spicefunk

Excellent point and ideas here! We can already see the record companies cashing in from deluxe versions, though i'm not sure that always translates to the singles doing better like it should- Leona is a force of nature so doesn't count! But looking at Duffy rain on your parade- did better than stepping stone but still not great. Rihanna did it well with Take a Bow though which lets face it was a pretty mediocre song so probably did well as it wasn't available elsewhere. Although pretty much whatever Rihanna releases at the moment is successful. RTW by take that was kind of stop gap and still is selling brilliantly, but it also shifted $h!tloads of Beautiful World the album too as they did a tour edition (a deluxe of sorts) which was limited and included it. I'm sure a huge amount of those buying it already had the original BW. 2 singles b4 an album used to be quite common, but really is getting rare now unless its your debut album, and sometimes not even then. In the 90s many artists wouldn't dream of rolling out album #1 until they had released at least 2 singles! Weirdly, there is also the phenomenon of releasing the 2nd single right after the album, rather than releasing the album right after 1st single, like Call the Shots by GA. This shouldn't logically work, but CTS did great for them! :wacko:

Zeus i have looked into this as you got me intrigued with the technicalities. Love me do indeed as their debut reached no17 on its first foray in the charts. It then re-entered exactly 20 years later on and reached a peak of 4. While this is a long gap, it had the same catalogue number and was not officially a re-issue (unlike some of their other singles which have been), so in fact counts as a re-entry. Since the convention of recording a single's peak next to its release date is adhered to (NOT the date it reached its peak), and guinness themselves used to list these records, i will reinsert this as a possible +1 to their run. However, i also note their 4th release was a duet with Tony Sheridan which only reached #48 so would break this run anyway (unless we exclude duets/featuring credits as we have given the option on for other artists). Therefore i will list it as 18 (+3 from the duet not including aint she sweet) (+3 from debut not including the duet). Basically their run should just be 18 but i'm trying to be inclusive here to keep everyone happy! :P Madonna is in a similar situation. She holds the record with 34 but if you count holiday (the 1st time) and borderline erroneously as reissues rather than re-entries her run looks to be 35 (The Virgin book does this annoyingly)

Since it didn't make top75 i suppose in a weird way it wouldn't count! Since even the industry chart only goes to 200 there's no real way to measure it. I had a feeling they had done something after Rock Steady but couldn't seem to find anything- now i know why :rofl: They would still have a run of 9 but just couldn't add to it if it was their last attempt at a single. Interesting to note of their 9 hits 5 were no1s- Basically they got more no1s that other positions combined :o

Thanks for the info Zeus. As i said in my original post, this was from memory- i'd love to say it was a misunderstanding as technical and well researched as you suggested but no! I will correct my original post :) Popbitch, thanks for your others, again i will add them to my post for completeness :)

off the top of my head stop the clocks by oasis made no2, not 1... hope that helps. will look more later

Anyone got a list of the biggest top 10 runs? From memory: Madonna 34 (and 17 on another occasion) Cliff 23 Westlife 23* Oasis 22 (excluding Oas*s wibling rivalry) Robbie 21 Elvis 20 (on reissue series and 10 on a separate run +10 if EPs excluded) Abba 18 Beatles 18 (+3)(+3) Boyzone 17* Girls Aloud 17 (+2*) Kylie 16* (and 13 on separate occasion) Steps 15* McFly 15 The Shadows 14 George Michael 14 Ronin Keating 14 Take That 14 Backstreet Boys 13 U2 13* Slade 12 Mariah Carey 12 Destiny's Child 11* Five 11* Eminem 10 (+3)(+4*) Pet Shop Boys 10 Spice Girls 10 911 10 Atomic Kitten 10* Honourable Mention: All Saints 9* those with a star * are the ones with the ability to extend their run. those with some controversy have the extra part of their run in brackets. Many of these have been mentioned, but for U2 their run is only maintained if featuring credits are excluded (in this case versus, this actually excludes a no 15 and a no 1 from their run). For Eminem the same applies, if feat. credits are ignored he gets a 13 run, if not a run of 10. Many of his featuring hits actually went top10, but one didn't though i believe it was released on a different label than his own, so if this was ignored on this basis his run would be 17 (then broken by a weird featuring credit with 50cent and Lloyds Bank?! this release had its CD sales and first few weeks downloads excluded due to a technicality with chart rules so some would say should not count either, in which case his run is still active) Feel free to post more anyone :) Added these to my list thanks popbitch and starred those potentially who can add to this :) Steps - 15 (Between 1998-2001) The Shadows - 14 (Between 1960-1963) Atomic Kitten - 10 (Between 2001-2005) 911 - 10 (Between 1996-1999) Pet Shop Boys - 10 (Between 1986-1990) George Michael - 14 (1991-2002) Mariah Carey - 12 (1992-1997) Slade - 12 (1971-1974)

i too have noted these points, thanks for the seconds :) top 10s is always going to be a thing but consecutive is going to be so much more unusual now

I don't really like Boyzone but it's not a bad song and it's sad if it ends their run! Anyone left with one? I can't think of any... except Westlife we'll never know where ST would have ended up, shame it happened really

bit shocking isn't it? though she's 89p for one track here or £5 for the album, know which i'd buy...

not bad! when is it out?

