New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
What's more impressive: An uninterrupted #1 chart run or a #1 chart run with non-consecutive weeks? For example you have 2 albums, both hit #1 and both are at that position for a total of 30 weeks. However, while one album remains at the top for 30 straight weeks before being replaced for good, the other album's run consists of a 10 week stint before being dropped to a lower position by another album but it replaces that album for 4 weeks before being replaced by another album which it also replaces for 2 weeks, gets replaced again by another album and then returns to #1 for an uncontested 14 week run before dropping out the top spot for good. Both chart runs are impressive but which is more so IYO? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
I guess it would be the first because it shows that the album sells itself. There are so many things that inluence sales. The second single can be a big hit, there can be a tour... But what I really find impressive is albums that just keep selling even if they never make it to the top again. For example, when I started following the charts in the 80s, I saw Prince, Madonna etc at #1, but I also saw Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits in the charts for something like 300 weeks. If you take any of this seriously, you're a bigger fool than I am. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm studying the charts between '82 and '85 myself and I've been noticing what you're talking about. There are some albums that never hit #1 but have longer chart lives than some LPs that manage to hit the top. Not the best examples as both Lionel Richie and Bruce Springsteen had #1 albums but their times at the top spot were brief compared to the duration they resided in the Top 10 which neither left for an entire calendar year ('84 for Lionel, '85 for Bruce). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yeah, that's what they call a sleeper. 1999 is a good example. It wasn't really noticed when it came out until Little Red Corvette was released. If you take any of this seriously, you're a bigger fool than I am. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If you want a real sleeper hit, we got Huey Lewis & The News' Sports; came out in September '83 and took a near 7 month climb to get all the way up to #1 in June the following year.
It only sat there for a week but it's amazing it managed to even push to #1 with the superstar competition it had to go against. Even more amazing is that it was the highest selling album of '84 only behind Thriller itself. The only other #1s (Purple Rain, Born In The U.S.A. and the Footloose soundtrack) didn't even rank in the Top 5 on the year-end list with Footloose just making the Top 10 at #9 and the other 2 logging in at the 20s. [Edited 3/1/21 15:03pm] [Edited 3/1/21 15:12pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
While I'm at it, I may as well give my own answer to the topic question. I believe the latter is a more impressive feat as albums generally do not return to #1 once their time there is over. They'll drop out and may spend some time chilling in the Top 10 but rarely do #1 albums return to the top. For an album to drop from that position for a good amount of time just to return and spend another good amount of time there, especially multiple times over speaks to the demand for said release. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Recently I was actually looking at the whole chart mess that they do now and the factoring in streaming and how it counts even if you listen to a third of an album and thirty seconds of a song nonsense. But now there is a the Top Album Sales chart, basically as an artist now you should want to be number one or do good on this one. It's real sales, cd, digital download purchased or vinyl whether through an artists site or Amazon or whatever stores still exist. The top 200 chart now has all that streaming nonsense in there which honestly you will see huge differences in the charts, to me if I was an artist especially now when you can't play live, I want the full album sales. As for the topic question I would say a return would be a bit more impressive but both are impressive "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Recently I was actually looking at the whole chart mess that they do now and the factoring in streaming and how it counts even if you listen to a third of an album and thirty seconds of a song nonsense. But now there is a the Top Album Sales chart, basically as an artist now you should want to be number one or do good on this one. It's real sales, cd, digital download purchased or vinyl whether through an artists site or Amazon or whatever stores still exist. The top 200 chart now has all that streaming nonsense in there which honestly you will see huge differences in the charts, to me if I was an artist especially now when you can't play live, I want the full album sales. As for the topic question I would say a return would be a bit more impressive but both are impressive | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yeah its been awhile since I looked at Billboard but lately I had been hearing of Number one Selling albums and then seeing them far lower on the Top 200, the last two weeks a clear example, Number one seller Foo Fighters Numbe three Top 200, this last week The Pretty Reckless Number one selling album number 28 on the Top 200 which is a huge variance with showing your fan base and how they consume music, The Foo's and The Pretty Reckless combined since release have sold 20,000 just on Vinyl. And yes Rolling Stone I always remember having a different chart always found it cuious never was too sure how they arrived at their numbers. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Non consecutive weeks, shows the songs strength and popularity at being able to climb up to the top spot again. Consecutive weeks shows the popluarity of the song. It also really depends on when the song was on the charts, anything after the mid 80s into the 90s when there were songs many songs that stayed at the top forever, because of the change in chart calculations. Airplay being given more credit than sales... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |