Jan 09

The Strange Death of the UK Charts

FT/64 comments • 6,105 views

This is a graph – done by anatol_merklich off the Poptimists LiveJournal community, so massive thanks to him – showing the number of new entries in the UK singles chart for each year from 1952 to the present.

Plot graph showing number of UK chart hits per year

The final drop-off is for 2009, where there’ve only been 3 new entries so far, so the last relevant data point is the one before that – 2008 – which shows a dramatic fall from 2007, but on an already declining recent curve. The number of new entries in the Top 75 last year is less than half what it was in 2004. In fact, last year’s total is the lowest since the chart became a Top 75, back in 1979. (Before that significant changes in the total were largely down to the expansion of the chart’s parameters – from 20, to 30, to 50 to 75.)

What does the graph tell us? That the 90s saw a “pop bubble”, for one thing: the number of new entries peaked in 1997, with an average of more than 20 new entries every week. It seems to me that the bubble was caused by two things: better first-week marketing of new singles (including aggressive discounting and multiple formats) and the explosion of interest in dance music, a genre which thrived on singles formats.

So what’s caused the bubble to finally burst? The really key factor has been the inclusion of downloads in the chart – this started in April 2004, and that’s when we see a really precipitous drop in the number of new tracks charting. From 2007, any download – rather than simply ones tied to physical releases – has been eligible for the chart, and increasingly no physical release is required. This has accelerated the drop in new entries.

But why? After all, the new download rules mean that far MORE songs are eligible for chart status than ever before – almost any track can get into the chart. But this obviously isn’t happening. Some of this is down to the contracting music biz meaning that less acts are getting promotional push, but the main issue is one of shelf life. The freedom from a physical release that opens the charts up to far more songs is also a freedom from the restrictions placed on records by their reliance on physical distribution networks. In the days of Woolworths (RIP) and HMV, a song slipping out of the Top 40 was quickly axed from stock to make way for newer releases: but in a digital world, songs can (and do) bounce around the lower reaches of the Top 75 almost indefinitely. The expanded longevity of each hit song means far fewer spaces for new songs to break through.

In other words, what the charts have become is a demonstration of how the increased choice offered by a Long Tail system actually leads to LESS diversity at the top end (the “hit head”). The forces acting as gatekeepers over what could be bought were also hidden gatekeepers over when things could be bought: this power sped up the pop turnover and helped make the charts more vibrant. (NB: I like having a fast-moving chart with a lot of different records: your mileage may of course vary).

What’s the overall lesson? That when you remove artificial barriers in a content-based system the speed of turnover slows down, perhaps? If you think about a distribution curve, a gatekept system punishes innovators and to some extent early adopters by stopping the kewl things they discover from reaching an audience quickly. But it also punishes late majority adopters and laggards, by artificially curtailing the shelf life of content. And there are more of the late majority and laggards than there are the innovators!

(UPDATE: I’ve now run the figures to find out the “hit rate” for each year – the percentage of new entries as against *potential* new entries – with 100% being some kind of madhouse scenario where the entire Top 75 changes every week. This supports the “bubble” hypothesis – the hit rate is now at a 34-year low, of 12.4% (in the bubble years – 1990 to 2005 – it was above 20% every year). But it’s within the 10-13% range it was in for most of the charts’ first 20 years: the exception being a slump to under 10% at the start of the 70s – the lowest it’s ever been. Whether it will keep dropping is the question – and whether a low hit rate is a healthy sign for a much more stylistically diversified biz than was the case in 1974. Of course, if you believe the singles chart doesn’t matter much, this is all irrelevant, but I think it’s an interesting finding anyhow!)

This article was the jumping off point for an article in the Guardian by Dorian Lynskey – Ed


  1. 1
    anatol_merklich on 6 Jan 2009 #

    Just a couple of points for the record:

    1) Re-entries (including downloads of older tracks) are often included as entries. Whether this happens or not in a particular case of reentry is I think a) based on Guinness books; b) possibly somewhat haphazard. This means that the situation may actually be *worse* than it appears (seen from your POV), as “In The Air Tonight”, “Fairytale of NY” etc etc are actually *included* in later years.

    The reason I can’t give the exact procedure is that

    2) the data material stems from *polyhex.com*, to whom should be given large credit.

  2. 2
    Tom on 6 Jan 2009 #

    I think the minor plummet from 97-00 is caused by more stringent crackdowns on first-week marketing techniques, by the way: that’s when the engineering of chart rules to provide singles with an up-and-down arc started.

