Wilson Phillips - Hold On

[Blondini]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIbXvaE39wM

Back in UK top 100 iTunes thanks to the film Bridesmaids.

Classic harmony pop.

[Graham76man]

So that's why!

They were made up from the daughters of the Beach Boys and Mamas & Papas. It's one of those records that cleared a million sales in the UK landing as it did when the sales were off the scale in the Real Chart during 1991.

[Virgostar]

This song I think has become a byword for uncool or something...I remember watching the first Harold & Kumar movie where one of them played this song in their car & it was like a guilty pleasure.

[Blondini]

Well Bridesmaids has made it cool again.

95 UK Chart

[SeeForever]

Lovely song!!

[FreakyFlyBry]

Excellent song One of my favourite 90's pop tunes, even now it still sounds fantastic

[irishguy28]

Well Bridesmaids has made it cool again.

95 UK Chart

It re-entered at #33 on the Irish chart last Friday!

Great track, though I preferred the follow up, "Release Me".

[Blondini]

86 (95)

[Grybop]

Great track, though I preferred the follow up, "Release Me".

It was the other way round for me - Release Me was such a huge disappointment! Then there came another song of theirs, the title of which was a word unknown to me then, can't remember what it was.

Anyway, Hold On is a classic!

[Marius]

Great track, though I preferred the follow up, "Release Me".

It was the other way round for me - Release Me was such a huge disappointment! Then there came another song of theirs, the title of which was a word unknown to me then, can't remember what it was.

That'd be Impulsive. None of those songs was bad, unlike their fourth song, You're In Love...

[Graham76man]

That'd be Impulsive. None of those songs was bad, unlike their fourth song, You're In Love

Sorry guys in my first reply I said it sold a million, in 1991, however Hold On cleared only 500k, entering on the 20 May 1990. It reached number 9 and spent 12 weeks in the chart. Now back in today at 76!

It was infact You're In Love that despite reaching only 20 sold a million copies in 1991
As I said the weirdest time for sales in the Real Chart.

[Grybop]

Great track, though I preferred the follow up, "Release Me".

It was the other way round for me - Release Me was such a huge disappointment! Then there came another song of theirs, the title of which was a word unknown to me then, can't remember what it was.

That'd be Impulsive. None of those songs was bad, unlike their fourth song, You're In Love...

Yup, that's it!
You're in Love remains my favourite song of theirs btw.

[Jack]

Sorry guys in my first reply I said it sold a million, in 1991, however Hold On cleared only 500k, entering on the 20 May 1990. It reached number 9 and spent 12 weeks in the chart. Now back in today at 76!

It was infact You're In Love that despite reaching only 20 sold a million copies in 1991
As I said the weirdest time for sales in the Real Chart.

I'm confused.

[irishguy28]

I can see why you would be.

It's stretching credulity to imply that a record that peaked at #29 (or, supposedly, #20 on the "Real Chart") sold a million copies in the UK - a feat that only 104 singles have actually managed to accomplish (Industry-sanctioned documentary proof for the number of million-selling singles is easy to come by. Adele's "Someone Like You" passed the million mark last Tuesday, while Bruno Mars' "Just The Way You Are" is set to become only the 105th million-seller of all time next month - according to the current issue of Music Week. Of course, for reasons best understood by Graham76man himself, the record industry apparently deliberately under-reports sales - so his real guess at the number of million-selling singles must probably be in the hundreds of thousands, if such sales are in the grasp of any track that barely dents the weekly Top 30.).

Music Week also reveals that, of the 105 singles to sell more than 200,000 copies in the past year, only one - DJ Fresh's "Gold Dust" - failed to make the Top 20. It further notes that the biggest-selling single of the current century not to make the Top 20 is Florence + The Machines' "Dog Days Are Over", which has (to-date) built up sales of 354,724 since its release in 2008 despite never going higher than #23. That single spent 44 weeks on the Top 100, and a great deal longer in the Top 200 (this week, it re-appears at #105) so what it lacked in weekly volume, it made up for in longevity.

The "Real Chart" is a "chart" which Graham76man painstakingly re-assembles from coded information he receives from a mysterious coterie of incredibly wise people of undisclosed identity, who happen to know every single and every track that is bought, sold (whether new or second-hand) or downloaded in the UK. Graham76man repeatedly refuses to divulge the identity of these mysterious omnipotentiæ, variously telling us that we would not believe him if he told us, or that we would be in some form of danger were we to come into this knowledge (it has been clarified, though, that I am in particular danger from these people. That is, assuming these "people" are even human).

So to return to Wilson Phillips:

- None of their singles were ever certified by the BPI as even achieving silver status (while they have platinum and silver discs for their first and second albums, respectively) making it unlikely that there were ever 200,000 copies (the level required for silver) of any of their singles issued in the UK. With "You're In Love" continuously absent from the UK Top 200 for over 20 years now, it seems unlikely that the arrivals of downloads in the past few years can explain the apparent missing 800,000 sales.

