Singles
-------
The Comic Relief version of Proclaimers '500 Miles' easily holds on at 
#1. :(

New Entries/Climbers
--------------------
Top 10 : Avril Lavigne #2, Alex Gaudino #3, Fergie #6
Top 20 : Seamus Haji #13, Christina #17, KINGS OF LEON #18
Top 30 : Mel C #24, Ciara #28
Top 40 : AIR TRAFFIC #33, FAITHLESS #38

New outside the top 40 : Holloways #41, Marillion #45, Mika #48, Cat 
Stevens #52, Darren Styles #70 + plus a re-entry for Elton John at #62, 
with 'Rocket Man'.

An unexpectedly large drop for 'Babes Aloud'.

Albums
------
Take That retain the #1 spot, depite a strong challenge from Elton John.

NE's (top 20) : Doors #16, Machine Head #16.


New outside the top 20 : Hilary Duff #25, Bees #26, Brett Anderson #54, 
Good Shoes #55, Madina Lake #60, Magnum #70

And WTF happened to Kelly Jones?? He was #2 on Monday with 6.5k, and 
even if he didn't sell another copy all week, that would be enough for a 
top 40 place.


Next Week
---------
Singles
-------
Surely still Proclaimers (CR). :(

Top 10 : Avril
Top 20 : Ciara MCR, Mark Ronson
Top 30 : Stefy, Erasure, GB&Q
Top 40 : Bloc Party, Timbaland/NF/JT

Also, if this week's Marillion position was on downloads, they should go 
top 20 on physicals.

Albums
------
Kings Of Leon must have a chance of #1, on what's likely to be a very 
low sales week.

Top 20 NE : Maximo Park, Proclaimers
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> An unexpectedly large drop for 'Babes Aloud'.
>

Good. They deserve it.
Take a minor rock classic and turn it into insipid mush
and that's what you get. I hope this ghastly track
drops quicker than a whore's knickers.
And I don't care if it is for charidee, it's still shit.
-- 
Col

That's your excuse for everything isn't it, being dead!

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Albums
> ------
> NE's (top 20) : Doors #16, Machine Head #16.

????

-- 
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

>
> New outside the top 40 : Holloways #41, Marillion #45, Mika #48, Cat

Marillion's new album is fab!

Paul Hyett wrote:

 > Also, if this week's Marillion position was on downloads, they should go
 > top 20 on physicals.

It's a download only release, so no actual CD. Marillion are one of 
those bands that thrive on their net following.

-- 
On a lonely planet spinning its way to damnation amid the fear and
despair of a broken human race, who is left to fight for all that is
good and pure and gets you smashed for under a fiver? Yes, it's the
surprising adventures of me, That Dog That Bit Tom Baker's Face!

In article <eup6eu$cpa$1@news.freedom2surf.net>, 
theunnaturalist@scientist.com says...
> Paul Hyett wrote:
>  > Also, if this week's Marillion position was on downloads, they should go
>  > top 20 on physicals.
> 
> It's a download only release, so no actual CD. Marillion are one of 
> those bands that thrive on their net following.

Largely due to the fact that most of that following is too old to get to 
the shops any more.
-- 
SAm.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:02:32 GMT, Rich Mackin 
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:

> "Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
> news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Albums
>> ------
>> NE's (top 20) : Doors #16, Machine Head #16.
>
> ????

You mean you haven't heard the collaboration between Rob Flynn and Jim
Morrison? 

mh.
-- 
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

> Largely due to the fact that most of that following is too old to get to
> the shops any more.

Take that back! My zimmer frame was perfectly able to get to the stores 
today!

And their new album is fab.

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Col  
wrote :
>
>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>
>> An unexpectedly large drop for 'Babes Aloud'.
>>
>
>Good. They deserve it.
>Take a minor rock classic and turn it into insipid mush
>and that's what you get. I hope this ghastly track
>drops quicker than a whore's knickers.
>And I don't care if it is for charidee, it's still shit.

So is the new version of the Proclaimers classic, but that hasn't sunk 
(yet) as IMO it deserves to.

R1 DJ's seem to think people are buying the original version by mistake, 
but ISTM that most are buying it because it's a far better version.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Paul Hyett 
 wrote :
>
>Albums
>------
>Take That retain the #1 spot, depite a strong challenge from Elton John.
>
>NE's (top 20) : Doors #16, Machine Head #16.

S/b Doors #15.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, That Dog That Bit Tom Baker's 
Face  wrote :
>
>> Also, if this week's Marillion position was on downloads, they should go
>> top 20 on physicals.
>
>It's a download only release, so no actual CD. Marillion are one of 
>those bands that thrive on their net following.
>
I'm not sure many artists would regard a mere #45 placing as 'thriving', 
though.

Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the 
tracks appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks 
> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.

I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what they 
want and record what they want to be thriving.

That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's 
nothing new. I used to buy singles like that in the 1990s. Limited edition 
picture disc, CD2 with different tracks, etc. Usually cheap as well.