  3. 3
    anatol_merklich on 6 Jan 2009 #

    BTW: When I said “reentry” in #1, I actually meant “reissue” as Guinness marks things. Reentries after e.g. a few weeks are *not* counted again.

    The difference was more clear-cut before, with for instance new/same catalogue number as original issue being usable as criterion. With downloads (infinite stock!) the whole thing breaks down obv.

  4. 4
    Tom on 6 Jan 2009 #

    BTW Anatol can you email me the excel data for this – there’s another way I’d like to look at it?

  5. 5
    anatol_merklich on 6 Jan 2009 #

    Of course! Sending to leagueofpop.

  6. 6
    Tom on 6 Jan 2009 #

    Thanks Anatol! I will express the findings in an UPDATE to the post.

  7. 7
    Marcus Warner on 8 Jan 2009 #

    Great post!

    Will flag it up on my blog forthwith…


  8. 8
    Pete Baran on 8 Jan 2009 #

    I am assuming this massive drop is the hang of downloads in the 75-40 region, where previously hyped but poorly selling indie singles and briefly hot dance numbers would pop in and out for a week or two. I think we had just got rid of Chasing Cars when Leona came along with hers, and I an sure she’ll be in the 75 forever too!

    So I would also (though fear this info is not availible) stats for the top 10, top 20, top 20 and the bottom 35.

    And also what would be useful would be to know how many eligible tracks are released each week (ie what proportion of new releases actually chart) plus their marketing spend. It is possible now to release a single for no money at all, which would suggest more money for ad spend, but I suggest the exact opposite has happened.

  9. 9
    Alan on 22 Jan 2009 #


  10. 10
    Tom on 22 Jan 2009 #

    My own bump of this has been eaten by the spam filter I think!

  11. 11
    Billy Smart on 22 Jan 2009 #

    From today’s Guardian; http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jan/22/top-40-music-chart

    Is the top 40 dying? Has the decision, two years ago, to allow downloads to chart without an accompanying physical release broken the back of a British institution? Well, it depends who you ask. Recently, the passionate and perceptive pop blog Freaky Trigger posted a graph demonstrating that the number of new entries is in freefall. Last year, only 202 songs entered the top 40, the lowest number since 1988. At the same time, a single’s average chart run passed 10 weeks for the first time ever. The result, argued Freaky Trigger in a piece headlined The Strange Death of the UK Charts, is less drama and less fun.

  12. 12
    Pete Baran on 22 Jan 2009 #

    The issue raised by Dorian boils down to what do you want your chart for. The democratic cultural water cooler melting pot of some bygone age, or the fast moving, low impact, possibly irrelevant beast it became in the nineties. From a music journalists point of view the former is clearly preferable because it makes their job more important. They can make swathing assertions about the charts again, and chart success. I remain to be convinced that number of artists in the chart is either a good or a bad thing.

    As I mentioned above I would be more interested what this has done to promotional budgets, and breaking new artists.

  13. 13
    Tom on 22 Jan 2009 #

    I think the bit DL’s wrong about is the “unifying hits” bit at the end – the amount of sales needed to get a #1 isn’t much higher in 2000, so it’s hard to argue that the Ting Tings hanging around is because they’re somehow unifying the nation, except via forced exposure.

    Also, Dorian, if yr reading! “Same Old Brand New You” is a great bit of pop, fully deserving of its #1 status :) I can’t say the same of “Day And Night” sadly.

  14. 14
    Pete Baran on 22 Jan 2009 #

    But the reason the Ting Tings are hanging around is because people are still buying it. In the nineties that would not have been possible. Once you were out of the top ten, they’d stop pressing the CD’s and you would have to buy the album. Which then led to much more of an album buying culture, which then led to the irrelevancy of the singles chart which then led to the career path of the Britpop album and the dwindling of the one off hits which brought innovation and colour into our lives.

  15. 15
    Matt DC on 22 Jan 2009 #

    I have gone full circle on this and am now firmly in the ‘charts don’t matter only the music in them matters’ camp – the idea of anyone ‘following’ a song’s trajectory in the charts is something that pop critics talk about an awful lot, but I’m not convinced many people actually do it. Kids included.

