"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:Zq4axFE$eDDIFwyE@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 at 21:52:42, Chris Brown  
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> Madonna claims her 13th #1! Unlucky only for Estelle... >:)
>>
>>Or for, y'know, people who like music.
>
> Well, it's the lesser of two evils - that's the best I can say about it...

Thing is though, if you're a Madonna fan who doesn't like this you wouldn't 
really want her to have an incentive to pursue this direction.

>>By the way, amid the various other stats we'll be getting from the
>>professional commentators, I count this as Justin Timberlake's third 
>>Number
>>One as a guest vocalist.
>
> Third?
>
> He had a solo #1 with 'Sexyback' & a credit on 'Give It To Me', but AFAIK 
> this is only his 2nd *featured artist* #1.
>
> If he's had an un-credited one, that doesn't count, otherwise you'd have 
> to give a credit to everyone who took part in Band Aid, for example.

Who said I wasn't? Er, not that he is on any Band Aid records, obviously, 
but I did intentionally phrase that to permit the inclusion of his 
uncredited Number One. I'll leave you to guess that overnight.

>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>> Top 10 : September #5,
>>
>>I didn't think I'd heard this until last week's charts. But I had heard
>>'Smalltown Boy' by Bronski Beat. Blonde hair aside, I'm not sure what this
>>adds.
>
> You've forgotten the skin-tight PVC in her video? :)

I read that hurriedly and had a vision of Jimmy Somerville in skin-tight 
PVC.

>>> Last Shadow Puppets #9
>>
>>Alex Turner and Miles Kane's side project naturally doesn't sound exactly
>>the same as their day-jobs.
>
> Fortunately.

There wouldn't be a lot of point.

>>> Britney #15*,
>>
>>Another ironically-titled hit, 'Break The Ice' shows little sign of 
>>anything
>>so dramatic, but rather seems frozen into some Nineties Scando-pop ideal. 
>>I
>>haven't even heard the whole album and I still can't believe this is one 
>>of
>>the Top 3 tracks on it.
>
> It's had a relative lack of promo, too.

Not much of an excuse though.

>>>Will.I.Am #18
>>
>>Out on CD on the 5th of May, if I haven't already said that. Well, it's
>>coming out whether I said it or not.
>
> I wonder if there's any confusion between this week's #14 & #18?

Only if you think that people who like either of those records are very 
stupid. Come to think of it....

>>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp #25,
>>
>>Second single from the album, but not one that seems to have caught the
>>imagination of single buyers, despite the various remixers contributing
>>B-sides.
>
> Because it's one of the weaker tracks on the album, IMO.

You mean there are some good ones?

>>Mind you, it does seem to be one of the few hit
>>singles to feature an Optigan.
>
> I have no idea who/what that is.

It's a sort of old-fashioned cheap synthesiser which has something of a cult 
following among the sort of people who get excited about obsolete 
synthesisers. Of course there's a website: www.optigan.com


>>> Kanye West #29
>>
>>Seemingly one of those end-of-the-campaign singles that nobody seems to 
>>pay
>>very much attention to, and even with physical release it's done a lot 
>>worse
>>than 'Homecoming'.
>>Nonetheless, it is the fourth UK Top 40 single from Graduation, which is
>>still not common for rap albums (Kanye managed it with his previous album
>>too, of course).
>
> If only we could be confident this would be the last we hear from him for 
> a while - but I fear he'll keep popping up on other people's records. :(

I suppose you can't blame him for wanting to keep busy at the moment though.

>>> Top 40 :  Gabriella Cilmi #34,
>>
>>Possibly more evidence that people will buy any old bobbins if they see it
>>in an advert.
>
> Or realise what a gem they previously missed?

But this is the thing - you can understand how songs like 'Don't Stop Me 
Now' or 'I'm A Man' can reach a new audience that wasn't around the first 
time they were released. But this only came out about three weeks ago.

>Hopefully this'll be another Feist '1234'.

Her only hit? ;-)

> Of course, when a song performs better via an advert than a record 
> company's official promotional campaign, it hardly instils confidence in 
> the artist that they've signed the right deal...

Unless, of course, the advert is part of the promotional strategy.

>>>MGMT #35**,
>>
>>Yet another TV-spawned resurgence (this single missed the Top 40 several
>>weeks ago, of course) although it'll be intriguing to see how sustainable
>>this proves.
>
> From what I've seen in the past 15 months, a TV programme boost is a 
> strictly one-week deal, whilst adverts give a lesser, but more sustained 
> benefit.


