Friday, January 21, 2005

RIGHT... THAT MAKES THINGS CLEARER: Well, obviously there's a clear explanation for the addition of those five extra songs to the Brit single of the year category. Apparently:

"It has been brought to the organisers' attention that the 2004 chart year comprised 53 weeks rather than 52, running from 28 December 2003 until 1 January 2005," a Brits statement said.

"To avoid any ambiguity and in the interests of accuracy and fair play the Brits committee has decided to expand the nominations list to ten."

It's not actually been made clear if the week they missed off was the first in the year, or the last, but either way... the implication seems to have been that if you count the sales and airplay of that extra week, why, the five 'new' nominations suddenly add-up to have out-performed the five 'old' nominations.

Eh? Now, if they mean the first week of last year (28 Dec onwards) had been overlooked, we don't see how it could have made any difference as none of the singles had been released at that point. And it could be that in the run-up to Christmas, George Michael's sales of Anything outstripped, say, Do They Know Its Christmas by just enough to push it back into the top five, but we don't believe that for a moment. In fact, we can't accept at all that missing a week off the figures would mean a totally different list of five nominations would have been delivered - maybe one song different; perhaps two - but all five? Why don't the Brits just parade up and down outside our houses telling us they think we're stupid?