  16. 16
    Alan on 22 Jan 2009 #

    dorian sez ‘contrary to CA’s influential book The Long Tail…’ – but is it? the charts is all about looking at the head, so it’s not going to contradict LongTail observations. (ok, I’ve not read TLT! )

    Tom says it = “less diversity at the top end”. does that get a mention in CA’s book. it seems some likely.

  17. 17
    definitely not Kat at all oh no on 22 Jan 2009 #

    I am siding with the theory that the actual number of singles released each week (not just the number of singles charting) has dropped considerably since the mid-90s (i.e. less music is being released altogether). I would be interested to see stats on the number of new entries on the dance and indie charts, where a) physical vinyl releases are still vaguely relevant.

  18. 18
    Tom on 22 Jan 2009 #

    Yes I think that’s true – it’s the “unifying” spin on it I don’t agree with!

    What downloads have done is broken the trade-off between range and duration of availability. What happened in the 90s and 00s is the record labels and shops realised that aggregate demand for singles was shrinking and the pop market was more fragmented, so they could get a wider range of product out there by clipping how long everything was available for.

    Downloads mean you can have a huge range and long availability – win-win, except the underlying fragmentation hasn’t changed. So what’s happening is that every single now gets to maximise its potential audience (ppl who like a song enough to buy it), but that doesn’t necessarily mean said potential audience is any bigger than it was in 2000.

  19. 19
    a tanned rested and unlogged lørd sükråt wötsît on 22 Jan 2009 #

    re matt dc querying anyone following the track of a song in the charts — can’t answer for today’s youth but my mum did just this in the early 50s, when she was a teen… in fact she drew little diagrams of the rise and fall and everything (and had no plan to become a rock critic as this was not an option then)

    (her actual plan as a grown-up was to spend the day drinking creme de menthe and reading vogue, she once said, tho later she vehemently denied saying any such thing…)

  20. 20
    Tom on 22 Jan 2009 #

    The article is being slightly disingenuous too when it suddenly focuses on #1s rather than the whole Top 40. I reckon the change in rules *has* been beneficial to #1s – I still don’t think the songs that get there are unifying public hits but they are meaty representatives of various genres and styles, and the insane turnover in 2000 isn’t preferable.

    But as I said in the original post, it’s what’s happening to these songs AFTERWARDS that’s problematic – yes, climbers are back, hurrah, but songs that climb slowly now also FALL slowly without the cut-off mechanism of physical stock being liquidated. Which clogs up the charts (and playlists). It’s as much of a problem for the successful acts too, as it hampers promotion of follow-up singles.

  21. 21
    Pete Baran on 22 Jan 2009 #

    This PopJustice story still seems to suggest that there are groups of fans for whom chart placement matters intensely:

  22. 22
    a tanned rested and unlogged lørd sükråt wötsît on 22 Jan 2009 #

    re #19: this is a supply and distribution issue which goes way beyond the charts — when music required a physical vehicle (whether vinyl or tape or cd), it underwent periods of scarcity (sometime time-related, sometime geographical, sometimes both) which impacted on cost-value, use-value and cultural value (and how these three values interracted)

    when the CD “total reissue” project combined with P2P, scarcity became a rather different kind of characteristic (it now means: “not yet converted to digital and supplied for free on the internet”); it still impacts on cost-value, use-value, cultural value and their interractions, but in a very different way

    (cost-value is not zero incidentally — it’s merely collected at a different point: viz in the cost of the hardware required to accesss p2p)

  23. 23
    Dorian on 22 Jan 2009 #

    I feel obliged to say how much I liked Tom’s initial post and Anatol’s graph, without which I wouldn’t even have thought to reconsider what I believe makes the charts interesting/relevant/healthy. My focus on number ones wasn’t so much disingenuous as it was a result of limited space and the need to address readers who don’t diligently follow the charts. Once you start delving into the Polyhex data it’s hard to stop, and I was wary of statistics overload. Also, the subhead rather distorts my point. I don’t believe that the bubble only favoured dross – I enjoyed high chart placings by bands I liked such as the Manics and the Chemical Brothers (Tolerate and Setting Sun are two of the 90s’ great freak number ones), a phenomenon which won’t happen under the new regime, but on balance I think it’s a worthwhile trade-off.

    I’ll have to take your word for it about the A1 song, Tom. I literally have no memory of it whatsoever.

  24. 24
    definitely not Kat at all oh no on 22 Jan 2009 #

    There’s an awesome Almighty techno mix of ‘Day And Night’ btw! See also the bosh medley of all Billie’s hits :)

  25. 25
    CarsmileSteve on 22 Jan 2009 #

    on the other hand Dorian, i have been singing the blasted thing all morning!