Which is of course entirely logical.
What I meant about "Sustainable" was that the more TV shows become 
recognised as a promotional tool for music, the less appropriate they're 
going to get.

>>>Nelly & Fergie #39
>>
>>Presumably long-awaited by somebody, the return of the man who thinks that
>>not being able to pronounce the word "here" entitles him to a career.
>>Physical release date apparently unconfirmed.
>
> Presumably it will get one, though.

I presume so too.

> AFAIK, the #10 barrier for songs without a physical release has still not 
> been broken - though I'm amazed it's lasted this long.

Depends whether you count 'Homecoming', but even that was only Number 9.

>>> ** Played at the end of 'Skins', apparently
>>
>>It's funny how only certain shows seem to sell records (or rather 
>>downloads)
>>isn't it?
>
> You mean the ones that people actually watch (in decent numbers)? :)

Not really - I've no idea what the figures for Skins actually are but I know 
it's on Channel 4.
I think it's been remarked upon before that Strictly Come Dancing gets 
massive ratings, but you don't see the same spike when somebody goes on 
there that you do from the ITV shows.

>>> New Entries outside the top 40 (plus new peaks) : Fall Out Boy/John 
>>> Mayer
>>> #46,
>>
>>Together at last!
>>This appears to be a cover version of 'Beat It' from their new live album,
>>recorded at The Cricket Pavillion in Phoenix.
>
> Arizona? Why on earth would there be a cricket >pavilion in America?

Well, there probably are some, but I presume this is just the name of the 
venue.

> This is another song where the artist credits have been >confusing.

You mean, because it's credited to John Mayer and Fall Out Boy and people 
have still bought it?

>>> Scooter #49,
>>
>>It seems like a while since we've heard from them, although this was
>>released in Germany last year. It's a disappointingly serious track by 
>>their
>>standards.
>
> Also, it's crap.

Well, yeah, but you expect that from Scooter. Normally you get 
entertainingly ridiculous crap like 'Move Your Ass!', 'The Logical Song' and 
my personal favourite, 'How Much Is The Fish?'.

>>>Jordin Sparks (Tattoo) #50,
>>
>>It's all getting a bit odd down this end of the charts, with everything
>>seeming to peak about a month too late.
>
> I guess the one featuring your namesake has given it an extra push.

IS it that bad then?

>>> Jordin Sparks ft CB (No Air) #58,
>>
>>Has this even been promoted?
>>
> Well, it's had no air(play) position yet. :)
>
> I don't know if it has a video yet, not that I'd watch it if it did.

Judging by how big a hit it is in America, it seems unlikely that there 
isn't a vid, although whether it's reached these shores I couldn't tell you.

>>>Ben's Brother #62,
>>
>>- Out on CD on the 28th.
>
> Their record company must be handing out some *huge* brown envelopes, as 
> despite the total bombing of all their records, they were #18 on airplay 
> last week...

Although this is Top 73 a fortnight ahead of release, si it's certainly not 
their least successful single.

>>>Hoosiers (C&R) #64,
>>
>>Out tomorrow on CD, though past form suggests it won't sell a lot of them.
>
> T40 if they're lucky.

Very lucky.

>>> Robyn #66,
>>
>>Out on CD & 12" on the 28th.
>
> This one's pretty OK.

Bit too eighties for me.

>>> Simple Plan #67,
>>
>>Out tomorrow on CD.
>
> Yawn.

Correct.


>>> Brit & Alex #75
>>
>>Out on CDs on the 28th.
>
> Not keen on this one.

I haven't even heard it but the omens aren't good.

>>> Re-entries : Portishead #73
>>
>>Released on vinyl this week, though it's unlikely to have sold even this
>>many - I suspect this reflects more the promotion selling the downloads.
>
> From what little I've heard of them, they've done some pretty weird stuff 
> in the past?

Depends what you call weird, but they're not a band who go out of their way 
to be normal. Of course, they've been quite widely imitated that they no 
longer sound quite as exceptional as they once did.

>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> The Kooks claim their first #1 album,
>>
>>KONK is named after the studio where it was recorded, which doesn't seem
>>like a very good sign. And it's the second album by the Kooks, which seems
>>like an even worse one.
>
>>Still, after the success of the first album a good opening week for this 
>>one
>>was never really in doubt.
>
> Not that they needed high sales ATM for #1.

