Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two-Hit Wonders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Hah, I'd agree with the essence of your first paragraph there myself, albeit the cutoff date is more like 2011 for me. Ever since the Top 40's been in this identikit "ft." era, wall-to-wall, and it's completely left me cold.

    I can't actually remember the Encore part of Numb/Encore, though I must've heard it enough times. My complete lack of interest in Mr Z's burblings might have something to do with that, of course.

    Comment


      #77
      I'm a shred older than you, as well, of course. I started becoming disillusioned with the Top 40 - which had been an important part of my week as a young 'un - in the early nineties, when the majority of records started debuting at their peak position and then dropping gradually: that seemed to me to destroy any sense of competition between the acts involved, while killing off the possibility of a slow-burner that might take several weeks - or even months - to hit the business end of the survey.

      However, the sense of 'variety' was still there - and kept me interested until the millennium. Fans of dance music seemed to know all the indie, R&B or rap guys, etc - and vice versa. That doesn't exist anymore.

      Comment


        #78
        I still have an extremely well-thumbed copy of The Guinness Book Of Hit Singles 16th edition, which ends at the end of 2002. It means that my knowledge of the charts before and after then is like night and day... although I did try and "update" it for a year or two with footnotes and scraps of notepaper stapled in.

        It's kind of apt that 2002 is also the year that I left behind my teenage years, with all the peer pressure they entail. I still love all the bands I did then but my horizons have broadened to the extent that it'd probably be hard to believe that the MP3s stored on my phone are the musical tastes of one person.

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
          I'm a shred older than you, as well, of course. I started becoming disillusioned with the Top 40 - which had been an important part of my week as a young 'un - in the early nineties, when the majority of records started debuting at their peak position and then dropping gradually: that seemed to me to destroy any sense of competition between the acts involved, while killing off the possibility of a slow-burner that might take several weeks - or even months - to hit the business end of the survey.
          Heh, it would have seemed rude to mention the age gap (a decade or so, I think), so I didn't! I was only just getting into the charts in the early '90s so for me that's a halcyon era, but that's the way it works of course.

          The first Guinness Book of British Hit Singles I read and reread – actually my brother's – was the one ending 1992, though, and they were biennial at that point so I had to rely wholly on that one until the subsequent edition (ending 1994) finally came out in May 1995 or thereabouts. So I was definitely fully aware of how the nature of the charts was changing, since it was in that precise period (1993 onward) that Take That started really setting the trend for instant Number Ones that dropped off from an initial high, and it didn't take more than a year or two for that to become the complete norm.

          However, the sense of 'variety' was still there - and kept me interested until the millennium. Fans of dance music seemed to know all the indie, R&B or rap guys, etc - and vice versa. That doesn't exist anymore.
          Again, maybe it just took me longer to notice, or maybe it was just that I was more invested in the charts at the time so noticed more differences for longer, as it seemed later than that for me. But as I say, it's firmly melded and homogenised beyond my comprehension or interest now, for sure.
          Last edited by Various Artist; 21-06-2018, 22:18.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by (More Than) 3 Colours Rainbow View Post
            I still have an extremely well-thumbed copy of The Guinness Book Of Hit Singles 16th edition, which ends at the end of 2002. It means that my knowledge of the charts before and after then is like night and day... although I did try and "update" it for a year or two with footnotes and scraps of notepaper stapled in.

            It's kind of apt that 2002 is also the year that I left behind my teenage years, with all the peer pressure they entail. I still love all the bands I did then but my horizons have broadened to the extent that it'd probably be hard to believe that the MP3s stored on my phone are the musical tastes of one person.
            On the other hand, I'm evidently about 3 years older than you 3CR but I'm the same re my musical horizons and the variety of MP3s stored on my phone.

            I went on for one year beyond you, mind: my most recent copy owned is the 17th edition ending Dec. 2003. That one is a goldmine as it incorporated albums as well, and the last standalone Guinness Book of British Hit Albums had come out in an edition ending 1995, as I recall.

            I remember getting the last edition (ending end of 2006) out of Wellington Central Library when I lived in New Zealand at that time, but didn't buy a copy – with the best will in the world, I couldn't reasonably claim it was an essential item to lug around while backpacking etc. To my annoyance the rights went to Virgin Books after that so there were no more editions of the Guinness book; the Virgin replacement was greatly inferior. Copies of that last edition were, last I looked, still going for silly money due to this.

