Conference marvin::uk_music

    How many weeks is it now? Anywhere near Br*an Ad*ms' record?
    
    Bob

    
    10 weeks
    
    Neil

    11 weeks
    
    Rich.

    Could someone please stop me from pulling any more hair out and tell me
    who first recorded the track?  I'm sure that it was on an album
    belonging to my ex-boyfriend's big brother!  I was an innocent 14 year 
    old at the time, so the album was probably recorded about 20 years ago! 
    The (IMO) awful lyrics have stuck in my mind ever since! 
    
    Thanks!
     Diane

    	I think it was the Troggs. I heard it recently on the radio. I hope
    this stops you from going bald !!!!
    
    
    						ROD.
    
    P.S. IMO they're both cr*p.!!!
    

    It was indeed first recorded by the Troggs in 1967 and recently covered
    by REM on their Unplugged MTV performance. BTW, the Troggs other big
    hit, Wild Thing, has been recorded by 5 different artists, and I
    actually have a 7" version by The Goodies !!! ( You know, Funky Gibbon
    and all that )
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    
    Ian.

    Thanks for the rapid response!  Yes, The Troggs sounds right!
    
    Diane (with a few hairs left!)

        It was written by the Troggs lead singer, Reg Presley. He's 
        been on TV several times in the last few months (possibly mostly 
        local programmes, he lives in Andover).  He's using his new found 
        wealth from the success of the song to fund research into crop circles.
        
        Re .6 - I wouldn't call "Wild Thing" the Troggs "other hit".
        They had a number 1 with "With a Girl Like You" and 2 number
        2's.  They only made it to the 5 spot with "Love is All Around".
        
        Ian.

    
    ....I heard a couple of days back, that two guys are claiming to have
    sent the song to Reg in the 60's and he's ripped them off...
    
    funny, how they've only just remembered though %^)
    
    Graham

    
    12 weeks
    
    

    Album due out October 1994 - Don't know title, yet.

    That's good timing by the record company marketing department - it
    should ensure the single stays at number one (thereby beating Bryan
    Adams' record) until the album is out. 
    
    Any bets on how long the album will top the chart?
    
    
    
    OOOOOHHHHHHHHH  GAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!
    
    I can't take it much longer.
    
    Bob

    Does anyone know if Wet Wet Wet are still (?) signed to Peter Gabriels'
    Realworld label?
    
    Ant.

    Wet Wet Wet have always been signed to the Precious
    Organisation and are distributed on the Phonogram label.
    I know that the production of the Wets albums owes very little to
    "market-timing" and more to artistic temperament.
    The band generally write, arrange and produce their own material. They
    often dump/re-arrange/re-re-arrange songs if they don't like them.
    This is why it takes them so long.
    I think they did the first album three times before they were
    reasonably happy.
    I expect the next album will be the best yet.
    I still like the single, judging by the sales so do a lot of other
    people. Its even more amazing that the End of Part One album has been
    back at No.1 in the charts. This from an album released *last year*.
    They really are a nice bunch of lads and deserve all the success they
    get.
                                                       

    I bought the Greatest Hits and Things double album, rather than
    End of Part One. Much better !
    
    Rich.
    
    Can anyone add to the list of albums just in case I missed a ltd
    version.
    
    
    Popped in Souled Out
    Holding Back The River
    The Memphis Sessions
    High On The Happy Side
    High On The Happy Side + Maggie Pie and The Imposters - Cloak and
    			     Dagger
    End Of Part One
    Greatest Hits And Things (End of Part One and rare mixes and live
    			     tracks)
    
    
    Rich. 

    Wasn't there a live album from their concert at the Albert Hall ?

    Yep, there was.
    (shhh...) I've also got their first (original) demo tape, it's very
    interesting. A lot of songs which they later re-mixed for first album
    and Memphis Sessions. Needless to say, it never went on general release.

    
    Apparently they've already sold out Wembley Arena next June!
    
    Some people have no taste
    
    Steve.
    

    13 weeks....  (Could this be the Christmas No.1 we're listening to?;-)
    New dates added for Birmingahm G-MEX and Sheffield UK tour next year.
    Apparently, they are selling out every tour date as quickly as they are
    announced;-)
                  

    14 weeks....
    They have one more week to go to equal Bryan Addams 15 week record with
    "Everything I do I do it for you."
    btw: the 1995 tour is called "All around and In the Crowd".

    I thought Bryan Adams was toppermost of the poppermost for 16 weeks,
    too....
    
    Bob

        The Guinness Book of Hit Singles says 16 weeks.
        
        Actually the record for the total number of weeks at number
        one is 18, held by Frankie Laine with 'I Believe' in three
        seperate stays during 1953.
        
        Ian.