Another reason it wasn't it doubt.

>>A limited edition includes a bonus CD (RAK) with demo versions
>
>> and rare
>>tracks.
>
> Good ones, you mean? :)

Not *that* rare.

>>PS - I didn't realise Luke Kook actually talked the same way he sings.
>>
>>>with Leona surprising finishing ahead of Mariah, despite trailing her by
>>>45% early in the week.
>>
>>Apparently the Leona record was very heavily discounted during the week. 
>>Not
>>that SonyBMG have any sort of grudge against Mariah, obviously.
>
> Even so, you wouldn't have thought that many Leona fans didn't already 
> have the album by now...

I know. Well, I wouldn't refer to people who took this long to buy the album 
as "fans" but I know exactly what you mean.

>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>> ---------------------
>>> Top 10 : Mariah Carey #3,
>>
>>I was wondering why this was called E=MC2, but apparently it doesn't mean
>>she takes loads of ecstacy and goes square-dancing.
>
> Grin.

It's supposed to have something to do with this being like The Empancipation 
Of Mimi only more so - but the longer you think about that the less sense it 
makes.

>>The album itself includes perpetual guest stars T-Pain and Young Jeezy, as
>>well as the moderately famous
>
> i.e. Almost unknown?
>
>> in his own right Damian Marley.

As in he's had a hit in his own right, which I wouldn't say either of the 
others had in this country.
Also you might have heard of his dad.

>>>Elliot Minor #6
>>
>>The pretentious McFly finally get around to releasing the long-in-the-can
>>album and do relatively well with it, although their rather shouty fans 
>>may
>>preclude long-term success.
>
> Yes, their fans are very enthusiastic, but apparently not very legion.

Yup - I've not read the sale figure yet but I suspect it isn't huge.

>>> Top 20 : Sarah Brightman #13
>>
>>Her first album in several years, which is all new material for a change.
>>Guest stars include Andrea Bocelli (again) and Paul Stanley from Kiss.
>
> The first is logical, but the second??

I did hear her trying to explain it. It was something like she wanted 
someone with a big vocal range who could also sing very powerfully.

>>> New outside the top 20 : Hanna Montana #29,
>>
>>The first chart album for this character; a previous soundtrack release 
>>was
>>consigned to the compilation chart. In fact, tracks on this "live" disc 
>>are
>>credited variously to Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus, but as they're the
>>same person this has been permitted.
>
> I see it's called 'Best Of Both Worlds' - so presumably something to do 
> with the Star Trek TNG episode where the Borg assimilate Captain Picard & 
> take over the Earth? :)

Is that what it was called? Your Star Trek memory beats mine.
'Best Of Both Worlds' is also the title of an unreleased song by The Jam.

>>>Children Of Bodum #44,
>>
>>I think that's actually spelt "Bodom", unless their parents were coffee
>>machines. ;-)
>
> Huh?

www.bodum.dk - don't you remember that advert with the chimp?

>>>Blood Red Shoes #47,
>>
>>The debut album from the still-young duo contains several of the singles
>>they've released since 2005. This full-length set was held up by record
>>company issues, rather than protracted recording sessions, as anyone who
>>hears it might guess.
>>Last year, singer-guitarist Laura-Mary Carter was assaulted by a bouncer 
>>at
>>one of her own gigs.
>
> They are *that* bad? :)

Apparently he thought she was underage. So he beat her up, obviously.

>>> B-52's #73
>>
>>One of two acts from Athens GA in this week's chart, returning with their
>>first all-new album since 1992. It's 29 years since they first charted 
>>here.
>
> Though with only 2 significant hits in all that time, which is probably 
> why I don't remember them back in the 80's.

What do you mean "significant"? Aside from the one we never need to hear 
again, there were 'Rock Lobster' (twice) and 'Planet Claire' and 'Roam'. 
'Meet The Flintstones' (as the BC52s) was also pretty successful if best 
forgotten. I admit that none of those was actually in the 80s though.

>>> Re-entries : MGMT #63,
>>
>>For obvious TV reasons.
>
> But not musical ones... :)

There's always room for some AOR.

>>>Portishead (Dummy) #64,
>>
>>Widely discounted in order to promote their return - I think it's been
>>marked down to £4, although I paid £4:99 for the MP3 version.
>
> It looks to have been a pretty big seller in the past, though.

And so I think it was. But there's obviously a particular reason it's back 
now. I wonder if their other album is anywhere lower in the chart?