  26. 26
    Alan on 22 Jan 2009 #

    and there was me thinking you were on about Kid Kudi =:-O

  27. 27
    Tom on 22 Jan 2009 #

    I haven’t read the Long Tail either! But I wasn’t trying to ‘disprove’ it – I was suggesting that the removal of physical limits which makes a Long Tail cultural market possible also means that hits grow their own individual Long Tails.

    Combine that with record company marketing techniques you get what I’m going to call “mullet hits” – short at the front (pre-peak) and then long at the back: a lengthy falling off as the audience gets into the late majority and laggards. The early adopters and early majority start getting pissed off at this point.

    On my way to get a sammich I thought about what the ‘solution’ for this might be – a best-of-both-worlds secnario. I reckon if, outside the Top 40 (or even 20), a song got delisted when its sales had been declining for 3-4 straight weeks, we’d remove this logjam a bit.

  28. 28
    Pete Baran on 22 Jan 2009 #

    I am not sure it matters really. I remember the Top 40 radio show from my youth was only 2 hours long. They only played the new entries between 40 and 20 and played the top 20 straight – effectively presentationally what you suggest. There is no reason why we at Freaky Trigger could not make that OUR official chart, it’d be easy to set up (ie the tedium adjusted chart!)

    Things I would also like to see from the stats is the effect of playlist positioning. Does a song get a bump when it drops off a playlist – ie I can hear Chasing Cars all the time on the radio, why would I want to buy it -OH NOES IT HAS GONE.

  29. 29
    Tom on 22 Jan 2009 #

    Interesting btw that this piece appears on the same day as an article in Graun Technology predcting the death of downloaded music: link and background here http://www.paulbr.co.uk/the-death-of-the-download/

  30. 30
    Alan on 22 Jan 2009 #

    aye — the cloud v download. now that i can listen to the The Best of Billie 24 hours a day without a download — where are your mighty charts now, eh?

    (ps i wasn’t saying you were trying to disprove the long tail, but that Dorian had taken it that way)

  31. 31
    CarsmileSteve on 22 Jan 2009 #

    but alan, what if you are not in range of teh cloud, eg on the tube/in cornwall???

  32. 32
    Alan on 22 Jan 2009 #

    true. more importantly, which is more likely to happen first – wifi in the tube or electric lighting in cornwall?

  33. 33
    SteveM on 22 Jan 2009 #

    #29 link – Yes Spotify and the like make that much more palpable.

    For me the charts are pretty much dead and irrelevant. I like that things like Kid Cudi+Crookers can (eventually) do well in them but the alternative universe of pop filled with “this ought to be a top 10 single” wonders is now so vast and immediate and there is no way for that to be measured and contained in a chart in any way that could satisfy me now.

  34. 34
    cis on 22 Jan 2009 #

    “Day and Night” for me was a brilliant number one for its utterly straightforward formalism, that and samantha mumba’s ‘gotta tell you’ were like steps toward perfection of the pop-in-2000-formula. I don’t think either of them were actually written by cheiron productions but they sounded like it, like refinements on ‘crazy’ and ‘it’s gonna be me’. Which – I was only just starting to get back into pop, then, after my time at the indie coalface – was really thrilling to me, and still is, the idea that a sound could be seized upon and tweaked endlessly until it got as close to the ideal as possible and then got boring and then was discarded, right out in public.

    (but obv this kind of formalism is only fun if you like the thing they’re formalising)

    er i had a way i was going to link this to the end of the bubble but i forgot what it was.

  35. 35
    CarsmileSteve on 22 Jan 2009 #

    of course one could just “tape” billie’s greatest hits off of spotify…

  36. 36
    Alan on 22 Jan 2009 #

    detail from that technology article (interview with LastFM bloke)

    “We have a generation of music fans now who’ve grown up with the iTunes standard of 128kbps, which is the quality we stream music at on Last.fm”

    but they don’t say what codec. when everyone is up-to-date with Flash, we can dump mp3 streaming as they put aac support into 9 (and we’re now on 10). but every (open source) flash player i’ve seen still uses mp3 :-(

  37. 37
    SteveM on 22 Jan 2009 #

    either way 128kbps really isn’t a step backwards from muffly old C90s.

