DanChartFan

Who else has just seen the Sport Relief performance of Especially For You, with two Jasons for the price of one! Surely a few thousand sales will be made now and it'll go to the magic million!

But the original poster was suggesting that some tracks were available early on streaming sites as they were included on certain compilations which were available to stream, so they wouldn't be a legal download or physical format.

euro music, £30 was the price just about everywhere that was selling it anyway.

I honestly thought it had been announced a million seller already. And they DID reprise it not so long ago at the Stock Aitken Waterman 25 years thing that had to be rearranged in December after the original venue was flooded in mid summer. Footage of that reprisal did the rounds online, if not on TV, and must have helped them gain a fair few more sales.

Oops my bad, sorry :blush:

Frankie can't have had three separate stints at the top in only 4 weeks, as he would need at least 2 weeks offs the top to make them separate. I think it's just that his tied week is listed separately in order to make the tie clear, rather than it being a separate stint.

I not convinced that including streaming in the main chart is a good idea at all tbh. For a start there is (at least currently) no need. Contrary to what some have said it isn't the same scenario as when they started counting downloads, for the simple reason that in that instance sales were dropping off so rapidly that very soon they would have had to compile a top 4 rather than 40 due to a lack of physical releases. In this instance though sales are not only healthy, I think I'm right in saying that 2012 and 2013 have been record breaking, selling more units than previous record high years such as 1978 and 1984, so I can't see that the charts need a change. Also a stream just isn't a purchase the way that a download is one, so they aren't comparable, and any attempt to make them so will probably involve complex chart rules which change most years with the changing ratios of the download and streaming markets. I just don't think that a Sales chart that has existed at least since 1969 (and right back to 1952 in a slightly different format but still attempting to reflect sales only) needs to suddenly change to some sort of vague hybrid chart. My final thought on the matter... Back in the 60s to 80s or so there was a service offered by BT, called something like 'Dial a disc', whereby you dialled a premium number and listened to the chart record of you choice in glorious British Telecom mono. Now I think the service charged a reasonable amount per minute, and I believe at times it was a relatively popular service, but I would be astonished if anyone in those had ever considered adding the call data for the service to any singles chart, because no one would ever have considered a listen on 'dial a disc' to be in any way the same thing as a purchase, even though the 'dial a disc' listeners were still paying money for their listen (via their unsuspecting parents phone bill most likely). I don't see how streaming is in any way different really and I would prefer them to keep a sales only chart as the main chart, though by all means create a new streaming chart that gets some coverage too, just not in the main chart please.

I've collected a few DVD singles more recently, but never really bought them new, except by mistake once or twice, when the labels decided to put them in the same size cases as the CD single and HMV/Virgin compounded that by mixing them together on the same shelf in their chart wall, but that was 10 years ago or more when I barely even knew what a DVD was. I do have a Paramore single on another unusual format that was also supposedly gonna take off and save the physical single. It's a CD on one side of the disc, but flip it over and the other side was a vinyl recording to be played on a record player!

Releasing multiple formats to get a higher chart position actually predates Oasis by some way. The Jam were pioneers of it back in the late 70s and early 80s, with multiple vinyls, and on one occasion prevented The Stranglers Golden Brown from topping the chart purely due to their multi format sales, although The Stranglers had sold more of their main 7" version than The Jam had of theirs. Cliff Richard also had his xmas number one, Saviour's Day, unexpectedly dethroned early during the 1990/1 new year, due to a heavily multi-format campaign by Iron Maiden.

One track that came close to a BBC ban was Lola by The Kinks, not because of the references to a tranvestitism/transexuality, but because of the mention of the trademark Coca-Cola in the lyrics. I think I read that it was the BBC that pressured The Kinks to change the lyric to 'cherry cola' to avoid advertising. Of course about 30 years later the beeb was strangely less concerned about mentioning the Coca-Cola brand when they were the chart sponsors.

