braindeadpj

Isn't this in contravention of their own rules? Rein Me In emerged triumphant after a short, sharp and successful social media campaign for fans to download the track on Thursday (30 July) boosted its digital sales from 562 to that point, to 3,865 just 24 hours later. The incentives to do so before the chart deadline, at a 59p price point, included prizes of Official Charts Fan Awards and T-Shirts with, appropriately, 19 of each available. Or are they covered if they say Purchase not required...? If it is in contravention i wouldn't be surprised if Shakira's management kick up a fuss about that...

So 15 weeks at No.1 without ACR...

The OCC did not run the charts in 1953 and there's no such thing as an official chart from 1953 no matter what the OCC want you to think, so no, I disagree. There also was not streaming in 1953 so again it's still a fake overturning of the record as you're not comparing like with like and as Hadji says the record has already been broken by Last Christmas which is on 20 weeks...

They should not be comparing pre and post streaming records as its apples and oranges. It'll also be a fake break of the record if it manages it, as has happened with several other records since ACR was instigated, as it's only at 14 not 18 weeks, without ACR.

So Rein Me In is adding around 4,000 more to its total than Man I Need (based on the last 2 weeks). We have 22 (0r 23 if you go by which year the sales were in) weeks left and its 105,000 behind. If everything stays the same, Man I Need wil remain No.1 by ~17,000 (or 13,000 if you count the chart on 1/1/2027)...

The catalogue number shows which album the sales/streams are being applied to. If the catalogue number is for the 2011 box set and not the debut album, then that is what they're applying it to and NOT the debut album.

This may relate to which album the record company asked for the streams to be assigned to, but yes, I agree it's wrong to assign a record that is not on the album because its a remix/live version of the track that is on the album etc to an albums stream's... and of course personally I think it's wroing that streams count twice...once for an album and once for a greatest hits package...

Essentially since we've gone from measuring sales to measuring plays, it is not fair to compare records pre and post streaming, and its a disservice to the charts to do so. I know they are just trying to drum up interest, but it's all fake anyway now since they don't even represent the most 'played' some weeks (in particular when records are supposedly set or broken...)...

The problem is that previously records were purchased and that was it. They could be played 4 million times a day (or never) and it wouldn't affect the charts, but now people don't buy the record, they rent it from the streaming companies each play, and we are measuring every single time they listen to it (or at least up to the player limit per week). The act of consumption is completely different and therefore it is completely wrong to compare prior and new achievements as they are based on completely different things. This is what the OCC need to change; comparing old records achieved with purchases to those based on listening (streaming).

yes, the "official" No.1 has had essentially no meaning since 2017 once it stopped being the biggest song by sales and sale-equivalent streams.

Yes it's only in its 14th week without ACR. Also Ordinary has already equalled I Believe's record of 18 weeks and Last Christmas has surpassed it with 20 weeks.

That makes sense. For some reason the Record Mirror LP charts did remain hidden for a while but were 're-discovered' later and retconned as 'official' until Melody Maker started In October 1958 with South Pacific at No.1 continuously (though there are 6 weeks for a printer's strike in 1959 where the Melody Maker No. 1 LP is unknown (though probably was still South Pacific)). Of course if they'd kept with Melody Maker instead of reverting to Record Retailer in March 1960, the continous run at No.1 would've been 17 weeks longer (or if they'd used Record Mirror for longer it would've been slightly less continuous)!

Afraid not, the frst tie was February 16th 1957 for King and I and High Society. https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/albums-chart/19570210/7502/ There were several others on the Record Mirror and Melody Maker charts, but that may be the first tie in Record Retailer/Music Week....

13 weeks so far in 2026 for the Top 2 - Man I Need was No. 1 for only 4 of those weeks...No top 3 in 2026; 2 weeks of 3 in the Top 5 and 1 of 4 in the Top 10.

Of course The Rolling Stones are already at 13 No.1s (and actually 15 No.1 Albums if you count the reissues separately as OOC does) because of the 'missing week' in the 4th October 1969 issue when Abbey Road debuted at No. 1 and RR published the current album chart instead of being a week in arrears as per usual since March 1969 and BMRB taking over... RM printed the correct week in arrears chart and had Through the Past Darkly at No.1 (also confirmed as No.1 by the last week positions of the RR chart).