of 'officialness' is put on them because they are presented to us via the Official Charts Company. Seeking to compare the relative abilities and talents of Elvis Presley and Ed Sheeran on an objective musical, lyrical or performance basis is a tricky task that may well result in no easy singular conclusion. But it's still a more worthwhile exercise than trying to compare the relative value of an online rented stream of a recording to a paid-for purchase of it as a physical or digital product! There really is no meaningful level playing field possible when trying to tally both true sales and notional ones through streams; providing consolidated totals of both for a track makes no sense other than to serve the apparent need to simplify and smooth out the process of transiting from one form of consumption to the other over time, for the purposes of weekly chart compilation, and providing a false narrative of continuity in our history of 'best-sellers' by citing total consumption figures to the public, which would be more awkward to report if the two discrete measures, of sales and streams, were to be cited in every case. Albeit that we all must tolerate the reality that buying music is now largely a niche activity of a diminishing minority, while streaming it is the preferred medium for an increasing majority, they are two entirely separate ways of consuming such product, and it can hardly be a fair process to simply add together notional 'sales-equivalent' units derived from streaming figures from 2014 onwards to the number of actual purchases, using an arbitrary conversion ratio based on simplistic mathematical convenience (100:1), where acts that released tracks before (and which had their commercial peaks prior to) the advent of streaming as an alternative method of consumption will by and large eventually always lose out, as once-impressive sales tallies readily get eclipsed by 'sales-equivalent' counts in a short period of time. This inevitably skews the surface performance of songs as at face value these figures suggest that more recent streaming-heavy but sales-light tracks are essentially more 'successful' commercially than those which were sales-heavy, but have been streaming-light. Arguably it should if anything be the other way around, if we assume a paid-for sale of a single song as a discrete product (whether it be a £2.99 CD or 99p digital download) and that can then be listened to indefinitely at the purchaser's leisure, must surely carry more gravitas than numerous repeated listens to it paid for either by a £15 monthly umbrella subscription or 'free' via advertising subsidy. The investment in that particular product in its own right for personal ownership is seemingly greater than if one rents listens of it off a digital platform. It seems perfectly correct to assume that had streaming been available in the time of Elvis, The Beatles, Cliff and all other acts whose traditional sales performances were strong prior to the 2010s, would have accrued far larger overall tallies had listens been measurable and added alongside buys. We can never know by what margins of course, but given their widespread cross-society appeal and musical/cultural impact as reflected through en-masse sales, it's safe to say that they would likely have outshone the likes of Ed et al for some time to come, especially as acts who've only scored hits in the streaming-driven era, unlike their sales-led forebears, have accrued so few overall sales to add into their mix. It simply isn't acceptable to say a song that's accrued over 1,000,000 sales-equivalent units is a 'million-seller' and while it is a worthy achievement by current norms, it should be categorised separately from the true million-selling list, which now is essentially frozen in time, with only the odd move every now and then as digital sales trickle to frictional levels. In fairness, even the Official Charts Company do still seem to recognise this key distinction and once in a while will present a table of only those releases which have sold one million copies or more either in-store or by click, entirely without any additional notional numbers disingenuously wrung out from streams. Conversely, it is probably true to say that had streaming not been invented (or not taken off as the preferred means of consuming music in the way it has), digital sales in particular would've continued to be strong as they were ten years ago, and some of the most popular titles we've seen in the last few years would doubtless have gone on to shift large numbers of paid-for copies in the absence of an appealing streaming model; the likes of 'Shape Of You', 'Despacito', 'Blinding Lights' and so on would likely now be in the hallowed hall of seven-figure sales hits if buying them had been the only means of accessing them. History did not play out that way. But to begin falsely totting up numbers derived from such discrete measures of consumption doesn't solve the problem and will only present an increasingly unfair and warped account of what our most 'popular' songs through time have been, based on apparent commercial appeal. Popchartfreak puts it far more concisely in their post above - it's like trying to "compare oranges with cabbages"!

I think judging by the OCC's list of examples we can tell what sort of average age its staff are nowadays! Only two of 15 pre-2000 and nothing before the 1990s.

Apparently, for those like me who didn't already know, 'MRC Data' stands for 'Media Rights Capital' is the a branch of the company that is the equivalent of Nielsen Soundscan.