>>>Justin T #72, Snow Patrol #74
>>
>>I'm guessing these are on special offer somewhere too.
>
> Well, JT's sales increase is understandable.

To somebody.

>>> Next Week
>>> ---------
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> With this Monday seeing the physical release of '4 Minutes', Madonna
>>> should consolidate her lead at the top.
>>
>>Agreed. BTW, the picture disc seems to have been delayed.
>
> By the time it takes to plaster on her make-up? :)

Maybe somebody told Timberlake to shave.

>>> Top  5 : Usher
>>
>>Not difficult from 6!
>>But if the surge this week was because of the video then that'll be hard 
>>to
>>replicate.
>
> If he's not #3 at worst next week, he'll struggle to catch Madge on full 
> release.

That sounds about right, but obviously we'll cross that bridge when it 
arrives.

>>> Top 30 : Adele,
>>
>>That still seems a bit low, considering that she's twice got a 
>>digital-only
>>track into the Top 40.
>
> Yes, but where albums are concerned, most of the promo effect directed 
> towards singles, benefits albums instead.

Apart from what I've already noted above.

>>>Wombats,
>>
>>One assumes that the record company would be hoping for better if they
>>bothered re-releasing this. But there have been an awful lot of releases
>>from this album already.
>
> I can't tell, as even one seems too many to me. :)

Me too. But I think this is the sixth release (including the first issue of 
this one).

>>> Top 40 :
>>
>>>Kylie,
>>
>>Possibly, although she's not *very* close right now.
>
> It sees to have been relatively snubbed by radio, not that that'll make 
> much difference to someone as well-known & popular as Kylie, of course.

Not when there are physical formats for all the fans to pore over - but 
we've yet to reach that point. At the moment it's more complicated.

>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> Hard to call this week - the Kooks had a big margin last week, but if
>>> enough of AM Alex's fans cross over to his side project ''Last Shadow
>>> Prophets', they could have a chance of #1.
>>
>>However, on the evidence of what's happened to the single (big rather than
>>massive) they don't have much more than a chance. I don't suppose they'd
>>even have that in a busier week.
>
> #2 then?

If I had to bet, that's probably the way I'd go.

>>> Pretty quiet on the new entry front this week.
>>>

>>> Others : Chris De Burgh, Whitesnake
>>
>>There's not a lot more out there, although the exceptionally thin schedule
>>could throw up a curveball.
>
> But there has to be a ball *there* in the first place...

Well yeah, but something very marginal could slip in. People might even buy 
more obscure stuff when there's nothing new out.
But it'll probably just mean more re-entries for the same boring old albums.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:qAK2bBD0cYDIFwHG@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 at 22:13:24, Chris Brown  
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>> Madonna claims her 13th #1! Unlucky only for Estelle... >:)
>>>>
>>>>Or for, y'know, people who like music.
>>>
>>> Well, it's the lesser of two evils - that's the best I can say about 
>>> it...
>>
>>Thing is though, if you're a Madonna fan who doesn't like this you 
>>wouldn't
>>really want her to have an incentive to pursue this direction.
>
> I don't see that as a problem, as she never stays in one musical direction 
> for long.

I suppose that is true, actually. Unless you count "past-it" as a direction.

>>>>By the way, amid the various other stats we'll be getting from the
>>>>professional commentators, I count this as Justin Timberlake's third
>>>>Number
>>>>One as a guest vocalist.
>>>
>>> Third?
>>>
>>> He had a solo #1 with 'Sexyback' & a credit on 'Give It To Me', but 
>>> AFAIK
>>> this is only his 2nd *featured artist* #1.
>>>
>>> If he's had an un-credited one, that doesn't count, otherwise you'd have
>>> to give a credit to everyone who took part in Band Aid, for example.
>>
>>Who said I wasn't? Er, not that he is on any Band Aid records, obviously,
>>but I did intentionally phrase that to permit the inclusion of his
>>uncredited Number One. I'll leave you to guess that overnight.
>
> I already realised which you meant : BEP - Where Is The Love, the foul 
> song that kept Dido's 'White Flag' from #1. :)

Thought so. But I decided I'd leave room for some "play at home fun".

>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>> Top 10 : September #5,
>>>>
>>>>I didn't think I'd heard this until last week's charts. But I had heard
>>>>'Smalltown Boy' by Bronski Beat. Blonde hair aside, I'm not sure what 
>>>>this
>>>>adds.
>>>
>>> You've forgotten the skin-tight PVC in her video? :)
>>
>>I read that hurriedly and had a vision of Jimmy Somerville in skin-tight
>>PVC.
>
> That's why I said *her*, not him!

