Gambo

Zeus - quite an interesting site which I'd not seen before, although there are - I suppose inevitably - various anomalies, beyond just whether the charts he's using are regarded locally as 'official' or otherwise. How does he make the UK charts date from 1950, for example?! Maybe he uses the sheet music tabulations before late 1952, but that doesn't seem quite right to me, especially as they would go back further anyway so no reason to begin from that year. It's also news to me that the Australian charts can be dated back as far as 1940, while he only seems to date the US ones from ten years later, despite Billboard having begun publishing a singles sales chart from mid-1940?!

For those of us with a general interest in sales levels across the years though, surely it's always interesting when the OCC issues these lists of artist bestselling/streamed tracks to date, despite the confusion they always seem to create by providing sometimes inconsistent figures? Whether or not Louise happens to have been one of one's preferred artists, or whether she sold in larger or smaller numbers relative to others, the figures themselves are interesting if only to help frame the context of the wider sales market at the peak of the act's success, and to estimate in some cases how enduring they've been in the digital era as a catalogue artist. It's not always about offering us the tallies for the biggest-selling/streamed acts. And lest we forget, albeit most of them having brief (sub-ten-week) tenures in the Top 75, Louise did enjoy a run of several Top 10 hits between 1995 and 2003, and was regarded as a significant pop act of the time for the first three years of that era. I too am slightly surprised that none of her hits managed over 200,000 sales at the time of original release, given the overall strength of the singles market in the mid-late '90s, but that in itself is interesting in my book as it can help us calibrate our estimations of how much other similarly-performing artists active in the market at the same time might've shifted, where OCC figures are yet to be reported.

For me this would be a bit of a disappointment if it didn't use a format of picking an official chart from say this week in a previous year from the 1970s-'90s (or possibly the official best-sellers of the year as a whole), as I think it would be more apt to have the authoritative-yet-engaging chart delivery style of Mark Goodier associated with a proper countdown of some gravitas, rather than some retrospectively-made-up countdown with little meaning. But it worries me that it seems inextricably-linked to the Now! series, as I can't see them not using this as an opportunity to promote the currently-flagging compilation brand by - presumably - only picking songs that were (or have subsequently been) included on at least one of their albums, which would narrow the field and make countdowns predictably selective. Obviously that couldn't apply to contemporaneously-issued regular Now! releases for years prior to 1983 when they started, but I believe the brand has since issued numerous retrospective editions covering tracks from prior to its own inception, so technically they could probably be able to cover the '70s/early '80s via those. Maybe they'll do a countdown of a genuine vintage chart, but will only play the songs that featured on a Now! album? Either way it'll be good to hear Mark's voice counting down hit singles once again if only for nostalgia, but the programme will miss a trick if it doesn't seek to become an authentic and better rival to Pick Of The Pops as the vintage chart show of note, irrespective of whether music played has a direct feature on a Now! package.

A year is impressive, but didn't Tony Blackburn manage two without break 1980-'81? Pretty committed.

Regarding the apparently very prompt decision to introduce the latest rule tweak to the car-crash marriage that is the streams-cum-sales combined singles chart, it seems to fit in with the pattern established in recent years, when OCC introduce changes once every six months, either taking effect the first week of January or of July. I don't know if this means they only review their rules at fixed half-yearly intervals, but it certainly implies this. Although should some kneejerk alteration suddenly be deemed necessary in between the Jan/Jul change cycle, I daresay they'd introduce it sooner without waiting until the next regular rule change point. They probably would've done so following the Sheeran debacle, but (ludicrously) it would've taken them by surprise and so they needed another three months to formulate what they and the industry agreed as a suitable solution, which essentially took them to the usual July mid-year change point anyway.

A very timely - and handy - reference tool Dan, that clearly-explains the situation with streaming integration into the main charts clearly and concisely. Only one extremely minor error - it's been announced video streams will count from W/C 6th July, not "W/E" (the W/E date will of course be 12th July).