Some additional tracks are made available on Spotify singles besides the main 'A side', much as was the case with some download singles, and so these could be considered the direct equivalent of 'B-sides'; the concept has never died out completely despite the transition from 7" to cassette and CD, and thence to downloads and audio streams. However, I'd imagine few of these are recordings unavailable anywhere else, unless the release is in fact an EP of new material and no parent LP has yet been released containing those same tracks. In my experience, quite a few B-side tracks on streamable singles are simply songs which have been released as singles in their own right earlier on; I can think of one recent example where the first song was released as a single-track single, the second single as a two-track bundle with the first single as a 'B side', and third single as a three-track bundle with the previous two singles as 'B-sides'! The album they're all likely to feature on in the same versions is due at the end of this week, making it possible to stream those songs from four possible different packages on Spotify! It would've doubtless been preferable in the interests of musical diversity to feature new songs for 'B sides' with each single release, or at least variations on the versions which are due to appear on the forthcoming album. I suppose a lot of that is whether the artist has the repertoire and inclination to bother recording additional tracks that are only to appear as subsidiary tracks on a single; especially when that will inevitably incur further costs for studio use etc. Actually that was to some extent the case even in the good old 7" days; from the early '80s onwards it became increasingly common for acts to just go down the lazy route of putting an instrumental, live or remixed version of the 'A' side on as a 'B' side rather than a brand new song. Even when the 'B' side was a different song to the 'A', often one could find it on an already-available or soon-to-be-released album. As singles became perceived increasingly as loss leaders and primarily there to trail upcoming albums and once the album was issued to keep interest in it going over the course of the next year, the notion of putting songs out as 'A' or 'B' sides of a single that weren't to be featured on an album sadly became less and less fashionable, as it became less and less cost-effective. There was some revival in the 'B' side's fortune in the mid '90s when pushing differently-tracked multiple-formatted singles was all the rage to maximise initial chart impact, but since the digital era dawned, they've once more taken a backseat, as let's face it have LPs - the ability to cherry-pick songs from an album to buy, and latterly to stream separately, has rather taken the impetus out of creating a complete canon of 12 tracks, as the consumption of that album in its entirety as a singular piece of work is now pretty narrow. It's only more committed fans of an artist who'll bother with the whole LP and possibly listen to it end-to-end, and it's probably only those same few people who'd really be interested in buying or streaming new songs only put out as 'B sides'. Alas few consumers now are that devoted to singular acts and few are that completist. Which is why I suspect we won't see an across-the-board revival of the 'B side' additional track only available as part of a single release. But I agree it would be nice, especially where the artist is bothering to issue their singles on CD for their fanbase.

I say this is a massive piece of work! As others have already said, well done for committing to it and it could be a really useful resource for quite a few people. It is very interesting to get a broad flavour of the sorts of songs not currently on Spotify as these lists are determined purely by the peak chart position they happened to attain and their presence is in no way related to the genre of music or type of act that recorded it. There is a lot of charity/one-offs/talent show stuff which perhaps one might expect not to find, but also some really random 'everyday' tracks of all sorts which one would legitimately assume by now would've found their way onto a platform as prominent as this. Not quite clear on your reasoning for extending the project beyond No 10 just to No 11 though; if that were me it'd increasingly interfere with my OCD tendencies which would eventually force me like it or not into committing to doing a further nine lists to complete the Top 20 positions! I have compiled Spotify playlists for what are believed to be the Top 100 biggest songs of each decade from the 1980s, '90s, 2000s and '10s (most of which were available, but as you found, a handful or so of those tunes are not streamable on Spotify), which function quite nicely as slightly bizarre background music that lasts most of the working day if at home. I half-fancy breaking it down further to annual playlists, perhaps Top 50s, but the work involved just puts me off, as well as the reality that not all tracks will be available and the more granular one becomes, the more gaps there may be. I know though that if I completed say the first ten years, sooner or later I'd have to find the time and inclination to do the remaining thirty! It's all or nothing for me so I'm sticking to just the decades for now! In any case, I appreciate what must've gone into this and it's good of you to share more widely.