You know what I don't think a very high percentage of the general public would remember Holler/Let Love Lead The Way. By the time of this single they had just released their third album, which compared to the previous two was something of a flop, and overall the buzz and public interest in the Spice Girls was very much on the wane, hence no 4th studio album, and no more singles releases until Headlines, which was basically a passable bonus track from their greatest hits anyway. I have to agree with @Knightr634 that Who Do You Think You Are/Mama would be remembered by rather more people than Holler/LLTL, and in any case there are plenty of double-a side releases by other artists that would be even more famous still. Tbh the double A-side was already on the way out even in 2000, due to it being over used as a marketing tool by the big record labels, alongside the whole CD1 and CD2 racket, and people therefore becoming wary of them. P.S. @fchd I remember buying Here And Now/You'll Be Sorry when it was out, and still have the cassingle somewhere, and I think I still remember what it sounded like. I think the lyrics were something like "Here and now, I'm gonna be the one for you, and everything you want me to, so I'm saving all my love, here and now", but I'm just going to find the Steps greatest hits to see if my memory is serving me correctly.

Boyzone's No Matter What was taken off the shelves quite abruptly for their next single, which missed the top spot. And of course who knows how long Wet Wet Wet's Love Is All Around would have gone on for if the band hadn't personally halted the single whilst it was still at number one.

Last weekend I heard an uptempo version of Angels in at least two different clubs, so possibly they are getting behind this, and I intended to find and download the uptempo version anyway, so may as well do it this week and add my vote to the total.

Just to add that in the days of generic sleeved vinyl, the promotion of one side and then the other side, alongside the fact that often people never bothered to play the b-sides of the records they owned, meant you could potentially fool the same fans into buying the same disc again simply by promoting the second side as the act in question's 'new single' without mentioning that it was the other side of their last single. This tactic is rumoured to be why Boney M's Rivers Of Babylon/Brown Girl In The Ring managed 2m sales and such chart longevity.

In the days of physical records, particularly 7" vinyls, there was a track on each side of the disc, the lead track, the one being promoted, was the A-side, and the other side was the B-side. Sometimes the B-side was an inferior track, but often there were some good songs there. In the case of some artists the record label decided to promote both sides, for example Elvis Presley had different followings on each side of the Atlantic in the late 50s and early 60s, so one side would be more to US tastes and one to UK tastes. In these case where both sides were being promoted, either at the same time, or a few weeks apart to prolong the chart life of the record, they would be said to be 'Double A-sides'. When the age of the CD came in and more tracks began to be put on a disc, the double a-side began to lose it's role in the marketing of singles, although TV crooners Robson and Groan managed to have a number one with a treble A-side at one point in the mid 90s. In the age of the download the rules for double a-sides governing which sales can be added together and which have to be excluded are rather complicated, and the exclusions can make or break a singles success, as Leona Lewis found out when they made the difference between Better In Time/Footprints In The Sand from getting the top spot and not getting it, although this is nothing new as the various charts disagreed about combining or separating the sides even in the early 50s, which is odd considering you either bought the disc with both sides on it, or bought no disc.

I've done a little research here, and wonder if there is some sort of error. According to the bbc website Nick Grimshaw played Scatman twice consecutively and then one more time after one other track during his show on 20/01/2014. On his next show on 21/01/2014 Nick apparently played Scatman 5 times consecutively. So he would appear to account for all 8 plays in just two shows!!!!!!

How is Scatman John being played 8 times in one week by Radio 1? Is there some sort of campaign or re-emergence of the track that I should be aware of? I would love to see the track re-chart and gain new fans (and also see my younger friends faces when 20 years practice of lip synching to the track make me almost perfect at it lol).

