I give marks out of 10 to every song – based on whatever criteria you like, here’s your opportunity to say what you’d have given more than 6 to from 1976. Tick as many as you like.
Loading ...And use the comments to discuss the year as a whole, if you like.
Tom in FT /Popular • featured content/Pop/popular year poll • 9,618 views
All, 1–25, 26–50, 51–75, 76–100, 101–125, 126–150, 151–175, 176–200, 201–225, 226–250, 251–275, 276–300, 301–325, 326–350, 351–375, 376–400, 401–425, 426–450, 451–475, 476–500, 501–525, 526–551.Back up to post. More comments: All, 1–25, 26–50, 51–75, 76–100, 101–125, 126–150, 151–175, 176–200, 201–225, 226–250, 251–275, 276–300, 301–325, 326–350, 351–375, 376–400, 401–425, 426–450, 451–475, 476–500, 501–525, 526–551.
All the UK number ones since 1952, reviewed in order and rated by whim. As featured on Radio 2, The Times, Metro, Paul Cornell's LiveJournal, etc etc.
If you enjoy Popular please link to it or tell your friends about it. The more people we have commenting and sharing their views on these songs, the better.
Index of reviews and scores so far
Popular FAQ
Popular Facebook Page
Popular Lucky Dip (a random post)
225 re chart positions’Polyhex’ chart-runs is a very good resource for chart information – and you’re right Pilot didn’t make the Top 50 with that one.
I wonder how long the New Seekers’ split was – a couple of months maybe!? as along with Hot Chocolate they seemed to be on TOTP throughout the whole bloody decade!
I haven’t looked up who they cut out this week but it seems pretty random/unfair as 2 weeks ago they put Mud on for about the 3rd time – but missed out Linda And The Funky Boys – a medium-sized hit and not on any other week (well I’d have liked to have seen it anyway as I don’t remember it).
Art Garfunkel flop – later covered by George Michael.
Quite like the Demis Roussos song/clip – if I remember correctly he appears live in the 1976 Christmas edition or someone dresses up as him or something.
Bloody hell it must have been one of the real scorchers that day as David Hamilton mentioned the heat about 8 times!
Can’t wait! Saving it up. Tonight was Kinks night.
When Buzzcocks first hit, I remember they sort of reminded me of Pilot. Watching them, yes I can see why…
The New Seekers split in 1974, and reformed in 1976 without Lyn Paul. Lyn was local to Reading (her sisters went to the same dancing school as my sister. They were called Belcher really..)
I thought Eve Graham looked absolutely gorgeous.
“Dennis” was compromised by the poor sound quality of his clip but he was still blinding. Back of the net for him soon, obviously.
Meanwhile, PAGING MARCELLO…PAGING MARCELLO… As we all know now, a couple called Weir from Largs in Ayrshire have scooped the £161M Euro jackpot. Are these wonderful people known to you, if only distantly? If so, would you pass on to them a sure-hit investment idea I have for them? It involves the cultivation of swedes…
Remarkably, the song by Pilot didn’t even make the Star Breakers section of the chart!
#230. Yeah, Eve Graham made a fairly routine song very engaging!
I was interested to note here in H2GH land that Jerry Hall’s appearance in the Bryan Ferry vid captured the attention of a young audience which had no prior knowledge of any of the songs, artists and performances. The audience found all of the other performances unremarkable. As a result*, LST made a greater impact than any of the other songs in this edition. Not a scientific experiment, I’ll concede, but this observation raises many questions in my mind about how we perceive the past.
* I deduce.
I suppose the star-breakers was sort of like the positions 50-75 before they existed or maybe 50-100 as it obviously wouldn’t have included tunes going down. So yes they Pilot must have had a very persuasive PR bloke that week especially as theyd already had about 3 complete flops before this since their hits.
Completely agree about Eve Graham.
From July 1975 to May 1978, the Star Breakers section was a list of 10 records. AFAIK, no-one has been able to trace the rules for inclusion / exclusion in this section. The section was there to represent records with rising sales which had not yet charted, and so many good guesses can be made about the kinds of rules which may have been place. However, (I’d) be very wary indeed if someone were now to claim to know definitively, as a lot of research has gone into trying to locate the rules. The 41-50 section of the chart during this spell (Jul 75 – May 78) was governed by clear rules which ruled out many records with falling sales, and there’s every chance a similar set governed the Star Breakers section.