Yes I must endorse what Shaky has just posted; this really does display a huge amount of time, effort and knowledge and the least anyone can do who is interested in the more detailed delvings into the British singles charts is to subscribe to this series. I've received the 1952 edition and despite it being obviously only a seven-week chart year, Lonnie still manages to spin 49 interesting pages out of it! If that's '52, think about how much you'll get for a year in the '00s when you're in Top 200 territory! The value for money can only increase with each passing decade. The word 'comprehensive' doesn't really do it justice. Just watch out for his occasional typos though... :rolleyes:

You mean to tell me there is actually such a thing as an Official Charts Company MUG and KEYRING??!!! Sales I'd imagine would be pretty poor - almost as low as digital downloads nowadays - though the difference between digital music consumption and buying cheap naff tat is that they can't artificially bolster the true sales figures by adding in streaming-equivalent 'sales'!!

Wasn't there some statistic published a few years ago that had calculated that the world's most heard, and self-performed - and therefore arguably 'famous' - song is the traditional standard 'Happy Birthday'?! Okay it's not a charted 'hit' recording as such (no clever replies re Stevie Wonder and Altered Images please!) and I don't think the originators of the lyrics and melody could even be traced now (haven't checked any of this out online by the way so maybe my recollections are incorrect), so perhaps many wouldn't consider it to qualify for the purposes of this thread. But in terms of sheer familiarity, cross-cultural, cross-generational and predictable annual relevance to all who celebrate having completed another 12 months of life intact, 'HB' is to my mind a likely contender for 'most famous song ever', if we are generous in our definition of the term 'song'. Apols if someone's already pitched for this but I haven't time to read all the preceding posts!

Surely it's one of those well-known and instantly-hummable tunes from D-Block Europe....

Oh I see - yes I was basing that on the legend that UKCP still have for the airplay chart that says Sun - Sat. So everyone uses this weird split week now then! Oh well; consistent I suppose which is something. Actually looking at it again the chart did bear a date of Fri 31 Jan, which I presume then must have been the chart week-commencing date (corresponding to chart week-ending Thu 6 Feb).

UKChartsPlus reported in its issue W/E Sat 8 Feb '20 that 'Blinding Lights' had finally reached No 1 on the Radio Airplay chart compiled by RadioMonitor, having first charted there W/E 14 Dec '19 at No 78 (nine weeks earlier). As they still stick to a more conventional Sunday-to-Saturday week to compile their chart, I assume that week's tabulation was derived from audience impressions from Sun 25 Jan to Sat 1 Feb '20. It went on to be the airplay chart-topper for many weeks on and off thereafter of course, as indeed happened with its equally enduring performances on the OCC's overall combined, sales and streaming charts across the spring of last year. It's even more impressive to register that its chart profile on the combined Top 100 would be even better, had it not been relegated to ACR, and would have extended considerably beyond 104 consecutive weeks were it not about to be cut short artificially by the incursion of the mass-streamed Christmas crap. Though one would be naive to suggest it'll never be back, as it has all the hallmarks of a new 'Mr Brightside' as discussed earlier, and even the manipulation of the main chart to massage out the inconveniences streaming creates has so-far failed to keep that song out of the now-'compressed' Top 100 for long. Personally I'm still not really tired of hearing it on the radio, despite it having been released exactly two years ago this week (Fri 29 Nov '19) and it still being on the official charts without break. It's the compelling melody, his capable vocal performance and the delightful - if rather by-numbers - eighties synthpop revivalism that appeals to my (and presumably still thousands of others') ears. There's just so few new tracks out which embed themselves as memorably, as so many lack any discernible melody or hook, or at least one that at least sounds reasonably original. Let's face it, I still don't turn a song like 'Take On Me' off the radio as and when it's played, and that's now over 36 years old! I suspect for many 'BL' will sit in the same category and will be one of the few late '10s hits that'll still be spun on radio and TV etc regularly in another 30 years.

I'm fairly sure 'Cold' by Annie Lennox (not 'Lennon' as the OCC apparently had it!) was the first UK Top 75 chart single that had not been released on vinyl since the format became dominant in the late 1950s. Just cassette and CD.

Just to say I like this idea Mick if you can assemble all the relevant and reliable info.

The '82 edition looks tremendous as per its predecessors, although I can't yet say I've had sufficient time to really dive deep into the numerous facts, figures and analysis that Sean presents in his very rigorously-researched tomes. It's something one has to dip into over a longer period to really appreciate, but it'll be worth it in the end. Anyone with either a penchant for historical music information (not just charts and sales data), and/or a love for the year in question (happily I have both - what 30 Spells Shakey says above about this year is completely correct BTW - '82 should be so much more Blue Zoo and Classix Nouveaux than Goombay Dunce Band or Charlene!) should invest what is a very small sum for this book. The only regret here is that it'll take many years for Sean to gather the similarly vast mass of material needed to present annuals for the remainder of the eighties; as a slightly OCD sort who prefers to collect all or not at all, it's annoying I don't yet have '83 to '89 on my shelf alongside '80 to '82!! But patience is a virtue and all that. Keep up the hard work mate and thank God it's a labour of love as hopefully you won't get halfway in and decide to give it all up!