I've never used iTunes, preferring another online retailer, so the question for the likes of me who prefer to continue buying singles as downloads is how long it might take other competitors to cease their offerings after Apple pull out (okay I get that they're keen to emphasise there's no fixed date yet for that but let's face it, it's on its way and quite possibly during 2019 or '20 at latest). On the one hand Amazon, 7Digital et al might see it as worthwhile continuing to at least absorb the residual market iTunes will have left behind - which in a year's time may still represent over 500,000 tracks sold each week - for a few more years, or just follow suit and gradually shut-up shop. I suppose that may depend on whether each download retailer has a viable streaming platform in place; those that don't by now will likely struggle given the long-term domination of Spotify, and rising competition of Apple Music. So if they want to try and stay in business longer, they may seek to try and specialise in the sales sector, however much in decline it currently is. One note of caution to sound here, based on historical experience in recorded popular music consumption across the last 60 years: each time a format was in steep decline and presumed dead, it has ended up clinging-on, however tenuously and albeit as a niche product. Vinyl never completely died off even at its nadir in the late '90s and now is a relevant if modest sector of the physical market; cassette had died essentially by the early '00s but is seeing a very slight revival in the late '10s; CDs singles died by the early '10s and albums were assumed to follow, yet 50% of the (albeit declining overall) albums market remains on that format. The only significant past formats that have truly died out owing to the market moving on to better things are cartridge, shellac disc and mini-disc! Downloaded singles are dwindling rapidly in the face of streaming and albums downloads have never quite hit their stride, but there's nothing to say that they won't always have a small but relevant segment of the music-buying public, and who knows, possibly enjoy a revival in years to come - probably less on the basis of collectability and nostalgia as has been the case with vinyl and cassette, but a realisation that it's actually preferable in many ways to own a copy of something than rely on a streaming service to always provide what one needs to listen to. It might seem baseless, but so did the other turnarounds described above ten years before they happened. Digital sales have had their brief heyday. But it shouldn't and doesn't necessarily mean all means of purchasing in that format should disappear, even post-iTunes.

I'd need to double-check, but from memory I believe the first time that feat occurred was W/E 19 April 1997. There was concern at that stage that by the end of the century the entire Top 10 (and beyond into the 20) would be new entries on a regular basis. Happily, despite the best-efforts of the front-loading effect that the industry was so set on in that era, that never quite materialised, and despite repeated examples of seven newbies in the ten across the next few years, I don't believe eight was ever achieved on the official chart. Personally I hated that 15 new entries almost every week period, albeit that I concede things felt a lot 'fresher' and diverse than they do currently. I guess that's because I brought myself up in an era when chart movement was slower, but crucially not as slow as now - in the 1980s the norm was an average of say perhaps three new entries, four breakers from below No 40, a further ten climbers within the 40, 15 or so descending, and three non-movers, with an average chart life of eight to 12 weeks within the Top 40 for a record that made the Top 10 or 20, hitting that peak around the middle of that tenure. You never knew quite what was going up or where new stuff would land, as things built organically over the weeks and it wasn't all about that week's new releases, which by the late 1990s one knew would take up most of the expected positions at the top end and then often fall back quite precipitously. And of course there was no media issuing midweek info to give sneak previews! By the same token, records would descend steadily but readily, which allowed for a fair balance whereby enough space was freed typically each week to allow newer material to enter/rise further, keeping turnover at about the right pace.

As regards 'What You Know', although only a modest (no 64) sales hit in February 2011, it has tended to feature around the Top 200 or not-far-below echelon of the charts for some years, as have a couple of Two-Door Cinema Club singles. It has hovered around that sort of level for a long period, trickle-selling consistently on download. I don't know the OCC tallies, but I suspect it has probably proven to be one of the act's biggest sellers overall - if not the biggest. So perhaps the fact that the steady drip of understated but enduring interest now seen in recent streaming of the track isn't quite so surprising, as its appeal in the sales-only arena has been unusually persistent for a song that was never a major hit at any time. Saying that, when one considers the likely saturation on streaming of some of the really big hitters released in each calendar year - particularly those issued in the 2010s contemporaneous to the rise of streaming as a mode of consuming music - it is notable that some much-more minor songs were apparently streamed more during last year than those were. I think the point made above about the time of year some of these were released is important, though it only partially-explains the unexpectedly-weaker showing of the megahits for some years in 2017 streaming terms. An interesting list and one I hope they repeat next year; the comparison will be intriguing and year-on-year will help to build a longer-term view on what the truly most-enduring songs on streaming actually are. I suspect that tracks like 'Africa', 'Wonderwall', 'Mr Brightside' and 'Shape Of You' will likely cling-on to their crowns as most-streamed release of their respective years for quite some time to come.

