What's the best way to compare the chart performance of every U2 single?

[Jarvio]

I always liked to compare what numbers each U2 single got to in the UK charts, but tragically, the uk charts have completely changed. From War onwards, U2 easily made the top 20 in the uk with every single. And then came NLOTH, and since then, their uk chart positions have gotten worse and worse. And GOOYOW doesn't seem to have charted at all?

So I ask the chart buffs, is there any fair way to compare the sales performance of every U2 single, roughly in the fairest way?

The charts keep changing over time, so I'm having a hard time to find out which is the best way to compare them.

For example, TUF, TJT, and RAH all safely made the top 10 in terms of singles. Then The AB singles mostly didn't make the top 10. Whereas the ATYCLB and HTDAAB singles did amazingly well, all making the top 5. And then, from NLOTH, they struggled to even make the top 30, or in Magnificent's case, top 40! And now, for SOE, TBT got to number 92.

So yes - what is the best way to compare all these? Preferably in a simple, non-complicated way, so I can get a possible list going.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

By height

 

[LemonMelon]

Penis length

 

[Axver]

I always liked to compare what numbers each U2 single got to in the UK charts, but tragically, the uk charts have completely changed. From War onwards, U2 easily made the top 20 in the uk with every single. And then came NLOTH, and since then, their uk chart positions have gotten worse and worse. And GOOYOW doesn't seem to have charted at all?

...and there's your comparison.

What more do you want? U2 were reliably a top 20 band until 2009, and now they're not.

 

[Jarvio]

...and there's your comparison.

What more do you want? U2 were reliably a top 20 band until 2009, and now they're not.

Yes but the format of the charts have dramatically changed have they not?

 

[Axver]

They change insofar as they try to measure how people are listening. They've always changed. The original charts counted jukebox plays! As media have come and gone - 8-track, CDs, cassettes, streaming - so have the charts been tweaked. If you could somehow calculate a 2018 chart with the same methodology used when Boy was released, you'd have a worthless chart.

 

[Jarvio]

They change insofar as they try to measure how people are listening. They've always changed. The original charts counted jukebox plays! As media have come and gone - 8-track, CDs, cassettes, streaming - so have the charts been tweaked. If you could somehow calculate a 2018 chart with the same methodology used when Boy was released, you'd have a worthless chart.

Yeah that's what I meant, it's hard to compare all the singles when the charts change throughout time in general. If anyone can work out a chart like you said, that would be great. Personally I have no clue how to even begin with that, hence starting this thread, to see if there is any way.

 

[rennowba]

Best thing charted at 92

 

[Axver]

Yeah that's what I meant, it's hard to compare all the singles when the charts change throughout time in general. If anyone can work out a chart like you said, that would be great. Personally I have no clue how to even begin with that, hence starting this thread, to see if there is any way.

But my point is that the only meaningful chart is the one periodically adjusted to account for how people buy and listen to music, so that in 2018 it gives you a way to compare how consumers of that year compare with how people consumed music in 1998 or 1988. If you want a chart from 1980-2018 based on entirely the same metric - which you will never get - it would tell you absolutely nothing. For example, if you excluded digital sales and streaming, the chart stats for the past decade or so wouldn't accurately tell you the success of any song at all. If you decided to weight sales of vinyl singles most heavily across that whole period, you'll have a big old hole in the nineties/early 2000s because the medium almost died. If you weight CD singles most heavily, nothing will chart prior to the mid-eighties because the technology did not exist (not in terms of commercial chart singles anyway).

In other words, stick with the charts at the time. Sometimes they don't adapt quickly enough to how listening habits change - so physical sales in the 2000s are weighted too much because it took ages for downloads and streams to even be included. But in general that's going to favour a legacy act like U2.

 

[lazarus]

Well it didn't favor them when it came to Vertigo. Its digital sales weren't included and the song didn't fare as well on the chart.

 

[Bonoisgodly]

They are all #1 hits in my book.

 

[Popmartijn]

Yeah that's what I meant, it's hard to compare all the singles when the charts change throughout time in general. If anyone can work out a chart like you said, that would be great. Personally I have no clue how to even begin with that, hence starting this thread, to see if there is any way.

You can't create a chart with a single methodology. As Axver says, the charts have always changed their methodology over time. It is why the charts (try to) accurately show what is popular at a certain moment. The way to compare chart performance over the years is by chart positions. And that says that U2 used to be a highly popular band on the charts, with many top 10/top 20 singles, but not anymore. And that is the reality.