When I read it less hurriedly, I noticed that.

>>>>> Last Shadow Puppets #9
>>>>
>>>>Alex Turner and Miles Kane's side project naturally doesn't sound 
>>>>exactly
>>>>the same as their day-jobs.
>>>
>>> Fortunately.
>>
>>There wouldn't be a lot of point.
>
> Hasn't proven a deterrent to others in the past, though...

Anyone you had in mind there?

>>>>> Top 30 : Goldfrapp #25,
>>>>
>>>>Second single from the album, but not one that seems to have caught the
>>>>imagination of single buyers, despite the various remixers contributing
>>>>B-sides.
>>>
>>> Because it's one of the weaker tracks on the album, IMO.
>>
>>You mean there are some good ones?
>
> Apart from A&E, you mean?

Actually, I thought that one was a bit boring to be honest.

>>>>> Kanye West
>>>
>>> If only we could be confident this would be the last we hear from him 
>>> for
>>> a while - but I fear he'll keep popping up on other people's records. :(
>>
>>I suppose you can't blame him for wanting to keep busy at the moment 
>>though.
>
> Are you sure about that claim, from my pov? :)

What I mean is that he's obviously going through a tough patch in his life 
at the moment, so it's understandable that he's burying his head in work.

>>>>> Top 40 :  Gabriella Cilmi #34,
>>>>
>>>>Possibly more evidence that people will buy any old bobbins if they see 
>>>>it
>>>>in an advert.
>>>
>>> Or realise what a gem they previously missed?
>>
>>But this is the thing - you can understand how songs like 'Don't Stop Me
>>Now' or 'I'm A Man' can reach a new audience that wasn't around the first
>>time they were released. But this only came out about three weeks ago.
>
> I could refer to you Feist again...

Much longer gap - and more to the point, a record that had been less hyped 
on the first occasion.

>>>Hopefully this'll be another Feist '1234'.
>>
>>Her only hit? ;-)
>
> So far...

I wonder what the long-term Feist plan is actually.

>>> Of course, when a song performs better via an advert than a record
>>> company's official promotional campaign, it hardly instils confidence in
>>> the artist that they've signed the right deal...
>>
>>Unless, of course, the advert is part of the promotional strategy.
>
> Which makes no sense when timed several weeks *after* the CD release.
>
> Even now, with CD singles in steep decline, most promotional efforts are 
> timed to peak with the physical release of a single.

Ah, but the difference with licensing a track to an advert is that the 
record company don't get as much choice about timing. If the company making 
the product didn't want to start the campaign until last week, they weren't 
going to.

Having said all that, the album appears to have found its way to becoming 
R2's Album Of The Week, if only because there's nothing out this week and 
the Madonna tracks are embargoed until the afternoon.

>>>>Yet another TV-spawned resurgence (this single missed the Top 40 several
>>>>weeks ago, of course) although it'll be intriguing to see how 
>>>>sustainable
>>>>this proves.
>>>
>>> From what I've seen in the past 15 months, a TV programme boost is a
>>> strictly one-week deal, whilst adverts give a lesser, but more sustained
>>> benefit.
>>
>>Which is of course entirely logical.
>>What I meant about "Sustainable" was that the more TV shows become
>>recognised as a promotional tool for music, the less appropriate they're
>>going to get.
>
> I don't follow this - what do you mean by 'less appropriate'?

What I mean is that, as the record companies become more conscious of this 
(as they already have in America) they're probably going to kill the goose 
by forcing all sorts of rubbish into these shows.

>>> AFAIK, the #10 barrier for songs without a physical release has still 
>>> not
>>> been broken - though I'm amazed it's lasted this long.
>>
>>Depends whether you count 'Homecoming', but even that was only Number 9.
>
> I thought that got a late 12" release though, thereby 'disqualifying' it?

I'm not completely sure whether that 12" ever did come out - the release 
date seemed to keep slipping further and further back. I'm open to 
correction though.
It it ever did come out though, I think it was far enough beyond the chart 
peak to be considered.