    Where *is* the Frankie Laine topic, anyway???
    
    Bob 'Jezebel' Green

    15 weeks.
    
    
    1 to go for sharing the record for continuous weeks at no 1.
    
    Rich.

So the BBC chart is the 'official' one is it? The Observer reprints the Gallup 
chart (why don't the BBC use this any more?) and WWW were ousted from No 1 
over a month ago. It's getting like trying to work out who the boxing world 
champions are!

grahame

    
    Don't worry folks.  Kylie is hear to rescue us.  She'll be number one
    next week, you'll see.

    re: .-1
    >   Don't worry folks.  Kylie is hear to rescue us.  She'll be number one
    >    next week, you'll see.
    
    I thought you weren't allowed to swear in conferences ;-)
    
    I seems when a *very* good song gets to number one, and so much rubbish
    is being pumped out nothing can topple it, everybody lines up
    to knock the record. WWW are number one *still* because things are so
    bad with the rest of the charts. I recall the same happening with Bryan
    Addams and Whitney Houston (and I still like both songs).
    I guess it's down to your frame of mind and the diversity of your musical
    taste.
    
    Phil,
    who_likes_almost_all_types_of_music_from -
    blur_to_pinkfloyd_to_sabbath_to_frank_to_www_to_even_kylie
     

>    I seems when a *very* good song gets to number one, and so much rubbish
>    is being pumped out nothing can topple it, everybody lines up
>    to knock the record. WWW are number one *still* because things are so
>    bad with the rest of the charts. I recall the same happening with Bryan
>    Addams and Whitney Houston (and I still like both songs).
    
    Don't you think that a lot of it has to do with how little relevance
    the singles chart has now. Singles are being bought in such low
    volume by the people who do spend a fair amount of their wages on
    records in favour of albums, that when these sort of songs attract
    people who would not normally by records, they can have such a massive
    and long term effect on the charts.
    
    And the fact that there has been such a difference between the length
    WWW have been at the top over the 2 charts, implies to me that their
    record company are using the rules to keep it up there. You can accept
    maybe a weeks difference, but a months?
    
    But then, I'm just an old cynic... :-)
    
    Graham.

    Hmm, I still can't believe people are buying enough of WWW's song to 
    stop anything else getting close, no matter how good the song is 
    (personally I hate it but there you go).

    I've often wondered if the charts are rigged. Anyone care to comment?

    Goldy.

    Dunno about Rigged, but when Radio 1 stopped using Gallop (sp ?)
    to get the results, a lot of the Indie bands were complaining 
    because the new company that do them dont poll as many shops that
    sell Indie stuff.
    
    Personally I dont follow the charts cos they seem to be a complete
    waste of time.
    
    Linsey

    >> Singles are being bought in such low volume by the people who do spend 
    >> a fair amount of their wages on records in favour of albums
    
    Does ANYBODY in here buy singles? And does the chart reflect the sales
    of CD singles as well?
    
    Phil Gill.

    Yes, I buy singles occasionally, 7", 12", CD. It's a good way of
    acquiring songs you like without splashing out on an album which may
    not have anything else worthwhile on it. Also places like Virgin mark
    singles down to half-price very quickly so it can be a cheap way to
    buy interesting music.
    
    Given that singles now arrive in a variety of different formats, the
    chart organisations count, at the very least, the 7", 12", CD and
    cassette formats, although there are certain restrictions. For example,
    if a CD has something like more than five separate songs, they don't
    count it as a single. This is why US versions of CD singles often
    contain more tracks than the UK version.
    
    
    Rod

    Like Rod says, singles are good ways to pick up some decent songs
    without forking out for a whole lp.  Most of the singles I get are on
    the cheap from Woolies or somesuch, I usually manage to find any
    mainstream CD singles marked down to 99p a few weeks after they drop out
    of the charts (though I'm still looking for Dawn Penn on the cheap).  
    
    A lot of CD singles are discounted when they are first released - its
    easy to pick up something for 1.99 or even 99p in the HMV during the
    first week of release.                             
    
    The formatting issue gets my goat though - especially the 2 CD cingle
    pack scam.  Even the might Wedding Present, bowing to pressure form
    their new label Island, have done this with the new single.  
    
    Mikef

>   Does ANYBODY in here buy singles? And does the chart reflect the sales
>   of CD singles as well?

A year or so back a single got to number 1(?) that was only available on CD
(one of 2 Unlimited's) so yes.

As for rigging c. 1984 my father was manager of WH Smith in Middlesbrough at
the time Chris Rea released Stainsby Girls, a song about the school which had
since become Acklam Comp. It sold plenty much units in the first week in 
Middlesbrough but the shop's Gallup teminal was down. The following week all 
the sales for the previous fortnight were submitted as coming from that one 
week (I believe this was the official thing to do)  which I would imagine gave
the CR single a unfair leap into the charts due to concentration of sales in one
small area which was counted twice on the same week.

