I'm intrigued that a pressing run of 5,977 copies in total is being considered enough to be a chart contender.
I know chart sales figures are a fraction of what they used to be, but even so...
I'm intrigued that a pressing run of 5,977 copies in total is being considered enough to be a chart contender.
I know chart sales figures are a fraction of what they used to be, but even so...
I'm sure you need around 80,000 - 100,000 to get a number one. The idea of GStQ getting to number is another ruse to make sure all those pretty blue singles sell out. It's had no end of reissues and has to be the most bootleged single of all time.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
I'm sure you need around 80,000 - 100,000 to get a number one. The idea of GStQ getting to number is another ruse to make sure all those pretty blue singles sell out. It's had no end of reissues and has to be the most bootleged single of all time.
It's a limited supply... and there is no reason why!
I'm sure you need around 80,000 - 100,000 to get a number one. The idea of GStQ getting to number is another ruse to make sure all those pretty blue singles sell out. It's had no end of reissues and has to be the most bootleged single of all time.
It's a limited supply... and there is no reason why!
Sadly UNIVERSAL doesn't scan as good as EMI. Goodbye A&M.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
I'm intrigued that a pressing run of 5,977 copies in total is being considered enough to be a chart contender.
I know chart sales figures are a fraction of what they used to be, but even so...
I thought the charts ran on downloads these days, but i could be wrong?
Is there a consensus on whether it was swindled out of the top spot first time around? Always sounded very plausible at least.
I'm intrigued that a pressing run of 5,977 copies in total is being considered enough to be a chart contender.
I know chart sales figures are a fraction of what they used to be, but even so...
I thought the charts ran on downloads these days, but i could be wrong?
Is there a consensus on whether it was swindled out of the top spot first time around? Always sounded very plausible at least.
It definitely outsold Rod Stewart and that is factual.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
I'm intrigued that a pressing run of 5,977 copies in total is being considered enough to be a chart contender.
I know chart sales figures are a fraction of what they used to be, but even so...
I thought the charts ran on downloads these days, but i could be wrong?
Is there a consensus on whether it was swindled out of the top spot first time around? Always sounded very plausible at least.
It definitely outsold Rod Stewart and that is factual.
Yeah, i definitely believe it. I recall watching an old itv investigation doc into chart compiling and the whole thing was corrupt from top to bottom, that would merely have been the tip of the iceberg.
Just bouncing off this, until SoundScan began to be used in the early 90s, the charts were always politics and guesswork. Nobody knew precisely how many copies of a record were sold that past week or how many times it was played on the radio—the two criteria for chart positions (jukebox plays might have been involved, too; can't recall). It was only when SoundScan came along and you could have instant reporting of sales that data became firmer. That was also when, to the industry's shock, there was clear evidence that suburban white kids actually bought a lot of hip hop and led the business to invest more resources into a genre that was regarded as a novelty for black kids.
edit: I'm speaking of the American context here. I expect the same thing was more or less was at work in the UK.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Just bouncing off this, until SoundScan began to be used in the early 90s, the charts were always politics and guesswork. Nobody knew precisely how many copies of a record were sold that past week or how many times it was played on the radio—the two criteria for chart positions (jukebox plays might have been involved, too; can't recall). It was only when SoundScan came along and you could have instant reporting of sales that data became firmer. That was also when, to the industry's shock, there was clear evidence that suburban white kids actually bought a lot of hip hop and led the business to invest more resources into a genre that was regarded as a novelty for black kids.
edit: I'm speaking of the American context here. I expect the same thing was more or less was at work in the UK.
More or less the same I'd say. Until mid 80s it was all done manually, certain sample stores would simply note down individual sales and then mail them to the chart compilers at the end of the week. I think wally worked in one of these stores for a while and often attested as to how easy it was to do some creative accounting. Then it was all computerised leading, supposedly, to no hyping of the charts anymore!
Just bouncing off this, until SoundScan began to be used in the early 90s, the charts were always politics and guesswork. Nobody knew precisely how many copies of a record were sold that past week or how many times it was played on the radio—the two criteria for chart positions (jukebox plays might have been involved, too; can't recall). It was only when SoundScan came along and you could have instant reporting of sales that data became firmer. That was also when, to the industry's shock, there was clear evidence that suburban white kids actually bought a lot of hip hop and led the business to invest more resources into a genre that was regarded as a novelty for black kids.
edit: I'm speaking of the American context here. I expect the same thing was more or less was at work in the UK.
Bob Vylan recently posted about his new album being in various charts with pretty high numbers. I dont imagine he was able to move a lot of physical product in a short period when he's a DIY artist but I could certainly see him getting a shit ton of downloads.
Just bouncing off this, until SoundScan began to be used in the early 90s, the charts were always politics and guesswork. Nobody knew precisely how many copies of a record were sold that past week or how many times it was played on the radio—the two criteria for chart positions (jukebox plays might have been involved, too; can't recall). It was only when SoundScan came along and you could have instant reporting of sales that data became firmer. That was also when, to the industry's shock, there was clear evidence that suburban white kids actually bought a lot of hip hop and led the business to invest more resources into a genre that was regarded as a novelty for black kids.
edit: I'm speaking of the American context here. I expect the same thing was more or less was at work in the UK.
