^ if i remember correctly, 'Die Another Day' was an ARIA error - they released the chart with it debuting at #11, but then re-published the chart a day or so later after discovering that some sales were mistakenly not counted on the initial print of the chart.
I think a similar thing happened with Paulini in 2004 (though her #1 debut was later revoked after excluding suspicious bulk-purchases - it went to #1 the following week anyway)? Last edited:
I've just noticed that Manic Street Preachers' 'This Is My Truth, Tell Me Yours' album is listed here as peaking at #14 on the albums chart. It was listed in the ARIA Report as debuting at that number, but its HP (highest position) from week 2 is listed as being #13 in the ARIA Report. Here's a scan of the chart for 'proof': http://i.imgur.com/CNomH9D.jpg .
When I looked more closely, I saw that ARIA listed Grinspoon's 'Pushing Buttons' (an EP) mistakenly on the albums chart as a new entry at #5 the same week that the Manic Street Preachers album debuted. It was removed from the albums chart the following week (but isn't listed as an album falling out of the top 100 - see above scan), and transferred to the singles chart from week 2.
Gavin Ryan's book has also got the Manics album peaking at #13. Last edited:
Ok there is a massive error on the website, on the weekly top 50 if a song was in the top 100 the week before and then moves into the top 50 the next week, then it usually says RE instead of new and it says 0 weeks instead of 1. This is extremely annoying for songs like Famous by Kanye West which only spent 1 week in the top 50 but it says 0 weeks instead
I looked up Atomic Kitten and it seems the first week it charted, it was labelled just "Right Now", then became "Eternal Flame / Right Now" the week after:
24/09/2001: * 46 - R/E 46 RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840 01/10/2001: * 55 46 2 46 ETERNAL FLAME / RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840 08/10/2001: 48 55 2 48 ETERNAL FLAME / RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840 15/10/2001: 47 48 4 46 ETERNAL FLAME / RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840 22/10/2001: 51 47 5 46 ETERNAL FLAME / RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840 29/10/2001: 75 51 6 46 ETERNAL FLAME / RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840 05/11/2001: 85 75 7 46 ETERNAL FLAME / RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840 12/11/2001: 99 85 8 46 ETERNAL FLAME / RIGHT NOW Atomic Kitten VIR/EMI 8978840
So that probably explains why the first week at #46 appears separately on this site under just "Right Now". Probably would be better to have them together if it was the same entity, but at least the chart positions are correct
I wondered why that first week was listed as a re-entry, and realised "Right Now" had previously charted in 2000 (for 6 weeks, reaching #72). So I guess ARIA first chose to treat it as a re-entry in 2001, but then changed their mind (multiple times, judging from the WI figures above). Also, to add to the inconsistency, I looked up the catalogue number above on Discogs and it looks like it was "Right Now / Eternal Flame" on the CD single, not the other way around like ARIA had it
@bryc3 sometimes it also shows the #51-#100 LW position instead of RE or NEW; I find that most misleading when it leads to a chart run like that of Mariah Carey's "Merry Christmas", where it looks like it charted for 10 weeks straight in 2015-17 I feel like it's been happening less often lately compared to last year, at least. I believe it started when ARIA updated their website, and whoever adds the charts probably didn't update their system accordingly. I hope it'll be retrospectively fixed someday.
^ Wow, that confuses things even further. I'm by no means an Atomic Kitten fan, but got caught up in this after reading that the OMD singer co-wrote their hit 'Whole Again'... and looked it up on wikipedia to check, then saw that it had the 'wrong' (#47) peak for 'Right Here' on their discography page and felt compelled to correct it. I didn't bother to check discogs to see what billing 'Right Here' had on the AA-side release, assuming this site and the ARIA Report would be correct on at least that matter. Now I'm wondering if I should revert my wikipedia 'corrections'. Last edited:
This site also doesn't factor in the pre-1997 Xmas chart break weeks into the weeks in tally, unfortunately... resulting in some inaccuracies on wikipedia I've read in the past, like Whitney's 'I Will Always Love You' spending '8' weeks at #1 here rather than 10. Last edited:
The 1998 ARIA date change is still not reflected on this site, I don't know if the owner is aware of it happening since he is German but it is incorrect and disseminating incorrect date information still.
