DanChartFan

Sorry to reply yet again but I think I get it now. For each sales landmark (say 100k), you're counting how many singles have sold at least that many copies across the entire year up to the week number in the first column. And the 12, 11, 10, 09 are the years so you are comparing this year to the last three years to see how many singles passed each landmark by the same given chart week in each year? Finally the tallies all reset to zero in week one of each year with no wrap around between years for releases that bridge two years, hence the Coldplay example appeared not to affect the tallies as it was released in 2011 but the week ended in 2012 so the tallies had gone back to zero. I thought originally that it was done on individual weekly sales, so that if two singles both sold 100k in that particular week then that week would be down as 2, but couldn't see how the figures were going above 1 or 2 in any week till I suddenly realised it was cumulative.

Correction, using compatability mode on Internet Explorer solved it. You must be using an old version of IE.

PS internet explorer doesn't support the file type of your link, despite the error message's insistence that it does.

vidcapper you might get more responses if you write a paragraph or two first explaining what the figures actually mean. Judging by the comments so far everyone is understanding them completely differently, and no-one's understanding seems to be without a contradiction or problem somewhere. I have a background in advanced mathematics and many years of interest in chartology but have to confess to being unsure what you've actually calculated. Sorry I'm not meaning to pee on your parade just trying to be constructive. Apologies if I'm just being really dense tonight though.

blackcat I just checked my DVD copy of this years eps so far and GG definitely appears unedited in the ep Noel Edmonds hosts. Noel tells us that a huge cheer was heard when 'this next chap walked on stage', how the reaction would be different now. Anyway it seems they are showing different version at different times, the last show was either 30, 35 or 40 mins depending on which repeat you watched, me I recorded all three and am gonna try and spot the differences (and hide behind a cushion from GG'S widescreen close up at least 3 more times.. yikes!). An interesting aside is that in the same ep Noel completely blows a scripted gag after a performance by Legs and co dancing round lampposts. He said 'That really raised the standards... the lamp standards' , I think he meant the punchline to be 'the standard lamps' which still wasn't funny really. And he breaks into giggles a few seconds later, presumably as it dawns on him. I'd go as far as saying Noel was sort of anti-funny throughout, did 70s Brits laugh at his humour? Richie I wondered why I wanted to download a copy too, then I realised it was just my jealous mind! :lol:

Ah right the NTSC vs PAL thing, I didn't think of that. But I'm not sure that it's the whole story as the videos tend to have more black blobs and scratches and stuff than the rest of the show, which can't be just the differing systems at the time. Probably the US companies sent a copy over to the uk rather than an original, and then TOTP effectively made a copy of the copy when they made the show, so flaws crept in.

Adele in particular appeals to slightly older listeners with more cash on hip, who buy her albums rather than relying on youtube to hear her. I assume vevo is a free site like youtube?

Just remembered something else I meant to ask if anyone can answer. The totp 76/7 repeats are of very good sound and particularly picture quality considering their age, except when they were playing a video into the original show, at which point the picture quality seems to suffer quite a bit. Is this some sort of 'photocopying effect' similar to photcopies of letters seeming less sharp than the original (because the tape of the show is effectively copying one video to another at that point in the show), or did TOTP not bother to get the quality of played-in videos right even at the time. Or is there some other reason, technical or otherwise. I only really ask because sometimes some of the the videos are occasionally still played on music channels today and appear in better shape there than the totp 77 recordings of the same vids.

I think I read somewhere that GG is now earning a lot of royalties from southeast asian countries who had only discovered him in recent years and that the western media were trying to put pressure on those countries media to stop promoting him, and there was some question about whether it infringed his human rights to prevent him from earning money. Funnily enough he's featured first on tonight's repeat which I've just started watching on my pvr and it's quite weird seeing him in super close up as he lookes creepy even back then.

I know I'm a couple of weeks late with this but I notice that in one recent totp77 repeat they showed a Gary Glitter performance (at least they did on the middle of the night repeat of the repeat that I recorded, if not on the 7:30pm version). Are they even legally allowed to do this? I thought he wasn't allowed to earn any royalties in the UK and that every TOTP repeat still incurred royalties for the featured acts and artists (though probly no repeat fees for the presenters and dancer I should imagine).

I doubt that returns are subtracted from the sales figures for chart purposes, unless the sale and refund happen at the same terminal on the same day and can be clearly identified as being the same person (same card details etc). Certainly I don't think that returns in a later week count as a minus on that weeks tally. If you could concieveably return a download or get a refund on one then the rules there may be different.

It's already been pointed out that the X factor single will be on it's 2nd week during the xmas chart battle and only sell perhaps around 150k that week. If every member of the Nirvana group downloads 2 copies (3 are allowed in the chart rules before being excluded as hyping, to the best of my knowledge) then they could secure 184k of sales! Still think they can't do it Steve201? And the no of followers has doubled in a relatively short time so it could be well into 6 figures by the time it matters too.

One more thing I meant to mention, the BBC are now allowed to refer to previous week's chart positions right down to 200 and give them on their ceefax/bbci and web pages, this has been the case for a few years now, probably originally owing to the number of tracks that were climbing from very low into the main chart during the 'downloads only count a week before the physical' rule. I think it's still the case that they cannot announce current chart positions below 75, and probably not in full between 40 and 75, although e.g. a high profile release that just misses the 40 in it's first week could probably be mentioned without sanctions I'd've thought.