- No other source other than the "Real Chart" makes such a claim - that a #29 UK single with only 5 appearances to its name in the Top 75 sold over a million copies.

- Even in the US, they only hold 2 Gold singles (for shipments of 500,000 units each), despite both "Hold On" and "Release Me" (the two singles in question) topping the Billboard Hot 100 ("Hold On" even topped the Billboard Hot 100 of 1990). That none of their singles was certified as platinum (shipments of 1,000,000 units) in the United States - where they had far greater success than in the UK - suggests that it's highly unlikely they crossed the million mark with any of their singles, in that far bigger market.

So, my advice to you would be that you can take the information that Wilson Phillips had at least one million-selling single in the UK with some salt - a grain, a sack or a mountain, the choice is yours.

But, hey, I apparently don't know what I'm talking about anyway (partially because I continued in full-time education long past the age of 12 years), and the shape-shifting lizards (my guess at their identity, a nod to David Icke) that know everything that sells in the UK say "You're In Love" sold a million copies there. And that really is the type of proof one can't argue with.

[Graham76man]

I can see that Irishguy28 wants to start an argument, but I'm not taking the bait.

Of course he believes in the fairies that run the music industry telling him pork pies about what the 60 million people who live in the UK do with thier surplus cash.

Too correct him somewhat on his explantion, the compilers (for want of a better name) record the information of what people buy, even if it was for only 1p. That is very different from the information that the Record Industry gets. For a start all thier information now comes in digital format, which can very easily be manipulated to suit any needs.
In the words of Jessie J "it's all about the money" and in any industry connected to that anything can be done to ensure money is made. But to tell people how much money you are making is not at all common. However the charts and sales figures show precisly that.
Clearly there is a great deal of money to be made in the record industry. The question is how much is shown to be made to the public at large?
Rich people don't tend to say how much money they make, indeed even the Rich List is not actual figures. The record industry is different. So by saying Adele as sold a million copies you could work out how much money she has made from the sales. But even many artist don't know how much money they get, so if the figures you see are wrong - too low - then even they can't know what they would get
Without any other sources available to the public which are not connected to those who "could" be hiding real figures, the Real Chart shows the extent to which can be achieved in this field.
So in the current top 100 chart 11 singles have gone past the million mark not just one. Now of course these are mostly download figures selling for just 99p each and often records around for 20 weeks or more. So that should not be too hard to believe, even for Irishguy28
I grant though that the 1991 figures are very odd, with minor hit records selling a million. Indeed Wilson Phillips are not the only ones who past that mark, quite a number did between 1991 & 1992.
However these high figures I can only put down to some kind of odd occurence happening in the world of UK music sales. For after looking at the charts and sales from other years I have found this pattern never repeated. Indeed many are not far off what the levels are now.
Apart from saying that those were the correct figures, (for 91-92) the compilers offer no explantions of them, but you can assume the answer is out there if you do some digging around.

[irishguy28]

I can't hear you, I've got my tin-foil hat on!

I hope the weather is fine on your planet, though.

[Graham76man]

the shape-shifting lizards (my guess at their identity, a nod to David Icke)

They probably told him to come up with that idea.

I just love their sense of humour at times
Before you blame them he wanted to be famous, even for some stupid ideas.

First time I've heard Sheffield called a Planet, mind you as one of the blokes who run the country is an MP here, who probably is a "shape-shifting lizard" so who indeed knows it could be a planet. It's dry with an odd light shower then on Planet Sheffield

Tin-foil hats might block radio signals they don't stop your mind leaking everything you know. Besides if you did block the compilers you would die. You need them to live on Earth. EVERYONE communicates with them, it's healthy, normal part of being human, unless you are a shape-shifting lizard.

Before someone ask how do I get in touch with them? It works like this, get a niggling doubt or a odd feeling, you have been in touch with them. That's a warning from them.
Know you are doing something right or just know things are going to be good about something - them again - encouraging you.
So why would you want to avoid them, even if you could?

[irishguy28]

I'd advise you to talk to your doctor next about those odd feelings. They'll be able to give you something to stop them.

[Graham76man]

I'd advise you to talk to your doctor next about those odd feelings. They'll be able to give you something to stop them.

I'll advise you to shut up bully

[irishguy28]

I'm not bullying - I'm merely pointing out that what you are saying can in no way be true or possible, and that I don't believe that even you believe it.

Asking someone to back up outlandish claims is not bullying. I don't deny that something may be/have been off the scale - but it certainly wasn't sales of singles in the UK in 1991.

[gaz_uk]

Until reading through this thread last night I had no idea what this "Real Chart" thing was about. I've seen it being mentioned in other threads before and just assumed it was some other official chart - obviously not.

I ended up reading through the 5 page thread that Blondini started on the topic, and must say I was genuninely quite fascinated by Graham76man's claims - although all this talk about the secretive "compilers" really gave me the creeps.

For now I'll just assume that the compilers are either God himself or just the voices in Graham76man's head.

[Graham76man]

I'm not bullying - I'm merely pointing out that what you are saying can in no way be true or possible, and that I don't believe that even you believe it.