There are a lot of errors on the 16/06/2019 and 23/06/2019 singles charts. All these positions are wrong:
#11: should be EARFQUAKE (appears at #12) #12: should be Sucker (appears at #11) #19: should be Wow. (appears at #21) #20: should be ME! (appears at #19) #21: should be Nightmare (appears at #20) #25: should be Mother's Daughter (appears at #26) #26: should be Exit Sign (appears at #25) #29: should be Mess Her Up (appears at #30) #30: should be So Am I (appears at #29) #33: should be Eastside (appears at #34) #34: should be i'm so tired... (appears at #33) #39: should be 7 rings (appears at #40) #40: should be Painkiller (appears at #46) #41: should be Dancing With A Stranger (appears at #39) #42: should be lovely (appears at #43) #43: should be Without Me (appears at #42) #44: should be Walk Me Home (appears at #41) #45: should be Happier (appears at #44) #46: should be Go Loko (appears at #45) #47: should be Summer Days (appears at #48 - giving it an incorrect peak of #48 instead of #47) #48: should be Sweet But Psycho (appears at #47) #49: should be Be Alright (appears at #50) #50: should be Just Us (does not appear)
#8: should be Sucker (appears at #13) #13: should be EARFQUAKE (appears at #8 - giving it an incorrect peak of #8 instead of #9) #21: should be Mother's Daughter (appears at #29 - giving it an incorrect peak of #26 instead of #21) #22: should be Wow. (appears at #27) #26: should be ME! (appears at #22) #27: should be Nightmare (appears at #26) #29: should be Exit Sign (appears at #21) #33: should be Eastside (appears at #45) #35: should be Painkiller (appears at #41 - giving it an incorrect peak of #41 instead of #35) #39: should be Mess Her Up (appears at #40) #40: should be So Am I (appears at #39) #41: should be Go Loko (appears at #48 - giving it an incorrect peak of #45 instead of #41) #45: should be i'm so tired... (appears at #33) #46: should be Dancing With A Stranger (appears at #47) #47: should be 7 rings (appears at #35) #48: should be Happier (does not appear) #49: should be Be Alright (does not appear)
Falling Like The Stars somehow appears at #49 on both weeks, when it's actually only reached #51. For reference:
Hopefully these can get fixed. The other recent-years issues (new entries showing as re-entries, that week not counting towards WI numbers, the 2 weeks missing in chart runs, etc) are one thing, but fully incorrect positions are a new low.
Edit: it was pointed out to me that the 23/06/2019 chart has the correct LW positions, just with the wrong songs listed, so probably the error happened with 16/06/2019, then the 23/06/2019 chart was added by its LW positions, carrying over the errors. Last edited:
Another error, which I thought I had posted here before, but it doesn't seem to be in this thread:
Traveling Wilburys' 'She's My Baby' is listed as debuting at #45 on 9/12/1990, but it actually peaked at #58. #45 that week should be Divinyls' 'I Touch Myself' as a new entry (I have the ARIA Report from that week to prove it - uploaded the relevant page here: https://i.imgur.com/EWlBf01.jpg ).
Kylie Minogue's 'Je Ne Said Pas Pourquoi' is listed as two separate entries - 'I Still Love You (Je Ne Sais Pas Pourquoi)' for the 1988 portion of its chart run, and 'Je Ne Sais Pas Pourquoi' for the 1989 portion. The latter is also treated as a new entry in January 1989, rather than a continuation of its chart run.
Also, from dealings with ARIA I have established that the chart survey (or week commencing) date is 13 days prior to the week ending date on the printed top 50 charts for 1988. I assume ARIA did this so as to not repeat a week when taking over from the Australian Music Report-produced chart in June 1988. For example, the printed top 50 chart dated week ending 11/12/1988 was actually the chart survey conducted by ARIA on 28/11/1988. The difference between the chart survey date and the printed top 50 chart date switches to only 6 days from the first chart of 1989 (15/1/1989 - chart survey date 9/1/1989). The first printed top 50 chart of 1989 (for the two weeks ending 8/1/1989) was actually the ARIA chart survey dated 19/12/1988. To complicate things further, there was actually a 2-week break in the chart over the Xmas 1988 break (reflecting weeks commencing 26/12/1988 and 2/1/1989), although only one week has been added to the TI (times in) tally on the printed top 50 charts for releases that charted continuously over the Christmas break period. So, e.g. 'Kokomo' spent 8 weeks at #1, despite the printed top 50 charts suggesting it only spent 7 weeks at #1.
These things matter when this site is used as a reference for Australian chart positions on wikipedia. Last edited:
The errors from last month seem to be fixed! Thank you. The incorrect peaks are still there (eg #8 for EARFQUAKE, #26 for Mother's Daughter), but the chart runs are correct, so maybe they'll automatically correct themselves at some point.