A fascinating article, and one that confirms the revelation (well, it was a revelation to me at least after more than 30 years) that the official Gallup chart was available on Sunday afternoons almost a year-and-a-half earlier than Radio 1 began broadcasting it in that slot! I'd assumed, as I suspect many at the time and since have, that until October 1987 when it finally caught-up a week, the tech just wasn't up to facilitating a completely-compiled (i.e. fully-checked for anomalies etc as described in the RM article) chart in the 17-hour period from the close of the sales survey week to the time the Top 40 chart show aired. I've thought about this, but I really can't see why "the industry" at large would've sought to have retained the policy of airing the official new numbers to the then-vast amounts of the public interested in them, a whole two days after they were potentially available? What was the gain? Okay, back in the mid '80s the notion of having to get things 'out there' with any kind of immediacy wasn't as acute as it is now, when it is not only legitimate to expect it, but the speed of the way media is consumed online demands it. Things did, and so could, move at a slower pace in the physical rather than virtual world. But even so, not even a move to Monday? And all this with the Network Chart competition breathing down its neck on a Sunday? It can't have been because they believed the Tuesday lunchtime slot was such a great one for listeners that it was worth maintaining, when clearly so many more listeners would've been available to tune-in on a Sunday afternoon - or even a Monday evening pitch. I presume that all the pressure that eventually led them to move to Sunday 17 months late came from Radio 1 itself as it became acutely-conscious of growing disparity between its chart show listening figures and ILR's, and also that controllers tuned-in to the fact that it was no longer acceptable in an increasingly-computerised climate to dish-up a countdown for the week just outgoing rather than incoming, when it could be avoided. In catching-up a week, the Gallup chart was put back in front of the Network in terms of currentness, given the latter's survey week had already ended four days prior to broadcast (Gallup's would now be reflecting sales as recent as one day before). Perhaps this just reflects the sort of arrogance we have seen from "the industry" since, when faced with even-more pressing and potentially damaging issues. An obvious one is the slow and confused response to the prevalence of illegal downloading by the turn of the century, which seemed to just rely on the rapidly-ageing models of selling physical product while making huge capital gains - we saw it in the insistence on charging £15 for CD albums well into the 2000s (and the deliberate withholding of radio singles to force album sales in the US). More recently, in the chart world we have the apparent complacency of the OCC, who seem to just simplistically-rely on the leverage they think they can always gain by being able to use the "official" tag for its output, despite the mess that it's made in trying to keep pace with digital developments, and the constant inconsistencies and errors it makes which many blithely accept because they are the sole authority on chart history, however appallingly it misinterprets or rewrites it. It is actually quite refreshing to see that in 1987, the fact that one chart may have had the "official" trump card to play wasn't ultimately enough to ensure its primacy in the face of alternatives, and a change in policy was forced. If only I could envisage something similar happening with the present dogged state of the UK (and the more I see of them, US) charts - not to mention that of their respective radio broadcasts!

Okay; thanks SmiffJ. Maybe in the meantime I should update my listing to reflect yours where they differ!

This is interesting. I took a complete copy of Gezza's 1990-'94 estimates a while before he withdrew them with the intention of revising them (presumably he has since gained access to some more accurate figures or means of estimating?). Most of these match those posted by SmiffJ above, but with a fair number of sometimes quite notable differences; for example Smiff's figures for the October 1993 to January 1994 period differ quite considerably from what Gezza originally posted. I wonder what might have accounted for these differing numbers? Where it deviates, is Smiff's version of events to be considered more reliable than Gezza's originals (at least until such time as he is able to republish his refreshed weekly totals)? Or, did Gezza amend some of his figures ad-hoc after I cut and pasted them, before deciding to withdraw and re-evaluate the entire five years' worth, and it was him who provided these adjusted tallies reflected above? Grateful for clarification folks if possible.