Asking someone to back up outlandish claims is not bullying. I don't deny that something may be/have been off the scale - but it certainly wasn't sales of singles in the UK in 1991.

Oh yes you do, not just this thread, but on many things I've have written. You started this fight again, by slagging me off, putting things in that you know would cause a reaction. When you can't put up a reasonable case, you use ridicule to undermine me.
That last statement has things in it that only an fool would use. I've put them in bold, seeing how stupid you are, so you will know.

Let's take your argument to the conclusion you drew:
True or Possible. Since you don't understand who/where the information for the Real Charts comes from you can't say either way if it's true or false.
You are like a man who doesn't know how to drive a car saying to the instructor he's a liar in that respect, as far as I'm concerned.
Possible - lots of things were impossible till they happened. You must have a closed mind to think that anything can't change. Perhaps you are like the clergymen that thought Darwin needed to see a doctor.

Outlandish claims - Too you yes - but to me the claims of the Record Industry are outlandish, they have millions of pounds to spend backing up their claims, but so have the food industry too - but people are getting fat - so are those rich people in the music industry with our money, like the estate of Marc Bolan, on some island somewhere avoiding UK tax.
And you are asking me who just has a blog site, around £60 to live on a week, to justify figures to an person who can waste £5 a week on a paper who's clients could spend £60 on an coffee break
And unless you actually worked in an industry which made records in 1991, you are only going on what you have been told, plus as I keep saying that information is classified, for it is the income of Rich People, who don't want you or anyone else to know what they earn.

END of argument.

[irishguy28]

If you can be allowed to make these kind of claims, I don't see why I should not be allowed to set forth my views when encountering such claims as to why they are outlandish.

You say I have not made a reasonable case, but I have used the sort of logic and reason that most people would find both logical and reasonable.

What you apparently fail to understand is that, with considerable sums of money in play, and far more parties than just the record companies involved, the sort of under-reporting and deception you accuse the music industry of perpetuating simply isn't possible. The retailers will require full payment for all copies sold - whether digital or physical - and they are all audited so they can't "hide" sales (not that you have ever explained a reason why anyone would want these sales to be hidden). The record companies are audited and some even publish their accounts. The tax man certainly will not countenance any fiddling of the numbers. If you think the record companies are under-reporting so that they can pay their artists less than they should, then it's a lot of effort to go to, as the fraction of the sale price for each unit that ends up going to the artists is quite small in the first place.

It's also unclear what the chart compiling company stands to gain from manipulating sales figures. I suppose they're on the take, too.

You started this fight again, by slagging me off, putting things in that you know would cause a reaction. When you can't put up a reasonable case, you use ridicule to undermine me.
That last statement has things in it that only an fool would use. I've put them in bold, seeing how stupid you are, so you will know.

So you call me a fool, and stupid - I have not once called you names.

Let's take your argument to the conclusion you drew:
True or Possible. Since you don't understand who/where the information for the Real Charts comes from you can't say either way if it's true or false.
You are like a man who doesn't know how to drive a car saying to the instructor he's a liar in that respect, as far as I'm concerned.

So - once more (and I think I'm doing the impossible here by correctly predicting the future) - tell us all, concisely, precisely, and without referring to metaphor or descending to bluster, who/where the information for the Real Charts comes from.

Like I said before, I want to believe. Why won't you share your information?

Possible - lots of things were impossible till they happened. You must have a closed mind to think that anything can't change. Perhaps you are like the clergymen that thought Darwin needed to see a doctor.

Some things though - like walking through walls, and turning base metals into gold, will always remain impossible.

Outlandish claims - Too you yes - but to me the claims of the Record Industry are outlandish, they have millions of pounds to spend backing up their claims,

And how outlandish do you think it looks when, within the space of a few days, you re-adjust your own figure for the sales of Hold On from 1 million down to 500k? Unless you have the sales figure for every single from 20-odd years ago in your head, I doubt you would just write the figure down from memory without first going to check it. If you can make an error of doubling your now-valid sales figure so easily, or change your mind on the total to such an extent in such a short amount of time, what other errors might you have made?

And you are asking me who just has a blog site, around £60 to live on a week, to justify figures to an person who can waste £5 a week on a paper who's clients could spend £60 on an coffee break

I'm only asking for a valid explanation. For you to type an explanation costs you nothing.

And unless you actually worked in an industry which made records in 1991, you are only going on what you have been told, plus as I keep saying that information is classified, for it is the income of Rich People, who don't want you or anyone else to know what they earn.

So you're saying that you did work in an industry which made records in 1991? And/or that you have access to information that is classified?

If you don't have access to this classified information, how do you know that you're right, and that I'm wrong?

END of argument.

You've said that before, but I'm guessing (again!) that's not the case!

[Graham76man]

Graham76man wrote:
END of argument.

You've said that before, but I'm guessing (again!) that's not the case!

It's is so bullocks to you

[irishguy28]

Then I'll accept that as tacit confirmation on your part that what you've claimed is all, to borrow your turn of phrase, bullocks!