Interesting thread. So before the change to a Sunday chart were Music Week publishing on the same day (Tues/Weds) that Radio 1 were first announcing the chart. Could it then have been an agreement that would theoretically have been in place for nearly 20 years at that point, to the effect that although Radio 1 had first announcement rights to the chart they would not announce the charts until the same day that Music Week published them, so as to not negatively affect Music Week's sales, which would presumably have been somewhat reliant on having the exclusive new chart in each issue. I'm just guessing though.

Re the emboldened part, there was certainly an example in the last year or two where the chart listed about three featured artists, yet they were not all on the same version so the credit as listed on the chart did not in itself match any of the versions, unfortunately I can't remember which track it was. I may have exaggerated somewhat by saying there was a tendency to do this, but there equally is the possibility for this to happen with any track that has multiple versions featuring different artists on different versions, so there must be at least a few incidences out there.

I think if the ft is there to draw attention to the contribution of a new upcoming artist (for example Ella Eyre on a Rudimental hit last year), or if it's there to recognise that a particular contribution was sizable then fair enough, but when you get a list of several featured artists it's almost a mathematically certainty that their contributions were not that huge. You have to remember that even decades ago popular artists, as well as minor ones, often made contributions to other artist's music if they were in the same studios, for example check out this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncredited_background_singer, perhaps it was mildly unfair they went uncredited but it also made it instantly clearer who's single it was meant to be in the first place, and therefore easier to remember to buy it by simply remembering it as whoever's latest single. Do we really want a situation in the future where every background singer, contract musician and studio engineer and producer always has to be listed as a featured artist? I also don't like the tendency now to list multiple featured artists in situations where for example the main artist and one featured one appear on all versions, but the several other featured artists only appear on one particular version each, I mean we know there will be dozens of versions of a track available nowadays and we know that one obvious way of making alternative versions is to release versions involving every possible combination of the artists involved, but usually there is one combination that is by far the main version, and that is the only version who's featured artists need go down in chart history for that track. Finally on a related note, a little pet hate of mine is downloads, CDs and sometimes some sources of chart stats, where the featured artists become a bracketed part of the title instead of being part of the artist credits, as I've never quite understood that (apart from it possibly being a space consideration on databases maybe), so I spend ages changing the titles and artist credits on anything I download or rip from CD on my own iTunes.

Physical definitely. Firstly as I will always want a back-up plan in case iTunes goes wrong or goes altogether etc and also in the past when I've attempted to download full albums I've failed to obtain every track, despite complaining and being given renewed access to the download to try again, so to me physicals will always give me more confidence. Though having said that I only really buy Now albums (as a physical back-up of most singles now that CD singles are never stocked) and the odd reduced album nowadays.

It quite likely will be. I think I'm right in saying that the majority of new million sellers and trickle-over-the-line classics that become million sellers only get a short way over the million mark at best, whereas Will is comfortably over by quite a margin.

Saying that I've not seen a single copy in any shop yet, and I've been in Tesco and specifically looked for it in HMV. It's not like they've sold out since she has had such a low seller there should be a shedload left over, unless they didn't bother to make that many this year in the first place. Can't believe we're listening to this time-filling dribble again (or the interview just now...)

Interesting that in the same week that a new presenter starts on the 'network' chart show, and one with a big fanbase, the BBC chart show is giving its regular host a week off and covering for them with someone not exactly associated with chart music. Can't decide if they are waving the white flag at the commercial opposition, or whether they think the novelty of a guest host on their chart show might stop people being tempted to turn the dial to the new boyband presenter on the rival show. Probably though it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

I guess you never listened to the chart show when Reggie was presenting it then, totally unregimented and at times he seemingly forgot it was meant to be a chart show at all. In comparison Jameela has, in my opinion, actually brought back some regimentation and some semblance of an actual chart show. In the Reggie days we'd be given 'facts' that were regularly wrong, and he'd spend a lot of time reading texts like "I'm doing the washing up" and "I'm just eating sprouts" that had no place in a chart show, whereas Jameela just plays the records and concentrates on the chart itself for the most part.