I remember hearing 'Lose My Mind' in a pub in Portsmouth in early 2011 and on declaring I really liked it, I was dismissed as being "a gaylord" by my mate. I rose above this and purchased it on download (a real commitment!). I still insist that it is not only The Wanted's best single (that I've heard anyway), but one of the best out-and-out pop moments of that period! Incredibly catchy, well-sung, not over-produced like so many tracks of the era were becoming, and I think showed they were capable of just a little more than the average boy band.

I'd love to know his pure and streaming-equivalent sales breakdowns and tables of his biggest-selling and most-streamed hits.

Didn't 'In My Place' also match No 2 in Aug '02 as lead single from 'AROBTTH'?! Another OCC research oversight. It likely sold overall more than 'Speed Of Sound' too, although one could argue that the latter was the band's first brush with topping singles charts, as it hit No 1 on the downloads chart W/E 30 Apr '05 for three consecutive weeks ahead of its physical release (some three years two months before 'Viva La Vida' made No 1 on the by-then combined physical/digital main chart).

If it's not already been mentioned, an obvious and very deliberate case of 'download-only' syndrome was that live version of 'Flying Without Wings' by Westlife which was specifically released solely on the digital format on 23 Aug'04 in order to have an excellent chance of debuting at No 1 on the first-fully-published official downloads chart (W/E 4 Sep '04) - which needless to say it did - and of course could make no impact on the main chart at that stage. It fell rather flat after that, but it had by then served its purpose of getting into the history books. It's just great that most chart nerds consider the actual first download chart to be the 'test' tabulation for W/E 26 Jun '04 published in MW a week later where the aforementioned 'Bam Thwok' appeared as its first chart-topper (though I seem to recall even that had been released very much with getting into the much-vaunted new chart in mind, hence a lack of what was then a conventional presumed CD version).

Going back rather further to the pre-digital era, I recall 'Go' by Pearl Jam was ineligible for the singles chart on grounds that the label were giving away a free cassette of a live track with the 12" vinyl, insisting that that format only be sold with its CD and cassette counterparts, thereby deliberately ensuring disqualification from the official listing as stores couldn't get away with selling one of the other formats separately. Famously the release even carried a sticker saying something like "this single is ineligible for 'the only chart that counts'"! For some arcane reason they were very keen to ensure that this new song would never feature in British chart history, but given Pearl Jam's fanbase size and expanded cult popularity as co-progenitors, alongside Nirvana, of the still-viable 'grunge' sound since release of their first album, chances are sales of this single as the lead from the second LP 'Vs' would've been sufficient to gain a Top 20, if not Top 10 position in its first week out (it was issued 25 Oct '93). Sales figures for chart entries weren't generally reported back then, but when one considers the average sale during that year for a single to make Top 10 was 17,400 and Top 20 10,325, this seems supportable, and given that the band's lead single from their third album 'Spin The Black Circle' made No 10 first week one year later, it seems all the more likely. I appreciate this thread is about songs that were completely ruled ineligible from the charts for whatever reasons, but of course there have been numerous singles down the decades which were awarded chart positions, but only based on a certain part of their reported sales - so releases where a format was ruled ineligible as it was not yet included in calculating the charts (all CD singles before 1987 for example), or because their dealer price was too low (the classic case there being Kylie's 'Hand On Your Heart' whose initial week of cassette sales were debarred from the chart on this basis and at around 10k are believed to have been enough to have placed the song at No 1 rather than 2), again ended up with an incomplete and unrepresentative showing in the charts.

Note that from August 1993 the No 1s on the Network Chart will match those of the official CIN chart, as a decision was made to align the Top 10 of the former will the latter, so in effect the Network (or 'Pepsi' chart as it had become by then to reflect their sponsorship arrangement) was split between a sales-only official Top 10 and airplay-cum-sales unofficial Bottom 30 (although I think from this point as part of the deal the compilation of the chart was overseen by CIN and later OCC).