Despite there being understandable reasoning for the hotch-potch they've made of the weekly charts by combining two entirely distinct ways of consuming music into one tabulation, I have never seen that there is such impetus for combining paid-for sales and rented audio streams for the purpose of bestowing BPI certifications. In that context if nowhere else nowadays, sales should remain just that - actual sales, uncomplicated by the clumsy equations to create notional sales units from streaming. However, in this era of steadily-declining sales across digital and physical formats apparently in favour of streaming, a new series of awards should have been created to honour those who are tracked as having attained certain streaming totals - and by this I mean actual streaming numbers, not some artificial equivalent figure based on a ratio of streams to actual sales. So there could've been say Silver = 50m, Gold = 100m, Platinum = 200m or whatever would be considered suitable points for awards. I believe some sort of awards are given for the number of registered plays on radio (don't know the details), and so I'd envisage it would work similarly to that - i.e. entirely separately from whatever titles manage to achieve in respect of paid-for copies. But of course this is a complete fantasy. As it is, I don't really see how this will translate into anything different to now, bar perhaps certification receiving a little more press interest if it has the word 'Brit' prefacing it.

Whilst the New Music Friday initiative was rolled-out globally, I don't think it was the case that every chart-compiling nation chose to adjust their survey week to suit it. I haven't revisited the specific arrangements being made by different countries in 2015, but I seem to remember that while each made some adjustment for it in terms of compilation/publication/broadcast dates etc, the UK was one of the few that opted to go for the split-calendar week of Friday to Thursday, and it was essentially because labels wanted to see a full week's sales/streams as that would maximise - or bottom-out depending on how you look at it - their new releases' initial chart positions. As DanG observed above, this soon became largely-irrelevant as the rapid take-up of streaming over sales has meant that it is far-harder to register a peak position, especially in the Top 10, in the maiden week of release. The nature of streaming currently is that bar key releases from the most major and keenly-anticipated acts like Bieber or Drake, tracks build to a peak, less-so than in the sales sector. As streaming is now over 93% of the combined market, inevitably it is now more about what position your single can attain on the combined chart in a month, two months or maybe even more following release, if labels are patient enough to care. Personally I think that's a preferable scenario to the instant quick-fix-then-out era of c.1995-2005, but the downside has been excessive stagnation as while the climbs to chart peaks are more steady - and I'd say more exciting as they're less-easy to predict - the declines from peaks are incredibly long and drawn-out, tapering across what can be several months even with ACR now in play for published positions. The ideal would be to keep the culture of interesting climbs up the ladder, but accelerate the retreats downwards. But that would mean changing the chart by imposing even more arbitrary exclusions/restrictions, which would only render it even more artificial than now. No; instead the market will just have to change and evolve over time. It always has, for better and worse, and so it's fair to say the shape of things in the late 2010s probably won't be the trends we'll be witnessing in the late 2020s. Whether the chart show will ever properly or seriously reflect whatever is in store in future however, I rather doubt. Indeed, will it still exist at all in ten years' time?

Although I still purchase singles, most of them stay well-away from the Top 100 nowadays as they're not hip-hop/R&B/rap/urban, and I'm far-too-old to be listening to the Top 40 countdowns now anyway! But, if I were a more relevant, regular listener, I would endorse some of the ideas put forward above, as although they are challenging the current, limited and stale format, they accept the chart as-is by broadening its scope and cherry-picking the more interesting moves within it, while keeping the show's "young people interactive" format, which many of us older chart fans hate but must concede is probably more in-tune with modern listening preferences than a more formal, stricter countdown that presents solid facts and figures, as was more the case pre-2000. Extending its time to accommodate a Top 100 would be a really interesting way of rejuvenating it; not that the average typical kid just cares about the size or positioning of the chart rundown - probably they care all-too-little about the finer details - but it would sound good when seeking to rebrand it. They could call it "The Chart Show", but why not make more merry of it and brand it "The Hit 100" or some such catchy line? Despite all these good ideas however, there is one which to my mind would restore a fair bit of interest in the show, and not least listener share compared to its competitors, and that is simply MOVE IT BACK TO SUNDAY AFTERNOON! I haven't seen the latest RAJARs, but I'm guessing that despite its lack of 'official' status, ILR's "Vodafone Big Top 40" now commands a far-superior audience than its once-all-conquering Radio 1 equivalent, not because it's inherently a great format all-round, but mostly because they stuck with the Sunday slot as being the more conducive to the bulk of live listeners than moving to a Friday early evening. Even those who like the latest R1 format are often stymied because they are at school or working when it is aired. If you move back to Sunday, you immediately allow much more of a splash to be made by it, with more time, a longer chart length, and picking the new/climbing titles outside of the full Top 10 or 20. Stick to a single presenter - Greg James will do although I agree with the comment that "he's no Mark Goodier" (neither might I add is Scott Mills!) - and keep it simple. No fuss with competitions and texts; just as dynamic a playlist as the chart in its slow-moving state will allow across the published 'compressed' Top 100 positions. Some might baulk at this given the official chart is now released two days earlier, but then in an era of midweeks and constant digital updates of so many different charts, OCC and otherwise, does that really matter that much? The R1 Sunday show that began in September 1967 was a whole week behind until October '87! Better-still, my response to that criticism would be "move the official chart frame back to Sunday-to-Saturday, in closer alignment with the actual calendar week"! The Big Top 40 seems happy to run on that traditional, sensible frame despite the 'New Music Friday' release date initiative, and still seems fresher than its official counterpart aired two days earlier because it can include some new titles issued that Friday, albeit with just their first two days of sales/streaming action. Given that as much music seems to be released on other days of the week anyway, has the slavish adherence to a weird Friday-to-Thursday frame since July '15 really worked, and is it time to revert? If the official countdown did so, it'd be on a far-more level playing field with its Big Top 40 competition, and that magic of being the official listing - for all its current perceived faults - might help put it back to the fore, in tandem with a more creative, focused format of presentation. Oh, and while they're at it, they could do a brief resume of songs that have been 'starred-out' of the official positions owing to the stupid "more than three tracks per act" exclusion rule. Okay, that's probably one for the more dedicated chart geeks, but it'd be helpful to know what's missed-out only because of the present chart rules despite accruing enough consumption of both types to have landed within the 'uncompressed' rankings.