>>>>> ** Played at the end of 'Skins', apparently
>>>>
>>>>It's funny how only certain shows seem to sell records (or rather
>>>>downloads)
>>>>isn't it?
>>>
>>> You mean the ones that people actually watch (in decent numbers)? :)
>>
>>Not really - I've no idea what the figures for Skins actually are but I 
>>know
>>it's on Channel 4.
>>I think it's been remarked upon before that Strictly Come Dancing gets
>>massive ratings, but you don't see the same spike when somebody goes on
>>there that you do from the ITV shows.
>
> It depends who the audience is, too. SCD is not a show that you'd expect 
> those of prime single-buying age to watch in any numbers!

Are you sure about that? And why should there be a prime single-buying age 
anyway?

>>>>Together at last!
>>>>This appears to be a cover version of 'Beat It' from their new live 
>>>>album,
>>>>recorded at The Cricket Pavillion in Phoenix.
>>>
>>> Arizona? Why on earth would there be a cricket >pavilion in America?
>>
>>Well, there probably are some, but I presume this is just the name of the
>>venue.
>
> And it would be named after a sport virtually un-played in America, why? 
> :)

Well, that would explain why they closed it down and turned it into a venue 
for crappy emo bands, perhaps.
Or maybe it's named after the insect. Or the car. Or a sponsor.

>>> This is another song where the artist credits have been >confusing.
>>
>>You mean, because it's credited to John Mayer and Fall Out Boy and people
>>have still bought it?
>
> I've seen it credited to one or the other, not both.

Well, people bought it so you can pretty easily tell it's not just a John 
Mayer record. ;-)

>>>>>Jordin Sparks (Tattoo) #50,
>>>>
>>>>It's all getting a bit odd down this end of the charts, with everything
>>>>seeming to peak about a month too late.
>>>
>>> I guess the one featuring your namesake has given it an extra push.
>>
>>IS it that bad then?
>
> I wouldn't know - I don't listen to such songs.

Sorry, the joke may not have been obvious there.

>>>>>Ben's Brother #62,
>>>>
>>>>- Out on CD on the 28th.
>>>
>>> Their record company must be handing out some *huge* brown envelopes, as
>>> despite the total bombing of all their records, they were #18 on airplay
>>> last week...
>>
>>Although this is Top 73 a fortnight ahead of release, si it's certainly 
>>not
>>their least successful single.
>
> I just can't understand why their record company hasn't decided to cut 
> their losses yet - though the same might have been said about Take That in 
> Spring 1992... :)

FWIW, I believe this is a new track so their career may be riding on it.

>>>>> Robyn #66,
>>>>
>>>>Out on CD & 12" on the 28th.
>>>
>>> This one's pretty OK.
>>
>>Bit too eighties for me.
>
> 90's surely - she's not *that* old.

She's not but the record might as well be - check out that percussion!
I can hardly object to somebody remembering the 90s can I?

>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>> Top 10 :
>>
>>>>>Elliot Minor #6
>>>>
>>>>The pretentious McFly finally get around to releasing the 
>>>>long-in-the-can
>>>>album and do relatively well with it, although their rather shouty fans
>>>>may
>>>>preclude long-term success.
>>>
>>> Yes, their fans are very enthusiastic, but apparently not very legion.
>>
>>Yup - I've not read the sale figure yet but I suspect it isn't huge.
>
> A fraction under 14k, which is a pretty crap figure, given how popular 
> Fearne & Reggie *claim* they are...

But if 13000 of those people texted simultaneously...

>>>>> Top 20 : Sarah Brightman #13
>>>>
>>>>Her first album in several years, which is all new material for a 
>>>>change.
>>>>Guest stars include Andrea Bocelli (again) and Paul Stanley from Kiss.
>>>
>>> The first is logical, but the second??
>>
>>I did hear her trying to explain it. It was something like she wanted
>>someone with a big vocal range who could also sing very powerfully.
>
> Christina, Mariah - or perhaps someone who *wouldn't* overshadow her? :)

Er, I think she was looking for someone who was a man as well. Does Mariah 
have any lower range?

>>>>>Children Of Bodum #44,
>>>>
>>>>I think that's actually spelt "Bodom", unless their parents were coffee
>>>>machines. ;-)
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>>www.bodum.dk - don't you remember that advert with the chimp?
>
> I thought *you* were the one without the TV... :)

It was about 15 years ago. Annoyingly, it seems to be the only TV advert not 
on YouTube.