Although 'Rolling In The Deep' had only been released on 17 January 2011 as lead single and was receiving associated promotion, many sources including Discogs record the release date of 'Someone Like You' as a stand-alone single on download as being 24 January 2011. Obviously that corresponds with the release date of the parent album '21' and so it would also have been available to download from the digital release of that, but it does seem that it was given its own discrete issue a week after its predecessor, possibly for the reasons Bre gives regarding its already-well-received live performances before the BRITS 2011. So in fact the answer is yes, technically it was already a 'single' ahead of the BRITS performance, albeit one that wasn't being directly promoted at that point. Incidentally, Discogs records the release of the live BRITS version of the song on download as being 17 March 2011; for chart purposes its sales of course would've been combined with the original single and album track tallies as per OCC rules.

It is encouraging to see some consumer value being placed on CD singles once again, albeit in a fraction of specific cases and in an obviously niche market - let's not pretend that this represents anything like a mass comeback for the format per se. But without sounding like I'm now benefiting from the gift of hindsight, I think we probably should've seen this coming. The enduring appeal, at least among very keen fans of certain musical acts and collectors of associated merchandise, of a physical release is that it is tangible, and feels more worthwhile and authentic than a virtual product which, while it has all the space-saving convenience and versatility at a cheap price, inevitably feels clinical and lacks any sort of presence or appeal as a collectors' item. The download - and even more so the audio/video online stream which isn't even owned but rented - is there for pure simplicity and ease of access/portability. For that small but significant sector of the singles market who prefers to literally buy in to their favourite artists, physical will always retain a certain cachet, and if it's succeeded not just on the always much-missed vinyl 7" experience but also more recently on the once-massively-derided microcassette, then I guess logically after a certain period without them, the compact disc will also begin to present itself as another alternative way of tangibly owning a single song, with all the added benefits of artwork, possibly extra tracks etc that fanbase collectors will want, even if it means owning the same recording on two, three or even four formats (plus probably having the track on a streaming site playlist). After more than a decade where CD singles were almost extinct and deemed irrelevant, the nostalgia market - often those who were children or adolescents when the format was in its heyday or at least the norm - are now primed to seek out occasional examples on the format where they are available. Let's face it, in the albums sector, physical - and mostly CD - still accounts for a significant if minority stake in the market (around 15-18%) and the concept never died out in the way that almost happened with singles. The nigh-on 20-year presumption that one would now only bother buying a CD if it's a long-player is starting to be challenged and that can only be a positive thing, despite recognition that virtual digital product will always remain the dominant means through which music is consumed. It feels comforting to have a bit of diversity and availability of more rarefied formats for those more deeply engaged in music than just passive entry-level listens on a casual, free 'n' easy basis.

Plus ONE more week almost certainly in the Top 100 had it existed ahead of its initial chart entry in the 50 on the chart of week-ending Sat 5 Apr (why the OCC site is defaulting to the following Tuesday I don't know)! I've tracked 'My Way's release date to Fri 21 Mar '69, meaning its first couple of days on sale could've been sufficient for an appearance at 51st to 100th bestseller for the chart use week ending Sat 28 Mar (which the OCC now stupidly would date as Tue 1 Apr). Still doesn't alter its position in the overall list, but you know, just saying.

Then if that is indeed the case they should remove the link if they don't want any further responses. Again, poor website management and lack of consistent communication. Why waste people's time trying to complete it if it's no longer available? Just thank those who've participated and take it down. I am not too fussed that I didn't get to air my views as I daresay all my comments will've been fed back by other disgruntled users who did manage to complete the survey before it was locked-down. But I would be surprised if they took any of the more complex ideas on board. I don't think they have either time or inclination to really drill down into the problems and while we're obviously keen to engage in the hope of improving their data management etc, I don't think that's what they are really after from this. If we're lucky, we might see some minor tinkering which could improve the efficiency or appearance of the site itself.

Ha-haa; classic OCC website - just tried entering the link to their survey and it returned a message thanking me for my interest but it's now closed. Yet the Ts and Cs below state that the latest one can enter the competition to win Amazon vouchers (which can presumably only be entered by completing their survey) is 9am Tuesday 29th June, over a week hence! It's this very kind of glitchiness and conflicting messaging that's p*ssing most people off about their site (before we get into the deeper debates about how they present and manage their data, errors and inconsistencies in reportage and so on).