It's more like 10K+ on their mailing list, apparently.

Jeremiah Harbottle wrote:
>> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
>> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks 
>> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
> 
> I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what they 
> want and record what they want to be thriving.
> 
> That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's 
> nothing new. I used to buy singles like that in the 1990s. Limited edition 
> picture disc, CD2 with different tracks, etc. Usually cheap as well.

To a large extent, this is why singles sales were so high in the 
mid-90s, to about 2001. People were often buying a single on 3 formats, 
CD1, CD2 and the cassette, at the same time. It was when cassettes died 
out as a valid format in the early 2000s that this multi-formatting also 
seemed to start to die out too.

Often when a single sold 200,000 copies first week in the late 90s there 
were only 70,000 or so individual purchasers (the chart compilers report 
sales by format as well as overall total, CD1 was usually the benchmark 
for calculating how many individuals purchased a song - it's all 
different now of course).


-- 
Robbie

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Jeremiah Harbottle 
 wrote :

>> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore
>> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks
>> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
>
>I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what they
>want and record what they want to be thriving.

But without significant mainstream sales - how are they any different 
from a *new* band?
>
>That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's
>nothing new.

No, but most artists don't have to *rely* on it.
>
>It's more like 10K+ on their mailing list, apparently.

But clearly only a few thousand of those are people who'll buy 
*everything*.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:IH$3TiCb5JEGFwyB@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Col 

>>
>>Good. They deserve it.
>>Take a minor rock classic and turn it into insipid mush
>>and that's what you get. I hope this ghastly track
>>drops quicker than a whore's knickers.
>>And I don't care if it is for charidee, it's still shit.
>
> So is the new version of the Proclaimers classic, but that hasn't sunk 
> (yet) as IMO it deserves to.

I find the Proclaimers highly irriitating.
Nothing wrong with distinctive accents coming through
on records, but really those voices seriously grate on me.

> R1 DJ's seem to think people are buying the original version by mistake, 
> but ISTM that most are buying it because it's a far better version.

I would assume The Proclaimers are donating the proceeds of
that to Comic Relief..
-- 
Col

That's your excuse for everything isn't it, being dead!

"Jeremiah Harbottle"  wrote in message 
news:4610df23.0@entanet...
>> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
>> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks 
>> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
>
> I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what 
> they want and record what they want to be thriving.

Well, that in itself is neither thriving nor not thriving - after all, I 
*can* release any music I like. It's just that I can't expect people to buy 
it.

> That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's 
> nothing new. I used to buy singles like that in the 1990s. Limited edition 
> picture disc, CD2 with different tracks, etc. Usually cheap as well.

Very much true (although personally I never did that in 1990s).

> It's more like 10K+ on their mailing list, apparently.

But evidently not all of them downloaded the song this week - mind you, I 
presume that's an international figure.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Col  
wrote :
>
>> R1 DJ's seem to think people are buying the original version by mistake,
>> but ISTM that most are buying it because it's a far better version.
>
>I would assume The Proclaimers are donating the proceeds of
>that to Comic Relief..

I wonder if anyone's asked them? What about the proceeds from their 
re-released GH album...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> An unexpectedly large drop for 'Babes Aloud'.
>

Good. They deserve it.
Take a minor rock classic and turn it into insipid mush
and that's what you get. I hope this ghastly track
drops quicker than a whore's knickers.
And I don't care if it is for charidee, it's still shit.
-- 
Col

That's your excuse for everything isn't it, being dead!

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Albums
> ------
> NE's (top 20) : Doors #16, Machine Head #16.

????

-- 
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

>
> New outside the top 40 : Holloways #41, Marillion #45, Mika #48, Cat

Marillion's new album is fab!

Paul Hyett wrote:

 > Also, if this week's Marillion position was on downloads, they should go
 > top 20 on physicals.

It's a download only release, so no actual CD. Marillion are one of 
those bands that thrive on their net following.

-- 
On a lonely planet spinning its way to damnation amid the fear and
despair of a broken human race, who is left to fight for all that is
good and pure and gets you smashed for under a fiver? Yes, it's the
surprising adventures of me, That Dog That Bit Tom Baker's Face!

In article <eup6eu$cpa$1@news.freedom2surf.net>, 
theunnaturalist@scientist.com says...
> Paul Hyett wrote:
>  > Also, if this week's Marillion position was on downloads, they should go
>  > top 20 on physicals.
> 
> It's a download only release, so no actual CD. Marillion are one of 
> those bands that thrive on their net following.

Largely due to the fact that most of that following is too old to get to 
the shops any more.
-- 
SAm.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:02:32 GMT, Rich Mackin 
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:

> "Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
> news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Albums
>> ------
>> NE's (top 20) : Doors #16, Machine Head #16.
>
> ????

You mean you haven't heard the collaboration between Rob Flynn and Jim
Morrison? 

mh.
-- 
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

> Largely due to the fact that most of that following is too old to get to
> the shops any more.