  38. 38
    vinylscot on 22 Jan 2009 #


    There’s a lot of good valid points in here, but I need to disagree with your idea at the end of post 27. The “logjam”, as you put it, is there because the consumer wants it to be there; tracks should continue to be listed according to sales, no matter whether these sales are increasing or decreasing. If a track is to enter the top 75, it must sell enough copies to be one of the 75 best selling tracks; anything else would devalue the integrity of the chart.

    Back in the late 70s, not long after the chart expanded to 75, there were a further 25 listed, numbered 76-100, and these positions were dependent upon increased sales; I can’t remember the exact criteria, but it was along the lines of two weeks decrease in sales disqualifies a listing. This was discontinued after a fairly short time, as it was recognised that the song listed at 100, may really only be #150 or something.

    By your model some of the finest of all chart runs would have been curtailed early – Dead or Alive’s “You Spin Me Round”, Jennifer Rush’s “Power of Love”, even Frankie’s “Relax” would probably have been dropped from the chart before they really took off, and others like Evelyn King’s sublime “Shame” would have vanished much sooner and lost their status as long-runners. As you’ll no doubt appreciate, once a record drops off the chart, promotional spend (usually quite rightly) disappears.

    Today’s long-runners do reflect a more mature approach to music buying. There’s no mad rush to buy something in its first week or two to take advantage of early cut-price offers or limited availability timespan. This reduces both “routine” buying, where the purchaser will buy anything released by an artist, and “impulse” buying where the purchaser feels he must buy now or miss the boat.

    The ready availability of almost everything on legal download services has, some would say surprisingly, reduced the impetus to buy. You don’t need to buy now, because it will always be there, and there is therefore less buyer’s regret involved as more purchases are the result of some thought rather than an automatic reflex.

    The parallel availability of free illegal downloads also replaces much of the “reflex” purchases, and also contributes to the overall phenomenon.

    The chart reflects what people are willing to pay for, and that’s how it must be. Unfortunately, it doesn’t show what the most popular tracks are; illegal downloads make that impossible, but it’s as close as we’re gonna get.

    There have always been people who have an interest in chart runs, positions, performance etc, over and above just an interest in the music itself. I was one of these throughout the 70s into the early and mid 80s. Although I now have far less interest in the actual music now, I find myself becoming more interested in the chart again.

    So, I don’t think the slowing down has had a detrimental effect; in fact I see it as infinitely preferable to the in-and-out-in-four-weeks nonsense of the nineties and early 00s.

    Apologies for length. I’ll go away now.

  39. 39
    definitely not Kat at all oh no on 22 Jan 2009 #

    Veering a bit off topic but wrt the Graun article on the death of the download: on our daily music news mailshot this morning we were triumphantly told that the iTunes store had had its best quarter ever leading up to wobsmas. (Tho this could be just a by-product of Apple dropping the DRM?)

  40. 40
    definitely not Kat at all oh no on 22 Jan 2009 #

    Cis – ‘Day & Night’ was produced by Stargate (Rustan/Eriksen/Hermansen), ‘Gotta Tell You’ was Arnthor Birgisson who wasn’t Cheiron but was sort-of mates with them I think.

  41. 41
    Alan on 22 Jan 2009 #

    DRM was dropped after the time covered by that quarter. iTunes store performance is more likely down to the app store for the ipod touch – nowt much to do with music

  42. 42
    wichita lineman on 22 Jan 2009 #

    Re 27: I’ve often wondered if Billboard used to do this, as American hits tended to have an Edwyn Collins 1980 ‘do rather than a mullet, falling from their peak position very rapidly.

    Can’t agree though, Tom, I think the chart has to be based on supply and demand – same as TOTP, when it finally returns, has to be based on the singles chart. Snow Patrol potentially overtaking My Way’s record run is just something we’ll have to live with.*

    Longest Billboard run, last time I checked, was Tainted Love which never even cracked the Top 5.

    *maybe it already has? The Guinness book doesn’t seem to print such info these days.

  43. 43
    AndyPandy on 22 Jan 2009 #

    Re Pete at No14: That’s really interesting I never realised that that had started to happen to singles ie that they were deleted very quickly after they left the charts.