Thank you for the replies, especially davetaylor for all that detail. Your list of xmas no1s shows my reason for asking, in the years 1959-61, in that on the 'official' list Emile Ford had taken over at the top in 1959 after tieing in the same week u mention with Adam, in 1960 Cliff had ousted Elvis and in 1961 Danny Williams had knocked Frankie V off. In previous years I've defended Emile, Cliff and Danny as xmas no1s on online discussions, but when I was looking closely at the dates recently it suddenly occured to me that, even if you accepted Guinness' choice of charts, I doubt those 3 changes at the top were even known about on the actual day in those year's, even by the compilers. Actually the reason I was looking into the dates at all was because this year is the 60th xmas chart, and as of the start of last week I had 30 working days left, so by way of a musical advent calendar I decided to listen to 2 xmas top 3's on the way to work each day (journey to work is around 30 mins), the closer to the present the hits get the closer to xmas we've got, although the last week will probably feel a bit anticlimatic with endless popstarsthe rivals and then x factor songs, and I'll have to anticpate the xmas chart on xmas eve and possibly buy the single that is gonna top even if it's crap factor's. Or I could just play more of last years on xmas eve and then treat the new chart on xmas day as part of my 'calendar'.

I thought this year's official single was gonna be the new manamana? And does anyone else remember a CIN single from years ago called something like 'My father found a rabbit who though it was a duck' ?

I wondered if there is a single agreed definition of which week is the xmas chart in any given year. I would say that I would define it as the chart that was current on the day itself or to put it another way if I were to travel back in time to xmas day of a year and ask a passer by there what the top of the current chart looked like which chart would they tell me about (assuming I picked someone with an interest in the pop charts but not an insider). From 1969-86 it's relatively clear whether a chart was announced in time for xmas or not as it was always announced on a Tuesday so you can just select the Tues before xmas day and the count forward to the Sat to find the right chart, in addition many years in that period had a skipped chart due to the compilation staff taking a week off for xmas so the same chart is applicable in the weeks either side of the day anyhow. Since 1987 announcements were the Sunday before or on 25th, with one delayed chart (1988, so I'd personally count the week before) and no skips. But things get trickier in the era before 1969 as it's necessary to know which dates the original paper came out on and therefore which was the last chart to be published before xmas that year. In particular the years 1959-61 are probably wrongly attributed now as the charts now recognised as the xmas chart were surely published after the day (as much as ten days after if there wasn't even a publication in the week after). Is there anyone with more wrinkles (I mean experience lol) than me who can tell us what the actual last pre-xmas publication dates were for NME in 52-59 or RR in 1960-68?

I did wonder whether these financially uncertain times were going to cause the first skipped chart at xmas for 30 years, and that would be why the X Factor single was out a week early, but it says in the OCCs own article it's the chart announced on the day so I can't figure out what's going on. Maybe the X Factor are going to spend an additional week asking it's viewers to vote for which song should be the winner's single, thus guaranteeing a popular (amongst x factor fans anyway) release. Or perhaps they are hoping that facebook etc campaigners will be split by the confusion and won't all target the same week, thus leaving both weeks clear for X Factor? By my reckoning there have been 7 occasions when xmas day coincided with a chart announcement day since the BBC backed official charts started in 1969. Between 1969 and Nov 1987 the new chart was announced first on a Tuesday lunchtime (or Weds after a Bank Holiday Mon), xmas day was a Tues in 1973, 1979 and 1984. The first two of those didn't see a new chart for that week, not even published retrospectively. 1984 DID see a new chart that was in theory due to have been announced on the day itself but I suspect it was actually revealed on 26th or 27th Dec instead or else published retrospectively in Music Week. Since late 1987 new charts have been announced on a Sunday and this has coincided with xmas day in 1988, 1994, 2005 and now 2011. In 1988 the new chart was announced a day late on Mon 26th Dec but apparently it was still recognised (somewhat inaccurately) as the year's xmas chart by the industry. 1994 was the first time a new chart really was announced on the day but I have no idea whether Xmas TOTP were able to get the exclusive that year, which of course they did in 2005 since they were on air prior to the chart show that day. I've no idea yet whether there will even be a new chart on xmas day this year but according to the OCC there will, and they should know I suppose.

Wow I'm 28 and have started to feel too old for radio1 lately, I've even stopped listening to the chart show every week for the first time in 20 years not that the chart show is particuarly representive of radio1s output nowadays. Could it be that all the genre specific shows are attracting the older audiences now as it's perhaps older people who know what style of music they like whereas maybe those under 21 are liking all the same sounding rnb hip hop stuff. Also if it's the breakfast show that has an older audience then you have to remember that no self respecting 18-30 year old is up before lunchtime lol!

The Lion King held the animated movie worldwide takings record for some time before being overtaken by several digitally animated releases (Pixar and Dreamworks films) in recent years. Methinks that Disney hopes that releasing this again in 3D (for maximum ticket pricing) will leapfrog it back to the top and reinstate them as top dog in the animated film market.

Oh Ok then, was from memory so I wasn't sure lol. Can't remember much else lingering at 2 without getting top spot in recent times. I know Frank Chacksfield did it for literally months in 1953 (but with breaks in the run).

I bought cassettes for years as they were usually half the price of CDs and often there were loads in the bargain bin too!

Thanks for that Bre. I also get the feeling that teen oriented music gets into the top 10 whilst 'older' oriented stuff will stall just before number ten. The one I remember personally was few years ago when a Pet Shop Boys comeback stalled at 11, that I was convinced would be a bigger hit.

I'm not suprised. Everyone I knew bought cassettes throughout much of the nineties. I stayed with them till 2003 when they stopped stocking them and I was forced to buy a CD player lol.

I think Destiny's Child - Lose My Breath was behind a different chart topper for each of it's 4 or 5 weeks at number two but not sure.

Hi I've often felt some of my favourite songs were often stalling at number 11 or finding it a struggle to get past that particular chart position. I'm thinking this could be why. Bre please could you tell me if you have stats for how many peaks below the top 10 this year and specifically how many at number 11, which I'm willing to bet is a rather higher number than for number 10.