I must've read that RM article by Alan Jones before, but it was interesting to read it through again and try to get a handle on the reasoning for the tied No 1. Whilst like many of us I don't pretend to have a complete grasp of all the mathematics behind it, I get the general gist and now understand that like it or not, in that period the industry preferred the 250-sample approach despite the sophistication of electronic data capture enabling a more precise - albeit still incomplete - figure to be ascertained. As an aside, I also found it interesting that Gallup was on a typical average week receiving sales data for around 20,000 titles. Presumably this means both singles and albums, but even so it seems like a large number for what was in '90 a wholly-physical market, albeit across an increasing range of formats. Surely only a few hundred singles would ever be available at retail? I never recall seeing more than that in shops then, even including bargain bins. Amazing to think now that there are probably millions of titles logging sales and streams each frame in a digitally-led market.

We could've found out exactly where within the physical-sales-only Top 40 that track landed, but having scoured the OCC archive, it seems there's a mysterious gap in their physical archives from W/E 7 May to 3 September 2005, and so as this was 14 May, no joy. I wonder why this gap exists? Yet another inexplicable OCC inconsistency I suppose.

A bit of quick research on the OCC archives shows the above was correct. Also, the first single to miss out on a Top 75 placing owing to the change of chart rules that week was a track called 'Messiah' by Kontact. It made No 75 on the physical-only chart, but on the combined physical/digital listing it only registered at No 92. As neither track climbed any higher, their fates were sealed.

King Of The Rodeo Peak at No. 41 23/04/05 - Kings Of Leon I think this is possibly one of the most unfortunate official No 41s of all time. W/E 23 Apr '05 was the first (partially)combined official physical and digital singles chart, wherein digital sales were counted towards official chart positions for the first time, provided the track had an equivalent physical release that had been issued within the last 52 weeks. If I recall correctly, it was reported in Music Week that had the old physical-only chart still been in use as the official tabulation, 'King Of The Rodeo' would've scraped a No 37 placing. But as it was, thanks to the sudden influx of what were then relatively slender, but still significant-enough, download sales into the mix, official history will always record it as having not been a Top 40 hit.

A lot of obvious candidates already cited here I see. I also think it'd be fair to rule-out posthumous comebacks after long hiatuses as these aren't strictly 'organic'. So that sets-aside people like Elvis, Roy Orbison, even Jacko. The first act I thought of outside of these was Texas - by 1992 they appeared to have been past their moment in the commercial sun, such as it ever had been with a sole Top 10 single in 1989. The last thing I expected was that an album released five years later would yield a slew of Top 10 singles, and a far-superior run of hits from 1997 to 2001 than they'd ever managed in their first few years.

