>> when does billboard release their chart? <<

keep your eye on the timer gizmo in the upper right corner of this page: [www.theofficialcharts.com]

Quote
with sssoul
>> when does billboard release their chart? <<

keep your eye on the timer gizmo in the upper right corner of this page: [www.theofficialcharts.com]

yes! but I meant the US

>>yes! but I meant the US<<

45 minutes from now

I'll get the new chart in about 10 minutes.

Quote
georgelicks
I'll get the new chart in about 10 minutes.

exciting!

Official #1 in UK!!!

Quote
georgelicks
Official #1 in UK!!!

yeees!

[flinging #1 confetti in this thread as well - hail hail Rolling Stones! :E]

Awesome!

....apparently Target is selling just the bomus tracks....who knew??..[www.target.com]

"...apparently Target is selling just the bomus tracks....who knew??"

That's what I did; got a bonus cd for a friend for $9.99 and got a t-shirt/bonus cd for me for $19.99. Last one of each on the shelf at the Target near me in DC on Wednesday.

The Stones are No. 1 in the UK. Official


[www.theofficialcharts.com]

>> The Stones are No. 1 in the UK. Official <<

smile: yeah - see here too: [www.iorr.org]

All them trips trips asda paid off,
brill stuff, tonight we are all feeling No1

Yes.......

__________________________

Quote
Gazza
If they do, as far as I'm aware they'll be the first act EVER to have number 1's in FIVE different decades. They'd have been looking at a sixth had they sold 12 more copies of 40 Licks in the first week in 2002 - unfortunately EMI in their infinite wisdom missed out on a sure thing by releasing it the same day as BMG released the "Elvis Number 1's CD.

Not five different decades - five in a row! This is the last year of the first decade of the Twenty Hundreds. If they do indeed record a new record and it happens to go to number one in 2011 or 2012 or 2020 it will be the sixth decade in a row.

Quote
skipstone

Quote
Gazza
If they do, as far as I'm aware they'll be the first act EVER to have number 1's in FIVE different decades. They'd have been looking at a sixth had they sold 12 more copies of 40 Licks in the first week in 2002 - unfortunately EMI in their infinite wisdom missed out on a sure thing by releasing it the same day as BMG released the "Elvis Number 1's CD.

Not five different decades - five in a row! This is the last year of the first decade of the Twenty Hundreds. If they do indeed record a new record and it happens to go to number one in 2011 or 2012 or 2020 it will be the sixth decade in a row.

well, yeah if you consider the decade to be 2001-2010.

However, by that yardstick, as they didnt have a UK number 1 album between 1980 and 1994, then they didnt have a number 1 in the 80's.

It's not what I or you consider - it just IS. A decade ends with zero, it doesn't start with zero.

Tattoo You didn't go #1? I haven't looked in a while. I thought you implied they did have a #1 in the 1980s - you didn't say which one if I recall.

Emotional Rescue

That's it? That's the last one before Voodoo Lounge? Ow. That's a long time as well.

let's hope for a number one in usa too

You can see the UK and US chart positions of albums and singles at the following link:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote
ajc68
You can see the UK and US chart positions of albums and singles at the following link:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Thanks AJC for the link.

Quote
skipstone
It's not what I or you consider - it just IS. A decade ends with zero, it doesn't start with zero.

No, it does. The counting starts from the supposed birth of that Nazarethian guy: that's the zero point. When there is 12 months gone, the firt year of teh decade has gone. So when the year nine turns to ten, it is when ten years of actual time has been wasted. That means a decade is fulllfilled, and we start another one.

If the idea of of decade starting from number one would hold true that would have some absurd conceptual results. Not just that all the millenium celebrations we had a decade ago would have been out of place - but that the Christ guy to have born in a decade before his birth... in a decade one BC: that is to say that he would have born a year before he was born. (I know that there are some mathematician nerds to claim otherwise but little they know about reality... time is not on their side...)

Not that this really matters...><

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-24 09:31 by Doxa.

[en.wikipedia.org]

60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, 10's.

I thought that I had read on here that the Stones missed a #1 in the 00's??

The millenium celebrations were a year early. There is no year zero.

But for looking at decades ex. 60's, 70's 80's ect. you go by the years themselves and not the century counter. Good example is would you count 1980 as part of the 70's? No you would not. The 70's went out with 1979 and the 80's began with 1980. A bit silly to not consider 1980 as part of the 80's actually.

Quote
tumblingdice
But for looking at decades ex. 60's, 70's 80's ect. you go by the years themselves and not the century counter. Good example is would you count 1980 as part of the 70's? No you would not. The 70's went out with 1979 and the 80's began with 1980. A bit silly to not consider 1980 as part of the 80's actually.

Exacly, I think that is common-sensical. The quoted Wikipedia says:

Although any period of ten years is a decade,[2][3] a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using "1960s" to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.

but it is also pointed out:

Some writers like to point out that since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[6] So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970

But if there was no year zero - I don't know well these matters - that is to say that when the Nazarethian was supposedly born, in that very minute started the year one. And the year that just ended was 1 BC (that is: - 1 AD) - is that right? If that is true, then the argumunt for the decade stopping in the end of the tenth year (numer zero) is a valid one. But stupid.

Namely it is arithmetically funny to enumerate the years one by one: -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3.. seemingly the guys didn't have the concept of zero yet in mathematics available by the time they decided the calender...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-24 16:15 by Doxa.