    I suppose it shows when I lost bought pop singles but I still blithely believed things had stayed like they were in the 70s and 80s when many singles stayed on catalogue more or less indefinitely and even less well performing ones were available for a considerable amount of time after they’d disappeared from the charts. Hence the occasional phenomenon of a single suddenly spending a rogue week or two at the bottom of the charts again months or years after its initial success.
    I’m definitely with those who think the moment the chart doesn’t list the Top selling singles purely on sales for that week an already generally irrelevant concept becomes completely pointless.

  44. 44
    vinylscot on 22 Jan 2009 #

    re post 42, according to the Chartstats site, the Snow Patrol track will equal Frank Sinatra’s record this coming weekend, if it stays in the top 100 in the next chart.

    It is currently at #80, up from last week’s #82. There is a debate however over whether 30 of Snow Patrol’s weeks should count as they were spent in between #76 and #100, and therefore are outside the normally publicised scope of the “Chart”.

    It’s also been suggested in certain places that its chart position has not always been strictly accurate, prompted by the fact that it has spent six (non-consecutive) weeks at #75, every one of these while the chart position has been on a downward trend, the inference being that it was artificially kept in the top 75.

    I don’t know what the official view is; perhaps other contributors may have views on this.

  45. 45
    Tom on 23 Jan 2009 #


    …has the details for the US charts! Very interesting.

  46. 46
    AndyPandy on 23 Jan 2009 #

    Think the original (Guardian) article interesting except for as others have said this idea about the paucity of new entries “unifying” things to those pre-90s days when people knew what was No1 and records were “proper” hits.
    Surely its still fragmented niche markets but just as some people have said those niches buying them over longer periods.
    Surely nowhere better illustrated than with the Ting Tings (who I’d mercifully never heard of till this article) to be honest I can’t think of any act less likely to unify any music nation and who actually only appeal to a very small demographic of easily manipulated people who mistifyingly would think they’re less easily manipulated than the buyers of ‘Pop Idol’ etc.

    Someone made an interesting point about the charts being skewed by the effect that only legal downloads count towards the charts (and I’m sure I’ve heard a figure of 95% of downloads being estimated to be illegal).

    With many (but by no means all) of those who see legal downloading as laughable being younger and/or from a lower social demographic and with older more earnest/people from a social demographic worrying about such things as the artists getting paid/”development of new talent” bothering to pay for their tracks could an extrapolation from this explain the preponderance of easier listening/less urban music hanging around at least in the lower regions of the charts for ages these days…If someone has already said something similar I apologise

    PS To return to the Ting Tings what a completely awful band….well I suppose they have a sort of saving grace in crystallising all the most redundant, derivative, self-regarding facets of modern indie music in one handy package if you ever need to point just how worthlessly dire this type of music is…

  47. 47
    Alan on 26 Jan 2009 #

    http://www.slate.com/id/2195151/ An old Slate post worth linking here – that cites research showing that online purchasing makes for a long tail that is flat but that there remains a massive ‘unadventurous’ blockbuster head

  48. 48

    […] Freakytrigger post shows that the number of new entries in the UK charts has dropped off a cliff in recent years. A negative effect of the long […]

  49. 49
    Alan not logged in on 15 Apr 2010 #

    wonder if anatol can add more data now?

  50. 50
    Alan on 29 Nov 2010 #

    YEAH, what he said ^

  51. 51
    speedwell54 on 5 Dec 2012 #

    Saw this in the ‘moving box’, third blog down and the title caught my attention. All fascinating stuff Tom, and I enjoyed the links to the Guardian and the American version of the same story. Personally I do prefer the less frantic chart turnover that we have at the moment. I used to follow the top 75, but reduced it to monitoring the top 10 by the mid ’90s. This was partly due to the speed of the chart and top 10 singles going in and out so quickly that they barely registered.

    In the ’90s, 1997 was the peak of the “Pop Bubble” for the top 10, as well as the full chart. 216 going through it, more than half staying just one week in there. In the 17 years 1979-1995 an average of 135 records passed through the top 10, and save a couple of years it was within 10 of that figure. The change started in 1996, shooting up to 186, and then it averages 206 top 10s for the next ten years. The download rules change in 2006, Gnarls Barkley goes to No1, and the chart slows again. 2006-2011 we are again coincidentally averaging 135 per year.

    I am broadly in line with the views of vinylscot and Dorian Lynskey* on this one. In 1997 the No1s entered at No1 except a couple that entered at 2. Out of 220 top 10 singles that year, only one actually climbed in there! In 2012 Paradise, Good Feeling, Domino, Titanium, Somebody I Used To Know, and We Are Young, all climbed to the very top in a way that just wasn’t possible in 1997.