            Here's my little collection, anyway. Spot how well-thumbed that original one is:

            What? No, of course I couldn't throw out any of the old ones. I might need to refer back to them sometime, obviously.

            Comment


              #81
              I used to buy the new GBOBHS religiously when it came out - my first was the red issue published in 1979. (I never got into the habit of keeping the old copies, however - I think I moved around too much for that!) My most recent is also the green 2003 edition with album-chart info.

              I believe it was the white edition - which was published around 2000 - that was the first under new compilers. As a result, it was littered with some shocking mistakes and omissions. One example that comes to mind was the complete ignoring of at least one (possibly two) of Abba's chart-toppers from twenty years previously (possibly The Winner Takes It All). This made no sense to me whatsoever, since why wouldn't you just update what was in the preceding edition? In Abba's case, I doubt it would even have altered.

              We had that edition delivered to the offices at Never Mind the Buzzcocks: I had to stick a warning into the inside cover to this effect for the researchers. (The message was clear: if in doubt, just consult the Jah...)

              Originally posted by Various Artist View Post
              Heh, it would have seemed rude to mention the age gap (a decade or so, I think), so I didn't! I was only just getting into the charts in the early '90s so for me that's a halcyon era, but that's the way it works of course.

              The first Guinness Book of British Hit Singles I read and reread – actually my brother's – was the one ending 1992, though, and they were biennial at that point so I had to rely wholly on that one until the subsequent edition (ending 1994) finally came out in May 1995 or thereabouts. So I was definitely fully aware of how the nature of the charts was changing, since it was in that precise period (1993 onward) that Take That started really setting the trend for instant Number Ones that dropped off from an initial high, and it didn't take more than a year or two for that to become the complete norm.

              Again, maybe it just took me longer to notice, or maybe it was just that I was more invested in the charts at the time so noticed more differences for longer, as it seemed later than that for me. But as I say, it's firmly melded and homogenised beyond my comprehension or interest now, for sure.
              Instant number ones had become the norm around 1991, when six records debuted at the top, but, yeah, Take That were the first of the groups to make a habit of it since Slade. (Obviously, by the end of the nineties it was getting silly, with the likes of Westlife entering at number one with their first seven singles, or whatever.)

              In terms of chart variety, there was 'some' into the noughties (for example, guitar bands could still chart healthily) - but it doesn't compare with the seventies and eighties, when a record from completely out of the blue could pick up radio interest and subsequently become a massive hit. (The example I always cite here is, of course, Laurie Anderson's O Superman somehow reaching #2 late in 1981.)

              Comment


                #82
                I definitely had the one on the bottom of VA's pile, and one of the later ones, but haven't kept either, sadly.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                  I believe it was the white edition - which was published around 2000 - that was the first under new compilers. As a result, it was littered with some shocking mistakes and omissions. One example that comes to mind was the complete ignoring of at least one (possibly two) of Abba's chart-toppers from twenty years previously (possibly The Winner Takes It All). This made no sense to me whatsoever, since why wouldn't you just update what was in the preceding edition? In Abba's case, I doubt it would even have altered.
                  Oh my golly, I've just checked and you're quite right – it's Super Trouper, which should appear right after The Winner Takes It All in their final brace of Number Ones, but is inexplicably entirely missing. And I mean entirely: it doesn't appear in the alphabetical index of song titles either. How extraordinary.

                  Another puzzler is the realisation that that white one is the 12th edition, but the orange one directly above it in my pile is the 14th. I don't think they omitted a '13th' for luck reasons, and I don't recall skipping one, which would've been very unlike me, but if I did own it I have no clue what happened to it.

                  ...Hmmm, just looked on eBay and this is it, a blue cover that I don't recall at all. So maybe I didn't get around to buying that one:


                  I did own one more, which is the aforementioned long-awaited (10th) edition that came out in 1995. I think this one may have been the last to carry the Rice, Rice & Gambaccini authors' credit:

                  But I lent that one to someone only a year after I got it and they never returned it...* so I had to go back to the battered old pink 9th edition that belonged to my brother for a further year again after that.

                  Most of the old ones are going for a handful of quid on eBay, but the most recent one I can see copies of, 2006's 19th edition, is still being offered for £18-20. If that's the last one Guinness did, this tallies with my previous recollection of its continued high resale price.