That’s interesting I never realised that the top 50 wasn’t just the Top 50 best selling singles for the week – so obviously a lot of tracks could have had far bigger runs on the chart but if they were in 41-50 wouldnt have been included in the chart. Like the positions 75-100 in the 80s. So really the Guiness Book of Hit Singles should have stopped at position 40 for inclusion from July 1975.
#234. A moot point! I’m not sure how I feel about it. I unearthed the obscure rules about positions 41-50 in 2006, after a piece of research on record sales in the 70s. Frankly, amongst all the chart experts who ever volunteer to discuss such matters, none were unaware of the rules’ existence. After a very long, slow process of consultation and communication, we were able to establish that those who compile chart books observe a simple principle: The books record the chart, listed as an entire chart; if a chart is supplemented by an extra listing, that extra listing is not recorded.
The compilers use the argument that other records are excluded from the charts by other rules and there is no clamour to include these in chart books. This is true. For example, in the 90s and 2000s there were rules implemented to stop records:
a) re-entering the singles chart when reduced in price (at retail and supplied TO retail)
b) staying on the chart for longer than a year
and, most famously of all
c) remaining on the chart once deleted by the record company
In these cases, if they’re off the chart, they’re out of the reference books (for those weeks): the permanent note in history is what was on the chart. So the argument is quite a sound one – not least for the practical idea that it would be impossible to recompile the true chart taking into account all exclusions.
The irritating sand-in-the-vaseline is that the 41-50 section of the full chart was governed by rules which were incredibly similar to the rules which applied to the 76-100 appendix between 1983 and 1991. However, the 41-50 section appeared in the main singles chart, the 76-100 section never did.
It really would have been a lot simpler just listing the fifty best-selling singles, wouldn’t it?
That having been said, as the author of TPL I’m very much in favour of alterations to the album chart in the way that Billboard does it, i.e. after two years on the list, perennial best-sellers go into the separate Catalog Albums chart, thus freeing up space for new acts or acts that otherwise wouldn’t have a chance of getting a toehold on the Top 200. I don’t know how many good or great albums or acts have been kept out because of Legend or Abba Gold being there for the nine millionth week simply because they’re loss leaders on permanent discount at HMV and at supermarkets.
#236, indeed it would have been simpler, and probably none the worse.
On a v trivial point, in 235 I observed “amongst all the chart experts who ever volunteer to discuss such matters, none were unaware of the rules’ existence”. Of course, this should have read “none were AWARE”.
237: was it simply the top 50 best-selling single pre-1975 and post- 1978?
PS To many (most?) people it will be a case of “who cares” re the revelation you gave us this morning but to me I’m quite ‘shocked’ that in something I thought I’d known the score on for the past 30 odd years (ie Top 50=Top50 bestselling singles) in reality I’d been quite wrong.
And I was always a big fan of a Top 50 too (thought they should count in down on radio etc)but now some of those tracks I thought had made the charts (albeit in a minor way)didn’t really.I wonder how many extra weeks some big hits would have had on the charts and which acts would have never made the chart books if those falling records HAD been included…
#238, A few separate answers.
Pre 1975 yes, Top 50 appeared to have meant just that. The caution I would sound of course is that somebody somewhere might discover (or already know) a rule which introduced some artificiality. I was little short of astonished at how very, very few knew about the rules governing 41-50 (and I remain grateful to the person who finally shed light on its inception and intention).
In May 1978, the rules for 41-50 were abandoned as the chart moved to a Top 75. Although the rules were removed,
a) I refer you to the caution expressed above and
b) eventually (1990s onwards), there DEFINITELY were other rules which excluded records from the chart – see #235.
As for who cares? It’s a pertinent question, isn’t it? The charts have become a specialist interest. I wonder who would have cared when they had (something like) mass appeal.
And which acts would never have made the chart books? Fascinating. We know from many examples – most notably You Spin Me Round and Jennifer Rush’s The Power Of Love – that interest in a record could increase dramatically once it touched the lower reaches of the Top 40 and the record’s popularity could wither on the vine if it did not. This wasn’t a quirk – as I’ve said before, it meant rackspace at retail, airplay, references in chart rundowns and possibly TOTP.
The influence of the Top 50 was less strong than the Top 40, but certainly it would have made a difference at retail if not at Radio and TOTP (which may have been too pluggable). The chart position of a record became a shorthand for the record itself. Retailers would place an order for x copies of (say) “number 49″, and it would have a fixed place on the shelves. The chart was generally promoted in shops in a prominent place, so customers would know where to look for it or would just ask for “number x”. However, it’s still down to supposition as to whether it made much difference.