I might be having a stupid moment here, but I need help. During the 3 weeks at the end of 1985, there were no charts. On the 12th Jan 1986 there were 3 new entries, but the following week they were listed as 4 weeks old. Now my question is this. I'm your man, by Wham! Was new in at number 11 now supposedly this was actually their 3rd week. It also says that If I Was was 11 the previous week also. Is it just me or am I missing something. I need this clarified pleas.
Posting as a guest cause i can't remember my username OR password but hopefully i can accurately explain this. ARIA from their last chart to their first chart of the year would always add the weeks where there was no chart onto the total of the songs but the previous week positions were unchanged. So for the 12th january 1986 wham was a new entry at number 11 and on the last chart of 1985 dated 22nd december if i was by midge ure was at number 11. As wham was a new entry in that first week no extra weeks were added. Hopefully i've made it less confusing for you
But that should mean midge was number 11 for 29 dec, and 5 jan. Now I'm your man spent 14 weeks on the chart, but only 12 weeks from the 12 jan til 30 march. What are the other 2 positions this song had.
I'm not familiar with the pre-1988 charts, but the reason is probably that up until 1990-91 inclusive, ARIA marked the last chart calculated and published in December as a '3 weeks ending' date in early January. If you look at the printed 12 Jan 1986 chart: http://www.chartbeats.com.au/2016/01/30-years-ago-this-week-january-12-1986.html , you can see it says '3 weeks ending 12th January, 1986'. So while the dates make it seem like the first chart of 1986, it was actually the last chart of 1985, followed by the Christmas break.
This is still not making sense. 1987 was correct, but 84, 85, 86 and 88 have all got discrepencies. Chart dated 10 Jan 1988 has Pump up the Volume as a new song, but the following week Pump up the Volume is now into its 4th week. It also spent 19 weeks apparently on the chart however it would clash with Little Lies who was on the same position.
Here's an example if it makes more sense (credit to Nugs for me knowing this information):
The last chart of 1989 was surveyed on 18/12/1989. Normally (at that time), the charts were given a 'week ending' date 6 days after the survey date. (In 1988 and possibly before, it was 13 days.) However, for the last chart of the year, they actually gave it a '3 weeks ending' date, that being 07/01/1990.
The next chart survey was on 08/01/1990, and that was given a regular 'week ending' date of 14/01/1990.
If you look at the chart dates, they go 10/12, 17/12, 07/01, 14/01, etc. Naturally, you'd think the Christmas break was between the 17/12 and 07/01 charts. However, it was actually between the 07/01 and 14/01 charts, because the last chart before the break was dated not as '1 week ending', but '3 weeks ending'.
Thus, for example, "When I See You Smile" debuted at #31 on 07/01/1990 and then climbed to #17 on 14/01/1990, and was listed as having charted for 4 weeks on the latter, because the 2 Christmas break weeks were between those 2 charts.
I assume Wham! worked the same way - that 12/01/1986, where it debuted, was the last chart before Christmas, and then 19/01/1986 was the first chart after Christmas. Last edited:
I see the problem here now. According to The Aria Charts, "When I See You Smile" spent 21 weeks on the chart, however on The Australian-charts.com it only spent 19 weeks.
This is the same for numerous songs. I understand these listings on Aria as weird, because for all the new entries to be included in the weeks break over Christmas, they are obviously included with the 50 songs already on the chart. So if I cannot clarify this, I will just have to assume that there are more than 50 songs on the chart sometimes.
Yeah, this site's database doesn't count the Christmas break weeks.
I don't know what you mean with your last paragraph, but it might help to imagine the Christmas break weeks as a frozen chart (i.e. those weeks are treated as if the chart was exactly the same as the last pre-Christmas chart). So there was the chart dated 07/01/1990, then 2 frozen weeks, then 14/01/1990, and all the songs that were charting on 07/01/1990 got an extra 2 weeks added to their tally for those 2 weeks without a chart compiled.
Ok, Let's take the Aria Chart dated for the three weeks ending 7th January 1990. There are 3 new songs. The following week, these songs are now 4 weeks old, which means if there was a chart dated Dec 31 1989 these songs would have been on that chart. So "When I See You Smile" would have been at number 31 on that chart. But the same chart of 7th Jan 1990 says "Cherish" by Madonna was 31 last week. If I am incorrect then I need to know how this is possible. What are the first 2 weeks charting positions? I hope this explains what I am trying to say.
The easiest way to look at it is that the chart dated 7 Jan 1990 should actually be dated 24 Dec 1989 (which is why Cherish is #31 the week before) and the 31 Dec 1989 and 7 Jan 1990 charts are the two missing ones, so everything stays in position from the 24 Dec chart for those two weeks.
