Loading ...
Thanks to the new rule governing the UK charts that counts single-song downloads alongside “proper” single releases–and the fact that the singles charts across the pond count 200 tracks, instead of the States’ paltry 100–the Arctic Monkeys are on the cusp of making chart history once again. Every song from the NME darlings’ new album, Favourite Worst Nightmare, is set to make its mark on the UK singles chart:
The midweek sales figures show that 10 tracks from Favourite Worst Nightmare, released this Monday, are already in the top 75, while the remaining two – The Bad Thing and If You Were There, Beware – are at 77 and 114 respectively.
If the chart placings hold until the weekend, the Monkeys will claim the record for the most tracks on the chart at any one time. They could have as many as 18 in the top 200 thanks to the reappearance of other tracks from the band’s earlier releases, Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not and the EP Who the Fuck are the Arctic Monkeys? It is also the first time a band has ever had an entire album feature in the singles chart.
Meanwhile, in the States, the “Brianstorm” single also topped the singles sales charts–although we’re guessing that it’s thanks to it being one of the few physical singles available, since it only needed a sales tally of 900. Still, it’s baby steps, right?
Arctic Monkeys head for new chart record [Guardian Music]
This is a remarkably snark-free, seemingly pro-Monkeys post you’ve got here.
Like y’all said, baby steps.
Why does England hate melody so much?
@dennisobell: haha! i don’t hate them, actually–after all, without them, the sugababes would have never covered ‘i bet you look good on the dancefloor,’ right? also: ‘brianstorm’ just makes me want to listen to ‘atlantis to interzone’ every time i hear it.
BrianRafteryStorm
I once read a review of the Monkeys in a local rag that gave their debut CD very bad marks without actually listening to it, working on the following argument:
Premise 1): The Arctic Monkeys are a NME hotshit band.
Premise 2): NME rarely goes ape over good music.
Premise 3): Statistically speaking, the CD probably sucks, and I’ll get more enjoyment from the trade-in value of a shrink-wrapped disc.
Conclusion: I should purchase some tacos and a beer instead with the money from the trade-in.
Enthymeme: Tacos, statistically speaking, are better than the Arctic Monkeys.
Couldn’t argue with that logic.
@dennisobell: I kind of hope Idolator can move beyond the Monkeys-snark. I mean, most serious critics in the U.S. (Kelefa Sanneh, Sasha Frere-Jones et al) rate them, as do nearly all the serious Brit music writers. While that shouldn’t exempt them from criticism, it does sort of suggest that the Arctic Monkeys are, in fact, a pretty good band.
The constant don’t-believe-the-NME-hype sneering of certain U.S. blogs ends up smacking of petty parochialism.
@Sir Charlie Palmer: I actually think the Idolators are dead right to be suspicious of NME-level hype as a general rule. God knows I am.
I just think this is one case where the act in question actually merits most of the excitement.
What are these Arctic Monkeys and where can I find out more about them?
@Sir Charlie Palmer: You of all people should know that “serious” critical appeal does not necessarily mean an act is any good; I could just as easily suggest that the amount of snark available suggests that the Arctic Monkeys are, in fact, awful. Instead, the critical split suggests several outcomes, none of which are easily determinable, and several of which that suggest that a larger gestalt is at work that goes above and beyond a simple appraisal of the band’s quality. Moreover, the “don’t-believe-the-NME-hype” might smack of “petty parochialism”, but there are markedly different zeitgeists at work in any given culture and/or subculture, and dismissing any dissident view as parochial is itself a parochial view.
Just sayin’.