                  (Edit: *She lent me her CD of Pink Floyd's The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn simultaneously, but although I returned that after a week she failed to ever reciprocate with my book, grrr.)
                  Last edited by Various Artist; 22-06-2018, 10:57.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    I think Virgin took up the mantle of publishing a similar tome if the shelves of my local Waterstone's are to be trusted. As you'd expect, it's absolutely fucking huge. It's also hideously out of date as the last volume was published in 2010.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Various Artist View Post
                      grrr
                      Nicely done.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Talking, as you were, about chart variety and how in the seventies and eighties it was possible for some real left field records to become hits, how much, do you think, is this due to the decline in influence of the disc jockey in the choice of music they play and the overformatting of radio today?

                        Also, perhaps the influence of the pop video? Is it possible to have a hit today without the accompanying video?

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Also, perhaps the influence of the pop video? Is it possible to have a hit today without the accompanying video?
                          I could be wrong but I sense music videos aren't quite as important today as they were in the 80's or 90's. Who was the last artist to make a string of ''event'' videos? Peak-era Lady Gaga maybe. You would know many of say Madonna's videos scene by scene but who the fuck amongst us can remember the contents of any of Ed Sheeran's videos (be thankful for small mercies)? Of course the slow motion collapse of the music industry's business model over the last two decades hasn't helped budgets. Same could probably be said of A&R which ties into your first point about the decline in variety.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by (More Than) 3 Colours Rainbow View Post
                            I think Virgin took up the mantle of publishing a similar tome if the shelves of my local Waterstone's are to be trusted. As you'd expect, it's absolutely fucking huge. It's also hideously out of date as the last volume was published in 2010.
                            Yes, I mentioned the rights going to Virgin above; it happened about a decade ago now. I think they'd only published a couple of editions though, so I'm not surprised to hear there hasn't been one since 2010. Of course, now everything is online and the Official Charts Company's own site is readily searchable, there's a relatively limited market for a print version of chart statistics.

                            The official charts site isn't a patch on the excellent but now defunct Chart Stats, alas, which was a labour of love by one bloke I think, and had a completely interlinked set of pages for every week and every artist in chart history, complete with uploaded images of 7"/CD single covers for virtually every hit. It was an outstanding thing, but got forcibly shut down by the OCC maybe five or six years ago when they decided to do the same sort of thing (though not as well) on their own site.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Mention of long term sales reminds me of this Twitter account which posts once a week.

                              https://twitter.com/PlaceYourHands/status/1009052138750832641

                              Comment


                                #90
                                (Who the utter f*** is still buying that^?)

                                Originally posted by adams house cat View Post
                                Talking, as you were, about chart variety and how in the seventies and eighties it was possible for some real left field records to become hits, how much, do you think, is this due to the decline in influence of the disc jockey in the choice of music they play and the overformatting of radio today?

                                Also, perhaps the influence of the pop video? Is it possible to have a hit today without the accompanying video?
                                I've made this point before (so bear with me), but I think that the decline is almost entirely down to the lack of a music 'hub' accessed by all: in days of yore, this was a combination of R1 and TOTP, which - for all their failings - still opened listeners up to a reasonable variety of genres. Fans of certain styles now simply go (generally online) where they know they can find their preferred sounds, effectively eliminating exposure to anything that they don't know. While it might increase convenience, it has done little for the good of the industry, IMO. To reflect this, radio has become disparate and formatted - more akin to the US set-up of the recent past. So, the DJs still have a role to play, but these days it's more as mere 'provider' than it is 'informer'.

                                Originally posted by Various Artist View Post
                                Yes, I mentioned the rights going to Virgin above; it happened about a decade ago now. I think they'd only published a couple of editions though, so I'm not surprised to hear there hasn't been one since 2010. Of course, now everything is online and the Official Charts Company's own site is readily searchable, there's a relatively limited market for a print version of chart statistics.

                                The official charts site isn't a patch on the excellent but now defunct Chart Stats, alas, which was a labour of love by one bloke I think, and had a completely interlinked set of pages for every week and every artist in chart history, complete with uploaded images of 7"/CD single covers for virtually every hit. It was an outstanding thing, but got forcibly shut down by the OCC maybe five or six years ago when they decided to do the same sort of thing (though not as well) on their own site.
                                Despite greater accuracy, the OCC website I find quite hard work, with its propensity for ads and graphics: for ease-of-access, I'd recommend this site - however, I have spotted one or two errors over the past couple of years:

                                http://www.umdmusic.com/default.asp?...nglish&Chart=A
                                Last edited by Jah Womble; 26-06-2018, 09:45.