The thing is that the 07/01/1990 and 14/01/1990 charts were 3 weeks apart.
This is how the charts went, week by week:
- The chart surveyed on 04/12/1989, dated as week ending 10/12/1989 - The chart surveyed on 11/12/1989, dated as week ending 17/12/1989 - The chart surveyed on 18/12/1989, dated as 3 weeks ending 07/01/1990 - No charts made for 2 weeks - The chart surveyed on 08/01/1990, dated as week ending 14/01/1990 - The chart surveyed on 15/01/1990, dated as week ending 21/01/1990
Does that make sense?
"When I See You Smile" debuted at #31 on 07/01/1990, which was the last chart before the Christmas break. Its 2nd and 3rd weeks were the Christmas break, where no charts were produced. Its 4th week was 14/01/1990, when it climbed to #17.
There can't be a hypothetical 31/12/1989 chart, as the 17/12/1989 and 07/01/1990 charts were only 1 week apart.
(I know it's a confusing system; I had no idea until this year. I assume that's why ARIA stopped doing it from 1991-92 onwards.)
The fact there is no information for 51-100 for the last week of 89 makes it a touch complicated to work out weeks,but i did find 61-100 from the chart dated 14th January 1990 (beats me if it's of any help) https://imgur.com/2SljEsx
As for the Kent Report charts, they are dated on a Monday, 7 days after the chart survey was conducted. The top 50 charts produced by ARIA, licensing the Kent Report chart, dated them on the Sunday, 13 days after the chart survey was conducted.
For example, on the printed top 50 chart here, dated week ending 26th July 1987, you can see that Mel & Kim's 'Respectable' is #1 (it spent one week at #1) - https://i.imgur.com/FE5fJNq.jpg . But when you look at the Australian Music Report (formerly Kent Music Report), the chart that ARIA licensed the top 50 portion of between mid-1983 and 12 June 1988, end of year chart for 1987, you can see in the table on the bottom right that 'Respectable' is listed as being #1 for one week on 20 July 1987 (a Monday) - https://i.imgur.com/sPdqqRt.jpg . The chart survey was actually conducted on 13 July 1987, but for whatever reason, the Kent chart was dated a week later. Billboard does something similar, still to this day.
In 1989, with ARIA no longer connected to the Kent chart, they re-dated the printed top 50 charts to be week ending 6 days after the chart survey date. So e.g. the week ending 15 January 1989 chart was the first chart ARIA produced for 1989, based on the chart survey conducted on 9 January 1989. That continued until the chart switched to a week commencing date, on 12 October 1998, where finally the chart survey date = the chart publication date. Last edited:
One thing with the Christmas breaks, technically the frozen chart position should belong to weeks 2, 3 and 4 for a single that charted continuously over that break (i.e. on the last chart of the previous year, and the first chart of the new year), because the first chart survey of the new year is actually counting sales from the (usually) 3 or (sometimes) 2 weeks prior. So e.g. a single that is #4 on the first chart survey of the new year was the 4th biggest-seller *over the Xmas break and first week of the new year*.
However, when I write out chart-runs, I put -(2 week Xmas break)- (or however many weeks it was; in 1994 it was only 1 week), as it makes things easier.
One mistake ARIA made though is listing the first chart survey of 1989 (week ending 15 January 1989; chart survey date 9 January 1989) as being only "for the two weeks ending", when really it was for 3 weeks. The discrepancy would have been created by changing the dating system from 13 days after the chart survey in 1988 (in keeping with the Kent Report) to 6 days after the chart survey. Accordingly, they only added 1 extra week to the TI tally for singles charting on the week ending 15 January 1989 printed top 50 chart, when it should have been 2 extra weeks. So e.g. 'Especially For You' should have been in its 4th week on the chart that week, not third.
So Beach Boys' 'Kokomo' was really #1 for 8 weeks (19/12/1988 to 6/2/1989 inclusive, going by survey dates), not 7.
And yes, it's annoying that this site does not include the Xmas break weeks in the weeks in tally, because it gets used as a source on wikipedia for how long e.g. something was #1 for. I remember having to change Whitney Houston's 'I Will Always Love You' from being #1 for '8 weeks' on wikipedia to 10. Last edited:
I did find it confusing when i would write out by hand the top 100 charts and had Love Shack number 1 for 8 weeks where this site lists it as 6. I believe 8 is correct using the example provided by nugs with I will always love you
Thanks for trying to explain. Basically, I am just trying to work out how many points these songs aquired. I like to add on the xmas breaks. So a song like Especially for you would get an addition 96 points