+Mark+ 

    
    The reason that this song is still number one is because, like Bryan
    Adams, it is the soundtrack to a soppy movie.  The wee teenagers go
    along to see the film with their boy/girl friend - they are in love (or
    think they are) - they buy the single to show their affection - y'know
    the old "our song" routine.
    
    I can guarantee that next year's biggest selling single will also be the
    soundtrack to next year's biggest soppy movie.
    
    BTW - I like the new Kylie single.  I've always been a Kylie fan
    though.
    
    Mark
    

>    The reason that this song is still number one is because, like Bryan
>    Adams, it is the soundtrack to a soppy movie.  The wee teenagers go
>    along to see the film with their boy/girl friend - they are in love (or
>    think they are) - they buy the single to show their affection - y'know
>    the old "our song" routine.


    Yes, but I still can't accept that after 15 weeks, film notwithstanding,
    that sales of WWW are still outranking all the other singles, even though
    some of them are dreadful there are still plenty of songs that go
    racing to number 2 and stay in the top 3 or 5 for weeks.

>    As I said, the reason that this can sell so well is that it brings
>    out a part of the population who don't generally buy records. When they
>    do, they still buy singles and that helps exaggerate the sales.
    
    That's true. If a record really gets across to all the people who don't
    normally buy music, which is the greater part of the population, then
    it can sell in enormous quantities. That must be happening with that
    nice Marti Pillow and his group.
    
    
    Rod

    I agree that the singles are not as representative today as in the
    past. I think this is a general problem with the record industry.
    The Wets have sold over 1.5 million copies of the single alone, which
    roughly equates to 1 in 10 households, which ain't bad by any standard.
    They have outsold, in financial terms, any other record this decade,
    beating Bryan Addams.
    Of course, this is probably as much to do with the higher costs :-(.
    
    The record company obviously want to promote, read get as much money,
    as possible from the record. To continue promoting a record does take
    money. The record company (Phonogram) has to decide whether to continue
    this promotion. The costs include continued marketing, appearances, etc.
    
    The latest ploy, to equal Bryans Adams stay, is the record will
    "officially" cease manufacturing next Tuesday. An obvious attempt to
    inject one last push for 16 weeks at number 1.
    
    Speculate all you like, its still an excellent song, and it is selling.

    
    some geezer on Radio 1 this morning said Reg Presley is getting a
    thousand quid a DAY in royalties just from airplay !!
    
    16*7*1000..... that's a lot of money to waste trying to find Crop
    circles %^)
    
    BTW, not usually known for saying nice things about Kylie, but I do
    think this is her best record yet, and with luck it'll be number 1 next
    week!
    
    unless, of course 'Quark!' by Hawkwind (mixed by Astralasia) gets there
    first ....
    
    Graham
    Graham

    >unless, of course 'Quark!' by Hawkwind (mixed by Astralasia) gets there
    >first ....
    
    I doubt it, Graham Graham
    
    julia

    >unless, of course 'Quark!' by Hawkwind (mixed by Astralasia) gets there
    >first ....
    
I was thinking about buying it, until it was officially announced on
the Hawkwind discussion group that it was considered `crap'.

Chris.

    Is The Full name of that"Quark,Strangeness and Charm"??
    If so..Thats A_Kindda Old Record.
    
    
           Crazy_Al

>    Is The Full name of that"Quark,Strangeness and Charm"??

yeah, that's the one, from 1977 I think!  This versions's one of those
dodgy dance remixes Hawkwind have been experimenting with lately, I
think this one's courtesy of Astralasia (like the remix of `Spirit of
the Age' a while ago)

Chris.

PS should this *really* be in the Wet Wet Wet topic?!  :)

    
    It's no longer number 1.  Sadly, Kylie fell to No 4, Mariah and 
    Luther VD are No 3 and some Euro-Pap nonsense one-hit wonder has gone
    straight in at number 1 with probably the most annoying song since
    Shaddap Ya Face.
    
    Mark

    Well, congratulations to all the "knockers"
    Wet Wet Wet have been knocked off the number one slot by Whigfield,
    with the 'classic' record "Saturday Night".
    You've got to admit the lyrics and musicianship are something special.
    It's not every day you see such a deservedly good record make it for
    such an obviously talented artiste! :-(
                                                 

    And they say the charts aren't rigged!

The charts aren't rigged.


Rod

    The Wets have just added a new tour date for next year.
    10th July 1995 @Manchester G-MEX, tel: 061-832-9000
    Book early to avoid dissapointment, the rest are sold out!