                                Comment


                                  #91
                                  Re: Reef's "Place Your Hands"

                                  Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                                  (Who the utter f*** is still buying that^?)
                                  87 people purchased it last week (I have access to such things), with the balance made up of 'sales contributions' from streaming.

                                  I would imagine it's on a few 'Lads Lads Lads Geezer Music For Top Boys' style playlists across Spotify and Apple Music.

                                  Comment


                                    #92
                                    I had to laugh at your description of that 'playlist' there AB.

                                    Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                                    Despite greater accuracy, the OCC website I find quite hard work, with its propensity for ads and graphics: for ease-of-access, I'd recommend this site - however, I have spotted one or two errors over the past couple of years: http://www.umdmusic.com/default.asp?...nglish&Chart=A
                                    No, I can't disagree re the OCC website – it does seem slow to me.

                                    Followed your link and I do recognise that site, so must have stumbled across it once or twice before. It's undoubtedly more straightforward, though could use some differentiation between what are otherwise rather hard-on-the-eye columns of superficially identical numbers. (And, on inspection, a couple of the columns are literally identical: why do peak position and total weeks on chart need to appear twice for every hit on that page?)
                                    I see what you mean about errors: I tried searching the site for Depeche Mode, and instantly noticed that their UK Number One 1997 album Ultra is listed as having reached no.3 – and that's on the very first page I looked up, which isn't a great start.

                                    Comment


                                      #93
                                      An error I found last week is that the Space who did "Magic Fly" is incorrectly merged with its 90s namesake.

                                      Comment


                                        #94
                                        I can't use the Official Charts site without an adblocker and a few custom user scripts to streamline the design somewhat. Otherwise it reaches dodgy streaming site levels of bloat.

                                        Comment


                                          #95
                                          Originally posted by Various Artist View Post
                                          I had to laugh at your description of that 'playlist' there AB.

                                          No, I can't disagree re the OCC website – it does seem slow to me.

                                          Followed your link and I do recognise that site, so must have stumbled across it once or twice before. It's undoubtedly more straightforward, though could use some differentiation between what are otherwise rather hard-on-the-eye columns of superficially identical numbers. (And, on inspection, a couple of the columns are literally identical: why do peak position and total weeks on chart need to appear twice for every hit on that page?)
                                          I see what you mean about errors: I tried searching the site for Depeche Mode, and instantly noticed that their UK Number One 1997 album Ultra is listed as having reached no.3 – and that's on the very first page I looked up, which isn't a great start.
                                          'Peak position' and 'weeks' should be read from left-to-right as 'up to this point' and then 'overall'. I find that aspect of it quite handy, tbh.

                                          It's badly-designed, yes, but it's clearly just some Joe Schmoe's project - so low applause can be given for that.

                                          The Depeche Mode album is a particularly odd one given that - if you navigate to its first week on the chart - there it is at #1...

                                          http://www.umdmusic.com/default.asp?...70503&ChMode=P

                                          Comment


                                            #96
                                            Ah yes, I just realised from that page what the two 'Peak position' columns are doing now!

                                            I own 17 of the albums in the Top 75 that week Ultra debuted at the top, I've just worked out – including both the #1 and the #75 (Dark Side Of The Moon), as it happens.

                                            I recall that specific week, musically speaking, as it was during a relatively brief period where Mark Goodier would both read out the Top 5 albums and play a track from the Number One somewhere in the middle of the Top 40 singles countdown on Radio 1 – a regrettably short-lived feature I only remember because of him playing the excellent Martin Gore-sung track Home this particular week, which would subsequently become the third single from the album (after Barrel Of A Gun and It's No Good), and I really liked it from the first time I heard it.

                                            Comment


                                              #97
                                              Originally posted by (More Than) 3 Colours Rainbow View Post
                                              I can't use the Official Charts site without an adblocker and a few custom user scripts to streamline the design somewhat. Otherwise it reaches dodgy streaming site levels of bloat.
                                              Christ almighty, I hadn't realised how much work my adblocker was doing to make the OCC site just about usable. Just had a look in a different browser after reading this comment of yours 3CR, and by crikey it's atrocious without the blocker. Man alive.

                                              Comment

                                              Working...
                                              X