>>>>>Blood Red Shoes #47,
>>>>
>>>>Last year, singer-guitarist Laura-Mary Carter was assaulted by a bouncer
>>>>at
>>>>one of her own gigs.
>>>
>>> They are *that* bad? :)
>>
>>Apparently he thought she was underage. So he beat her up, obviously.
>
> Not a good career move by him, though! :)

Nope. Not that the band were his direct employer, of course, but it still 
got him sacked.

>>>>> B-52's #73
>>>>
>>>>One of two acts from Athens GA in this week's chart, returning with 
>>>>their
>>>>first all-new album since 1992. It's 29 years since they first charted
>>>>here.
>>>
>>> Though with only 2 significant hits in all that time, which is probably
>>> why I don't remember them back in the 80's.
>>
>>What do you mean "significant"? Aside from the one we never need to hear
>>again
>
> You mean Love Shack? :)

However did you guess?

>>, there were 'Rock Lobster' (twice) and 'Planet Claire' and 'Roam'.
>>'Meet The Flintstones' (as the BC52s) was also pretty successful
>
> Only two of their singles made T10 - I wouldn't count anything below that 
> as 'pretty successful'.

Does that mean that every Top 10 single is "pretty successful"?

>>>>> Re-entries : MGMT #63,
>>>>
>>>>For obvious TV reasons.
>>>
>>> But not musical ones... :)
>>
>>There's always room for some AOR.
>
> What does that have to do with *them*, though? :)

Doesn't it sound AOR to you?

>>>>>Portishead (Dummy) #64,
>>>>
>>>>Widely discounted in order to promote their return - I think it's been
>>>>marked down to £4, although I paid £4:99 for the MP3 version.
>>>
>>> It looks to have been a pretty big seller in the past, though.
>>
>>And so I think it was. But there's obviously a particular reason it's back
>>now. I wonder if their other album is anywhere lower in the chart?
>>
> Not in the top 100, at least.

Big gap, considering that AFAIK fewer people bought it at first. Although 
oddly, I did.

>>>>> Next Week
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>
>>>>> Top  5 : Usher
>>>
>>> If he's not #3 at worst next week, he'll struggle to catch Madge on full
>>> release.
>>
>>That sounds about right, but obviously we'll cross that bridge when it
>>arrives.
>
> I expect Madonna to sell 55-60k this week, with >40k the week after, so 
> Usher will need to shift 30k this week to be in with a chance of catching 
> her, as physical sales probably won't help by more than 1/3rd.

I should probably stay out of this now the mids are in.

>>>>> Top 40 :
>>>>
>>>>>Kylie,
>>>>
>>>>Possibly, although she's not *very* close right now.
>>>
>>> It sees to have been relatively snubbed by radio, not that that'll make
>>> much difference to someone as well-known & popular as Kylie, of course.
>>
>>Not when there are physical formats for all the fans to pore over - but
>>we've yet to reach that point. At the moment it's more complicated.
>
> As it happens, she did bounce back strongly on airplay this week - back in 
> at #23, after dropping out entirely last week from an initial #79 
> position.

Ah, well that puts a slightly different spin on it.

> She's now B-listed on both R1 & R2 - I dare say it's fairly unusual for 
> pop/dance to get playlisted on R2 at all, but her bubbly 'girl-next-door' 
> image has always been an advantage there.

It certainly isn't even remotely unusual for a Kylie record to get 
playlisted at R2.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:Q1ko2KDMktDIFwSL@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 at 22:10:49, Chris Brown  
> wrote in uk.music.charts :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Madonna claims her 13th #1! Unlucky only for Estelle... >:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or for, y'know, people who like music.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's the lesser of two evils - that's the best I can say about
>>>>> it...
>>>>
>>>>Thing is though, if you're a Madonna fan who doesn't like this you
>>>>wouldn't
>>>>really want her to have an incentive to pursue this direction.
>>>
>>> I don't see that as a problem, as she never stays in one musical 
>>> direction
>>> for long.
>>
>>I suppose that is true, actually. Unless you count "past-it" as a 
>>direction.
>
> Whatever else might be claimed about her, IMO 'past-it' is not a claim 
> that stands up about her!
>
> The standard test for me is - can they still sell singles?

The test for me is more along the lines of "are their records anywhere near 
as good as the ones they made in the past?" and in her case that's a big no. 
Clearly that's just a personal opinion though.

>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>
>>>>But this is the thing - you can understand how songs like 'Don't Stop Me
>>>>Now' or 'I'm A Man' can reach a new audience that wasn't around the 
>>>>first
>>>>time they were released. But this only came out about three weeks ago.
>>>
>>> I could refer to you Feist again...
>>
>>Much longer gap
>
> Not true. There was only a 7 week gap between 1234's physical release, and 
> it being picked up for the iPod ad, compared to 4 weeks for 'Sweet About 
> Me'.