Quite right, which is why video streaming should in my view be resisted by the industry. Some people will watch almost entirely for the visual piece, while others simply want to listen to the audio track. The two products are linked, but can be mutually-exclusive. Needless to say, the US incorporated video streaming some while back, and where the Americans lead there is always the concern that the British may eventually follow, for better or worse, although it's been a few years and I've heard no recent rumblings suggesting that yet another variable be added to the chart compilation formula. I'm not writing-off the possibility of it eventually coming on board, especially when paid-for sales get to historically-low frictional levels and the chart is essentially almost all streaming anyway, but for now I think the OCC has all-on to try and tame the beast of audio streaming in a consistent and meaningful way (however poorly they seem to have done so far), and the introduction of another format is probably the last thing they need. Saying that, when the dust settles on the current transitional phase, as a forerunner, they might first introduce video streams to the streaming-only chart to test it. Once they're content, then they might unleash the 'combined' audio and video streaming formula on the main combined charts.

The thrust of this article does chime a lot of chords with us, and will do with less-engaged casual chart followers. It's not entirely fair of course, and doesn't quite present as complete a solution to the OCC's half-arsed current approach as it thinks. But I can see why some will feel this way, and it's all because of the insistence on there being a singular source of truth when it comes to national 'official' chart positions. If there were two discrete charts operating with no 'combined' tabulation, sure, there'd be issues around which is the most relevant and which data to cite. But surely that'd be less-bothersome than all this mess with splicing sales and streams into one? There is no complete solution to this, as long as the official charts must combine two incompatible formats - one very simple, sales (albeit that they are not a total measure of 'popularity' in itself and never were); the other very complex, streaming (so many possible variables as to why someone might have listened to a track online etc). All I can say, rather unhelpfully, is that as an old fart who still prefers to just buy the songs I like (downloads for singles, and even occasionally the odd album on CD), I really really wish that streaming had never been invented!! Imagine how simple, if still manipulated and imperfect, the world of chart compilation would be without it! And of course we'd likely not have to be concerned with struggling download, or even physical sales, because there'd be no other way to consume music - well, legally at any rate!! Most youngsters will recoil at someone actually wishing something as embedded and 'quick-fix' as streaming would go away, as it's possibly all they've known, and they tend to see every technological labour-saving advance as a good thing. And don't get me wrong; on a more serious note, of course it certainly isn't all bad - it's so good for so many, and does no harm to consumers per se. But as a chart enthusiast, and purely in the realm of managing straightforward, meaningful, singular chart compilation, you've got to admit, it's a bitch!

All worthy suggestions, depending on how one measures 'flop'. If we mean sub-Top 40 in the UK, then I guess 'Summer Of '69' is one of the most conspicuous contenders, given its enduring radio and DJ appeal, and consistent download sales in the digital era. If we adopt a sub-75 approach, probably 'Hungry Eyes' has it for similar reasons. My own contributions off the top of my head and which I don't think have been cited so far would be: 'The Promise' by When In Rome (only made Top 60 despite US success and strong airplay support) 'That's When I Think Of You' by 1927 (scraped Top 50 yet strong on radio and all things Aussie being in vogue thanks to a certain acting/singing duo from 'Neighbours') 'Just To Get By' by Babakato (just missed the Top 75 - likely Top 80, notwithstanding being tipped for great things as a boy band as I recall, and again good airplay, but the hype was never realised) 'Fascinated' by Company B ('next 25' only - so maybe Top 100 at best in real terms, although a massive club hit at the time, just ahead of the acid house craze taking over where hi-energy left-off).

It would simply look - and be - better if they allowed the published chart to reflect what the true positions actually are, however disproportionate or inconvenient it might be when a single artist registers more than three titles in the chart. This chart regime just continues to be so pointless.

Depends on how one defines "non-charted" - I believe some of these have managed lower (perhaps sub-Top 100) entries, possibly not at the time of contemporary release but subsequently (in the case of those titles never released as a single per se, they might have scraped some later chart action as an album track etc in the post-physical era). 'Bitch, Don't Kill My Vibe' by Kendrick Lamar for example - an actual digital single - made No 119 on 20 July 2013, though I appreciate many wouldn't consider this high enough to be a canonical chart 'hit', and that you won't necessarily be aware of such placings if you're not a 'UKChartsPlus' subscriber! Moreover, since 15 July this year the OCC have curtailed the full Top 200 to a 'compressed' 100 only, even to UKCP, ceasing the possibility for lesser-selling tracks to register a known peak below No 100.