    Personally I want the chart to reflect weekly sales in whatever format, with no tinkering at the edges, and when I look at the top 10, I want to think, yeah I know that song and I remember the video, or have some recollection of how they look. I don’t want to think, what? who?

    Just a small point Dorian Lynskey writes in the Guardian in Jan 2009 “Last year, only 202 songs entered the top 40…” On a quick count I get 284 and that excludes 9 re entries in week 1. I haven’t looked more deeply, but even if you say “Hallelujah” by Alexandra Burke, Leonard Cohen and Jeff Buckley count as one ‘song’, I don’t think there were too many other examples. Maybe I am missing something. Later in the same article: “In 1987 there were 159 new entries; 10 years later there were 729..” I get 341 in 1987. There were 144 entries just in the top 10. The 729 I can’t easily check but it does at least sound reasonable, and I do get the point, just not the figures. Liked the article.

    My own figures include my own rules, but they are accurate enough for this.

  52. 52
    Steve Mannion on 7 Dec 2015 #

    BIEBERGEDDON. Hadn’t noticed just how many JB songs there have been in the charts since the album dropped – three in the top 5 even.

    Along with 1D he’s ensured the overall total of chart hits this year will exceed 300. It may not have done otherwise – still on course for the lowest quantity since the Top 75 began.

    My page for UK chart hits playlists (Spotify only – anyone making equivalents for other services please link!) including 2015: http://ghostfood.tv/music/#ukcharthits

  53. 53
    weej on 9 Dec 2015 #

    Sure it’s been noted by many already, but not only has JB replaced himself at #1 (only previously done by The Beatles, John Lennon after he was killed and Elvis Presley when they were re-releasing all his singles) but he’s done it with “Love Yourself”, a track which hasn’t even been released as a single – the first time one of these has actually managed to get to the top. And on top of this he has a whole 13 tracks in the otherwise-Christmas-song-packed midweek top 100.

  54. 54
    Tommy Mack on 13 Dec 2015 #

    Speaking of JB replacing himself, has anyone seen his new poster around: he seems to be seriously going for the serious moody grown-up emo ninja messiah look!

  55. 55
    weej on 31 Dec 2016 #

    Just an update for the end of 2016 – this year has seen a whole TEN new chart-topping singles, the lowest figure ever and a frankly astonishing crash from the 38 we had in 2014. At current rates we will have NONE AT ALL next year.

  56. 56
    Steve Mannion on 31 Dec 2016 #

    Under 300 hits for the first time since 1974 too I think (EDIT: actually according to Polyhex’s luvly graphs this year saw exactly 300: http://www.polyhex.me.uk/uksingles/total-new-entries-in-the-top-forty-uks.cfm). This might also explain why Mariah’s ‘All I Want For Christmas Is You’ did a bit better than usual this Xmas (top 10 for the first time since its initial download-led run in 2007) – sales and streams probably around the same as have been for that in recent years but the general thinner spread and/or slower pace of sales and streams in the chart overall results in its boost. Maybe next Xmas it will finally get to #1 (and stay there for weeks).

  57. 57
    speedwell54 on 2 Jan 2017 #

    The number of top 10 hits also takes a tumble. Following my previous post on here at 51 above, the number of top 10 hits each year steadied itself;
    2012-142, 2013 -143, 2014-144.

    But in 2015 it fell to 110, and last year 2016, to just 67!

    Whether this was a freak year or not, time will tell, but I hope we can move back towards the 100 mark.

    There’s a balance between a chart that moves so quickly, that one can barely remember it, and one that moves so slowly, that one struggles to forget it.

    The Official Singles year end chart for 2016 has Panda by Desiigner at 36 (a song that managed just 2 weeks in the top 10 over the summer) and Rockabye by Clean Bandit (8 weeks at number 1 at Christmas) at 37.

    How things change- James Arthur a few years ago made the year end top 5 with the X factor single which must have only had two or three weeks sales up to the end of the year.

    Christmas -in the singles chart at least- seems meaningless, it all about time served. Half the top 10 didn’t reach number 1, but stuck around. Stressed Out didn’t make the top 10 at all, but managed year end chart at 31. The difference in sales (physical/download/streaming) of the number 1 track and the number 40 one, must be narrower than ever before. I am not optimistic the change from 100 to 150 streams will do much to halt this decline.