Would Abba’s SOS have broken the Top 50 in week ending September 20 1975? It was #47, and four records were excluded from the chart that week, so maybe not: maybe it was #51? If it hadn’t made the Top 50 that week, would it have made it the next? The week after? Maybe not at all? If it hadn’t made it at all, would Abba have resurrected their career and entered 1976 on such a high? And so on.
Re 235: thanks. I had no idea. Strengthens the argument for a Top 40 book, a UK equivalent to Joel Whitburn’s.
Apparently Liverpool Express’s You Are My Love has made the jump up the download charts of any song screened during these repeats. I find that quite pleasing.
Ah, that’s good.
Re Abba: “I do I do I do I do I do” and “So Long” were both flops, but I don’t think Abba were making records to chart in the UK per-se, i.e. it wouldn’t have changed the songs they were writing or the singles they were issuing. Had “SOS” not hit, it would have been the next one, it would have happened eventually.
#240. Wichita… Don’t know how to say this, especially when some of my observations rely so heavily on your support…but at best that’s a distorted piece of information about “You Are My Love”. It hasn’t made it to the (unpublished) Top 200 Download Chart.
It’s possible, I suppose, that someone somewhere has been monitoring the week on week increase (% or absolute) in downloads by all the featured records, and YAML would I am sure fare well in this respect. If someone’s doing that analysis, I would LOVE to see it.
However, the reference to the notion of it “jumping up the chart” is not quite right, I’m afraid.
Please observe WL’s prominent use of the adverb “apparently” in that particular sentence.
Not a fan of the song, I’m afraid; a pallid Xerox of “I’m Not In Love” which might have been improved by the addition of verses to the repeated choruses.
My allegiance to a Top 50 came about as a result of the first British Hit Singles book which I had (the first edition)including the Top 50 (nb it had gone up to the end of 1976 when there was no Top 75).
When I saw my first Top 75 in a magazine a year or 2 later I thought it might have existed for years but that the positions 51-75 had been deemed too insignificant for Guinness to include. And so in my mind the Top 50 (itself going back to 1960)became the best length chart.
However in view of this revelation I’d agree with Wichita and say a Top 40 book now seems the a sensible option.
Although it would omit a lot of my favourite jazz-funk/house/hardcore/trance records that made 41-75. And which due to where they sold most of their copies (ie specialist shops)as has been said before they were probably in many cases easily deserving of a place in the Top 40 anyway.
@241. Agreed, it was inevitable. I do I do I do went to #1 in both Australia and NZ in August 1975 (SOS got there in both cases in Jan 1976, with Mamma Mia in between in Aus.). And I do(3x)’s b-side Rock Me was eventually released as a separate single at the end of 1976, getting to #4 and #2. Abba just had so many single-worthy songs at this point it was nuts.
#243, I did note the use of the adverb “apparently”. It doesn’t help, because what follows it is wrong. Therefore there’s really nothing “apparent” about it, in any sense of the word, even if it’s interpreted as colloquially as possible and of course I do interpret it that way.
It’s a piece of hard data*, and I’m deeply uncomfortable with the notion that modifying adverbs (and other phrases) can be used to give licence to ‘false facts’. I have a strong sense of epistemology.
*Yes, I know ‘data’ is plural.
It is not “wrong” and it was not advocated as “facts,” as your use of the words “interpreted” and “interpret” confirms in any case. Why the annoyance? It’s not ‘phone-hacking.
Oi, HTGH! Here’s my Glenn Mulcaire:
http://yesitsnumberone.blogspot.com
I said “apparently” because I didn’t know if it was true but thought some people might go “ooh, really?”.
I’d be intrigued to know which songs have benefited most from the re-runs. My money’s on S-S-Single Bed.
#247 – See #248′s good natured response. I think the point I made is understood. My inclination with unsubstantiated claims is to check them out first. It’s my job. I realise others may approach things differently if they come from a different background (professional or otherwise). In this case, I checked to see if it were true. On this, two points: 1. Don’t underestimate the time or commitment it took to check out what was being claimed. 2. It would have given me greater pleasure to find that the claim was correct. In fact, I found it was false.
So after the effort I cannot buy this idea that it “was not advocated as facts”. It is not a mere puff or boast; everything which follows the word “apparently” is testable against being right or wrong, and it’s wrong.
It’s a neat trick to suggest I am annoyed and to introduce ‘phone-hacking to the conversation. I won’t rise to that particular bait.
By the way, in wishing to extend an olive branch, may I applaud the apostrophe in ‘phone. I love that and I do it too.
#249, I’m intrigued too. If I can find out, I will. My money on Fox too. If not, then Shake It Down by Mud.