That's almost twice as long. And obviously there wasn't a continuous chart 
run.

>> - and more to the point, a record that had been less hyped
>>on the first occasion.
>
> Well, at some of us recognised its quality beforehand.

Yeah, well I saw her first! :P

>>Having said all that, the album appears to have found its way to becoming
>>R2's Album Of The Week,
>
> Far better for the album to sell rather than the single, of course.

Absolutely, but of course that's more difficult to do off the back of an 
advert.

>>if only because there's nothing out this week and
>>the Madonna tracks are embargoed until the afternoon.
>
> Why won't she let them play them during the morning?

She's done a deal with one of the mobile networks which gives their 
subscribers exclusive rights to hear a track from the album each day these 
week - but this seems to last until about 4pm because Steve Wright is quite 
literally playing one of them after that. He seems to have got bored with 
today's track half-way through though.

>>>>Which is of course entirely logical.
>>>>What I meant about "Sustainable" was that the more TV shows become
>>>>recognised as a promotional tool for music, the less appropriate they're
>>>>going to get.
>>>
>>> I don't follow this - what do you mean by 'less appropriate'?
>>
>>What I mean is that, as the record companies become more conscious of this
>>(as they already have in America) they're probably going to kill the goose
>>by forcing all sorts of rubbish into these shows.
>
> From what I've heard, that ship has already sailed... :)

To some extent it has, yes. But then when the customers realise it's going 
to get harder to sell the stuff.

>>>>> AFAIK, the #10 barrier for songs without a physical release has still
>>>>> not
>>>>> been broken - though I'm amazed it's lasted this long.
>>>>
>>>>Depends whether you count 'Homecoming', but even that was only Number 9.
>>>
>>> I thought that got a late 12" release though, thereby 'disqualifying' 
>>> it?
>>
>>I'm not completely sure whether that 12" ever did come out - the release
>>date seemed to keep slipping further and further back. I'm open to
>>correction though.
>>It it ever did come out though, I think it was far enough beyond the chart
>>peak to be considered.
>
> But it's the existence of a physical release at all, not the timing, that 
> disqualifies it, IMO.

Depends how you look at it - after all, we don't *know* that Oasis won't 
release a 7" of 'Lord Don't Slow Me Down' at some indeterminate time in the 
future.
What I will concede is that people would have thought at the time when 
'Homecoming' initially charted that it was going to come out on physical 
formats which is probably significant.

>>> It depends who the audience is, too. SCD is not a show that you'd expect
>>> those of prime single-buying age to watch in any numbers!
>>
>>Are you sure about that?
>
> How many teens do you know who excitedly talk about 'last Saturday's SCD 
> show'...

Same number I know who excitedly talk about any other TV show. 0.
It certainly gets plenty of coverage over on R1.

>> And why should there be a prime single-buying age
>>anyway?
>
> May there shouldn't be, but there *is* - that's a fact.

But it's largely a factor of the physical market.


>>>>>>> Albums
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> New Entries/New Peaks
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>> Top 10 :
>>>>
>>>>>>>Elliot Minor #6
>>>
>>> A fraction under 14k, which is a pretty crap figure, given how popular
>>> Fearne & Reggie *claim* they are...
>>
>>But if 13000 of those people texted simultaneously...
>
> Or repeatedly...

Even if not - 13k texts in a short space of time about the same subject 
would attract attention. Actually, it'd probably crash the whole system but 
I was just giving an example.

>>>>>> Re-entries : MGMT #63,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For obvious TV reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not musical ones... :)
>>>>
>>>>There's always room for some AOR.
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with *them*, though? :)
>>
>>Doesn't it sound AOR to you?
>
> Try C.R.A.P.

Some people would ask why you're making a disctinction there. ;-)

>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Top 40 :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Kylie,
>>
>>> She's now B-listed on both R1 & R2 - I dare say it's fairly unusual for
>>> pop/dance to get playlisted on R2 at all, but her bubbly 
>>> 'girl-next-door'
>>> image has always been an advantage there.
>>
>>It certainly isn't even remotely unusual for a Kylie record to get
>>playlisted at R2.
>
> Not *her*, but it would be for others of similar musical style.

Harder to judge the less specific question.

    Chris