« Previous | Main | Next »

Chart Report - CHRISTMAS EVE!

Post categories:

Fraser McAlpine | 19:34 UK time, Sunday, 24 December 2006

THE TOP 5...

Click on song titles for ChartBlog review and media.
  2 TAKE THAT 'PATIENCE' Official Site
The entire Top 40 is right here...

So there we have it. The Christmas No.1 was snatched out of the hands of Take That, passed over the heads of McFly and Girls Aloud, and then given straight to Leona, the winner of this year's X Factor.

Some pop pundits are adamant that this MEANS stuff. Like just because a popular TV show aims it's end product squarely at the Christmas No.1 every year, and hits the target, somehow we're all being taken over by sinister forces.

X Factor Judges

Now, leaving aside for a second the fact that Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh and Sharon Osbourne have all got 'sinister forces' running through them like the word 'Blackpool' in a stick of rock (from Blackpool, obv), let's take a step back a second and examine what has actually happened.

(Some of the analysis in this special report may unravel some of the intertwining threads of Why We Care About The Charts In The First Place, but if it does, it's only so that, with the application of the Re-stitching-together Of TRUTH, the Jumper Of Caring About Who Is At No.1 can be saved from the Dustbin Of Suddenly Not Being Arsed About This Stuff Any More. So bear with me.)

First of all, when did the Christmas No.1 mean anything important to anyone anyway? Now, before you get scared, I'm not saying the No.1 record isn't important. ONLY A MAD FOOL COVERED IN FOOL DROOL would say such a thing. But the Christmas No.1 is just whatever happens to be at the top of the charts when it's Christmas, right?

Well, surely at Christmas time everyone buys all sorts of cack for all sorts of people in a big rush. If we're honest, we're all usually just desperately hoping that the things we're buying on that last minute "that'll do" reflex aren't going to offend the people we're buying them for, aren't we? No-one is thinking clearly or cleverly.

Sir CliffSo, why, at a time of high retail insanity, should we place any faith in a chart which can be so very highly affected by the fact that Sir Cliff has a single out, you don't know what to buy your nan, and she once said she liked "that Griff Pritchard" when 'Wired For Sound' came on Radio 2 in the car? It's hardly scientific, now is it?

Plus, all the people in the music biz know that we're panic-buying, and that's why there's so many of the kind of novelty 'Just For A Laugh' singles which you'd normally put rubber gloves on before handling. All of which means the Top 40 is even more prone to being overtaken by cheap and cacky old nonsense than usual (NOTE: Some cheap and cacky old nonsense is actually genius, some is still terrifyingly bad. It's all in the ear of the beholder...).

Now you could say that if this is all true, the act which does manage to get to No,1 should be applauded to a greater degree than usual, because the competition is so fierce and we're all so easily...er...where was I? Oh yes! Easily distracted.

McFlyWell, that would be true were there not so many different cynical ways to get your hand in your pocket at Christmas time. Charity singles, TV-spin offs, children's records, did I mention Sir Cliff? So many, in fact, that who's to say that you're not falling for some festive scam even buying that new McFly single? Eh? Who?

So, until such time as all music comes stickered with warnings like 'YOU COULD JUST GIVE YOUR MONEY STRAIGHT TO THE CHARITY THIS CD SUPPORTS, Y'KNOW' or 'THIS SONG WILL MAKE YOUR TEETH ITCH IN A WEEK'S TIME', or even worse 'YOU WON'T REMEMBER WHO THIS PERSON IS BY THE SUMMER', I say let's just forget about the Christmas No.1 and focus on a real achievement that everyone can really get behind. Like the NEW YEAR NUMBER ONE!

Just kidding. See you next week?


  1. At 06:09 PM on 13 Apr 2007, munira wrote:

    mcfly should have been #1
    godd damn it =]
    still its ok!
    leona is cool too!

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.