More or less the same I'd say. Until mid 80s it was all done manually, certain sample stores would simply note down individual sales and then mail them to the chart compilers at the end of the week. I think wally worked in one of these stores for a while and often attested as to how easy it was to do some creative accounting. Then it was all computerised leading, supposedly, to no hyping of the charts anymore!
Yeah, reliance on charts is about a shared agreement over sketchy evidence. It’s bad enough to confuse quantity (sales) with quality (music), but even the quantity side is questionable. Which is why chart position is always such a weak basis for a music argument.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Just bouncing off this, until SoundScan began to be used in the early 90s, the charts were always politics and guesswork. Nobody knew precisely how many copies of a record were sold that past week or how many times it was played on the radio—the two criteria for chart positions (jukebox plays might have been involved, too; can't recall). It was only when SoundScan came along and you could have instant reporting of sales that data became firmer. That was also when, to the industry's shock, there was clear evidence that suburban white kids actually bought a lot of hip hop and led the business to invest more resources into a genre that was regarded as a novelty for black kids.
edit: I'm speaking of the American context here. I expect the same thing was more or less was at work in the UK.
More or less the same I'd say. Until mid 80s it was all done manually, certain sample stores would simply note down individual sales and then mail them to the chart compilers at the end of the week. I think wally worked in one of these stores for a while and often attested as to how easy it was to do some creative accounting. Then it was all computerised leading, supposedly, to no hyping of the charts anymore!
Yeah, reliance on charts is about a shared agreement over sketchy evidence. It’s bad enough to confuse quantity (sales) with quality (music), but even the quantity side is questionable. Which is why chart position is always such a weak basis for a music argument.
Thats undoubtedly true, for all I religiously followed them up to the mid 80s, and given how dramatically chart position and totp could boost real sales, it's easy to see how open to corruption it could be. Brass in Pocket is one song i recall to have allegedly received a helpful "boost" and I can imagine there being many many more.
Just bouncing off this, until SoundScan began to be used in the early 90s, the charts were always politics and guesswork. Nobody knew precisely how many copies of a record were sold that past week or how many times it was played on the radio—the two criteria for chart positions (jukebox plays might have been involved, too; can't recall). It was only when SoundScan came along and you could have instant reporting of sales that data became firmer. That was also when, to the industry's shock, there was clear evidence that suburban white kids actually bought a lot of hip hop and led the business to invest more resources into a genre that was regarded as a novelty for black kids.
edit: I'm speaking of the American context here. I expect the same thing was more or less was at work in the UK.
More or less the same I'd say. Until mid 80s it was all done manually, certain sample stores would simply note down individual sales and then mail them to the chart compilers at the end of the week. I think wally worked in one of these stores for a while and often attested as to how easy it was to do some creative accounting. Then it was all computerised leading, supposedly, to no hyping of the charts anymore!
Yeah, reliance on charts is about a shared agreement over sketchy evidence. It’s bad enough to confuse quantity (sales) with quality (music), but even the quantity side is questionable. Which is why chart position is always such a weak basis for a music argument.
Thats undoubtedly true, for all I religiously followed them up to the mid 80s, and given how dramatically chart position and totp could boost real sales, it's easy to see how open to corruption it could be. Brass in Pocket is one song i recall to have allegedly received a helpful "boost" and I can imagine there being many many more.
Not a thing in North America, but the significance of a Christmas number one in the UK seriously invites corruption thru hyping and tamping down.
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back in Whittier, they're not much bigger than two meters.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Just bouncing off this, until SoundScan began to be used in the early 90s, the charts were always politics and guesswork. Nobody knew precisely how many copies of a record were sold that past week or how many times it was played on the radio—the two criteria for chart positions (jukebox plays might have been involved, too; can't recall). It was only when SoundScan came along and you could have instant reporting of sales that data became firmer. That was also when, to the industry's shock, there was clear evidence that suburban white kids actually bought a lot of hip hop and led the business to invest more resources into a genre that was regarded as a novelty for black kids.
edit: I'm speaking of the American context here. I expect the same thing was more or less was at work in the UK.
More or less the same I'd say. Until mid 80s it was all done manually, certain sample stores would simply note down individual sales and then mail them to the chart compilers at the end of the week. I think wally worked in one of these stores for a while and often attested as to how easy it was to do some creative accounting. Then it was all computerised leading, supposedly, to no hyping of the charts anymore!
Yeah, reliance on charts is about a shared agreement over sketchy evidence. It’s bad enough to confuse quantity (sales) with quality (music), but even the quantity side is questionable. Which is why chart position is always such a weak basis for a music argument.
Thats undoubtedly true, for all I religiously followed them up to the mid 80s, and given how dramatically chart position and totp could boost real sales, it's easy to see how open to corruption it could be. Brass in Pocket is one song i recall to have allegedly received a helpful "boost" and I can imagine there being many many more.
Timing of the release. Then getting people to go into chart return shops to buy up all available copies. But with God Save the Queen it would've outsold Rod Stewart on presales alone.
It was a record that scared the establishment and they were not having those nasty punks ruining their Jubilee celebrations. But really if it had only got to number 10 it was still job done. Beautiful rock n roll record.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