Take that back! My zimmer frame was perfectly able to get to the stores 
today!

And their new album is fab.

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Col  
wrote :
>
>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>news:9OrqRrDLeAEGFwEm@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>
>> An unexpectedly large drop for 'Babes Aloud'.
>>
>
>Good. They deserve it.
>Take a minor rock classic and turn it into insipid mush
>and that's what you get. I hope this ghastly track
>drops quicker than a whore's knickers.
>And I don't care if it is for charidee, it's still shit.

So is the new version of the Proclaimers classic, but that hasn't sunk 
(yet) as IMO it deserves to.

R1 DJ's seem to think people are buying the original version by mistake, 
but ISTM that most are buying it because it's a far better version.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Paul Hyett 
 wrote :
>
>Albums
>------
>Take That retain the #1 spot, depite a strong challenge from Elton John.
>
>NE's (top 20) : Doors #16, Machine Head #16.

S/b Doors #15.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, That Dog That Bit Tom Baker's 
Face  wrote :
>
>> Also, if this week's Marillion position was on downloads, they should go
>> top 20 on physicals.
>
>It's a download only release, so no actual CD. Marillion are one of 
>those bands that thrive on their net following.
>
I'm not sure many artists would regard a mere #45 placing as 'thriving', 
though.

Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the 
tracks appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks 
> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.

I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what they 
want and record what they want to be thriving.

That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's 
nothing new. I used to buy singles like that in the 1990s. Limited edition 
picture disc, CD2 with different tracks, etc. Usually cheap as well.

It's more like 10K+ on their mailing list, apparently.

Jeremiah Harbottle wrote:
>> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
>> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks 
>> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
> 
> I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what they 
> want and record what they want to be thriving.
> 
> That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's 
> nothing new. I used to buy singles like that in the 1990s. Limited edition 
> picture disc, CD2 with different tracks, etc. Usually cheap as well.

To a large extent, this is why singles sales were so high in the 
mid-90s, to about 2001. People were often buying a single on 3 formats, 
CD1, CD2 and the cassette, at the same time. It was when cassettes died 
out as a valid format in the early 2000s that this multi-formatting also 
seemed to start to die out too.

Often when a single sold 200,000 copies first week in the late 90s there 
were only 70,000 or so individual purchasers (the chart compilers report 
sales by format as well as overall total, CD1 was usually the benchmark 
for calculating how many individuals purchased a song - it's all 
different now of course).


-- 
Robbie

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Jeremiah Harbottle 
 wrote :

>> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore
>> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks
>> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
>
>I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what they
>want and record what they want to be thriving.

But without significant mainstream sales - how are they any different 
from a *new* band?
>
>That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's
>nothing new.

No, but most artists don't have to *rely* on it.
>
>It's more like 10K+ on their mailing list, apparently.

But clearly only a few thousand of those are people who'll buy 
*everything*.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:IH$3TiCb5JEGFwyB@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Col 

>>
>>Good. They deserve it.
>>Take a minor rock classic and turn it into insipid mush
>>and that's what you get. I hope this ghastly track
>>drops quicker than a whore's knickers.
>>And I don't care if it is for charidee, it's still shit.
>
> So is the new version of the Proclaimers classic, but that hasn't sunk 
> (yet) as IMO it deserves to.

I find the Proclaimers highly irriitating.
Nothing wrong with distinctive accents coming through
on records, but really those voices seriously grate on me.

> R1 DJ's seem to think people are buying the original version by mistake, 
> but ISTM that most are buying it because it's a far better version.

I would assume The Proclaimers are donating the proceeds of
that to Comic Relief..
-- 
Col

That's your excuse for everything isn't it, being dead!

"Jeremiah Harbottle"  wrote in message 
news:4610df23.0@entanet...
>> Their recent singles have charted well only because their 3-5k hardcore 
>> fans rushed out and bought all three physical formats - making the tracks 
>> appear 3 times as popular as they actually were.
>
> I'd call not being run by a record label and being able to release what 
> they want and record what they want to be thriving.

Well, that in itself is neither thriving nor not thriving - after all, I 
*can* release any music I like. It's just that I can't expect people to buy 
it.

> That's how other singles chart - 3  versions with different tracks. It's 
> nothing new. I used to buy singles like that in the 1990s. Limited edition 
> picture disc, CD2 with different tracks, etc. Usually cheap as well.

Very much true (although personally I never did that in 1990s).

> It's more like 10K+ on their mailing list, apparently.

But evidently not all of them downloaded the song this week - mind you, I 
presume that's an international figure.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Col  
wrote :
>
>> R1 DJ's seem to think people are buying the original version by mistake,
>> but ISTM that most are buying it because it's a far better version.
>
>I would assume The Proclaimers are donating the proceeds of
>that to Comic Relief..

I wonder if anyone's asked them? What about the proceeds from their 
re-released GH album...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)