    Re Steve above, I agree with the reasons for Mariah charting so highly. Also there must be a rota for organising the music for the Christmas party (rather than sticking with the mug we got last time) hence a new person downloading each year.

  58. 58
    Steve Mannion on 3 Jan 2017 #

    Several Xmas songs now peaking higher in addition to Mariah – Shakey into the top 20 for the first time in eight years and Wham! in the top 10 with double impetus. Even The Waitresses ‘Christmas Wrapping’ is finally back in the charts for the first time since its original release (albeit at a lowly #96).

  59. 59
    Steve Mannion on 15 Dec 2017 #

    Haven’t counted this year’s entries (yet – nor indeed the position of ‘Christmas Wrapping’) but guessing we’re down to less than 300 now.

  60. 60
    Steve Mannion on 20 Dec 2017 #

    Elton’s ‘Step Into Christmas’ doing significantly better this year for some reason – see also Chris Rea and Brenda Lee. Mariah herself is back at 2 and on the cusp of finally going all the way.

  61. 61
    lockedintheattic on 20 Dec 2017 #

    Quite a few are doing better than usual this year, some better than ever:
    Michael Buble at 18 & 55, Elton John at 19, Chris Rea at 23, Ariana Grande at 29, Kylie at 47 are all higher than their original peaks at release.
    Mariah, Wham, Band Aid, Brenda Lee, Shakin Stevens, Wizzard, John & Yoko, Andy Williams, Bing Crosby, Paul McCartney, Boney M are all at their highest for at least 10 years.
    At the other end Mud, Jona Lewie & the Pretenders are so far lower than usual

  62. 62
    Steve Mannion on 7 Jan 2018 #

    Important Christmas Wrapping Update: It re-entered at #87 in the 29 Dec – 4 Jan chart weirdly, along with a few more Xmas songs – so it’s definitely on the up…

  63. 63
    Steve Mannion on 2 Jan 2020 #

    Nearly ten years on from the original post – 2019 saw 437 entries in the UK Top 75 (according to Polyhex presumably via Official Charts Co. data) and I THINK this includes re-entries from the usual Christmas crop but not sure – either way that’s the highest total for five years suggesting the rule changes to accommodate streaming continue to boost the number of chart entries overall.

    The total of chart entries for 2010-2019 is 4,213 (compared to 7,776 for 2000-2009).

    The next decade is unlike to see much of an increase in entries as we may have ‘maxed out’ on the number and kinds of artists who benefit from a fanbase big enough to stream every album track enough for it to chart.

  64. 64
    Speedwell54 on 12 Jul 2021 #

    Singles move over. Here come the albums!
    Not death of a chart, but certainly significant changes are happening and I am not sure I would describe the chart as healthy.

    With Abba Gold passing the 1000th week in the album chart recently, I thought I would have a quick look at the stats. I have focussed on this second week in July, and the top 40 albums for that week.

    The average length of stay in the album chart in-*
    1981 was 16 weeks. 1 album with over a year on chart
    1991 was 12 weeks. 1 album with over a year on chart
    2001 was 28 weeks. 4 albums with over a year on chart
    2011 was 22 weeks. 5 albums with over a year on chart
    2021 was 214 weeks. 27 albums with more than a year on chart. 4 with more than 17 (seventeen) years on the chart.

    Some albums are sticking around and many of them quite high up. Greatest hits from, Queen, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, Abba, the Beatles, Eminem, Oasis, Bob Marley and the Wailers, Michael Jackson, Maroon 5 (spot the odd one out here- nearly clocking 4 years, but never higher than 32?) Whitney Houston and David Bowie, but then also a few ‘classic’ albums and Ed’s last three just about make up the rest of these big hitters.

    This is not a criticism, merely an observation. If that is what people are buying, let the chart reflect that. I think it must be a bit depressing for an artist, when they bring out their brand new album, and in that very week, more people decide to purchase an album that has been available -in the case of Queen – for nearly 40 years.

    It will be interesting on the year end charts, to see how a few weeks top five and a slow descent, stacks up against a year bobbing around in the low teens.

    Maybe not this year, but if other supermarkets follow Sainsbury’s in pulling out of CDs altogether, will this move redress the balance and reduce safe sales for some of these stalwarts?

    *I took the weeks on chart for each album in the top 40 that week for that year, and divided by 40 to get the average weeks on chart. Weeks on chart includes weeks spent in the top 100.

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)


Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page