Hitting the nail on the head here. "Bias", that's the word. Rules are rules regardless of who you apply them to. I think yours seem sensible, though could there be a case for saying at least two should be met before something counts as a single for example? People like Amy Winehouse have had regular play of their whole albums on radio and prob have charted low as album cherrypicks for example that prob shouldn't count, but actually rereading your post these wouldn't have been promoted to radio as singles anyway would they so wouldn't count... :lol:

i think what 6weeks is saying (please correct me if i'm wrong 6weeks) is that on criteria ii) he suggests above st Trinians would count, as a promotional video was produced and released to music channels, and it was available to download individually?

thank you. Logic. No fan "just coz its them" justifications (not just applicable to GA)

you're right, this is only really relevant to chart enthusiasts/fans of bands implicated, but that's who's on Buzzjack my friend! I think the GA issue is played unless anyone has something to add other than the fans getting upset it might count which does apply to other artists in similar situations (though ST is such a weird situation, they should not get special treatment). What i'm asking about is in general what should count, and if there are exclusions (and a number of people have posted ideas about them) what should they be? can anyone put it all together?

thanks Ben :)

a whole campaign? So you think a single needs a video and physical (as you mentioned as part of this) but doesn't need to be included on a current album. hmmm interesting so we won't be counting Run as that wouldn't be fair to Leona, or Disturbia. I know what you mean though, an artist being so successful to chart some extra stuff doesn't seem fair if it denies them some records, but depending on the criteria that could happen. Zeus, expert of all things chart, any ideas on a solid definition of what counts/which of these it should/shouldn't apply to?

He's on a slowdown- contracted to EMI still but unhappy so working as slow as possible. This is why he's been so quiet of late. Doesn't need the money though does he? :lol:

Indeed the criteria is top10s not no1s, obviously when you realise the difference in no1s it shows the beatles were more successful in sales terms. The point regarding songs not on current studio albums is interesting too- in the case of GA should we also not count walk this way for example if we accept this logic and ignore st trinians?

Spiceworld did 192k in its 1st week. Still fastest selling for a female band ever i believe. Spice actually did less, but sold consistently for weeks, was in the top5 for like 6 months or something. Some 1-week sales are higher than 1st week sales also. Take That's Beautiful world sold 443k i think on Xmas week 2006 for example, and sure Spice sold amazingly this week too. Also Oasis Dig Out Your Soul must have just missed the top50- 200k in week 1

I don't think this thread was supposed to be about removing personal glory from any one artist but as often happens on buzzjack has turned into a GA debate. Disturbia by Rihanna had no single download available, no physical, but had a video- should we not count this as a single? Run was never planned as a single, yet after the success of live performance they recorded a video and it is only being downloaded as an album track. I doubt many people aren't counting these hits though. Bottom line, if St Trinians had been a success i'm sure you wouldn't be excluding it. I think the whole situation with it was mishandled personally, but the real issue is what counts as a single and doesn't. No-one is trying to alter 56 year old chart rules just to malign Girls Aloud. In the wider picture of the entire singles chart, they're not that important. What i think we need to do is arrive at some sort of decision at how downloads effect records such as these in general, and what does and doesn't count. Someone had the interesting idea of intention- if a record company intended it to be a single, admitted this and perhaps promoted it in some way it should count (regardless of format, video etc). Other ideas have included if it has a physical and/or video it should count regardless (what about radio airplay?). Other ideas is excluding tracks only available as album cherrypicks/B-side cherrypicks (where does this leave Rihanna/Leona?). In years gone by, Guinness would probably have had something to say about this, but Virgin has taken over and only publish data, not records. I believe the OCC only collates and publishes the charts, they don't invent/administrate different invented categories of records. Whatever the consensus i think we need to include/exclude things based on defined criteria, not whether they were successful enough for fans of any band to want to count them

Great idea to start posting this, it's one of the biggest i believe for anyone without an iPod :lol: is it compiled weekly based on one weeks sales (as opposed to itunes who seem to do some sort of rolling thing)?

Are you reading this Bertie? There's always a reason in every fanbase! This is a well known one but sadly (at least in Guinness eyes) is deemed to break their run, so you can see how St. Trinian's/others would share the same fate. Thanks for the info :D just shows how difficult it is getting now

Good spot. BBC is a reputable source. Thanks for posting. Only problem is, this biography is not a news article, but if you see if you scroll down (and check) it's actually just a copy paste job from wikipedia, which is not reputable as it is fan maintained! Potential rules regarding physicals/videos aside (although if we applied them as six weeks suggested St Trinians would count), my own feeling is St Trinians should not be considered to break their run. I am less sympathetic regarding Madge and Kylie's counter arguments however, though i think it's tragic in Kylie's case, she really wasn't up for that single (bloody record companies). The download era has thrown up many grey areas though. As i mentioned earlier, look at Disturbia for an example of this going the other way- or indeed Run! There isn't a single download is there? All sales are just album cherrypicks?

Nice mini review! Glad you liked it, it really is very good though i think the singles issue has been a problem for many :wacko:

hmmm, didn't notice it mentioned on there but you're right it would be great if OCC defined these records but they just publish the chart, they don't really consider individual records/measures of success. As far as they are concerned, if it charted on the singles chart, it's a single Why not give them an email though? :)