Reproduced from The Observer 8 April, 2000

Dear Pete,
So this is a momentous week in pop history? The mighty Westlife have grabbed their fifth consecutive number one single. Everything they've released has now smashed straight into the "hit parade" at the very top. And they've broken almost every record going - an action most music fans can empathise with where Westlife are concerned. They're more prolific than Elvis, more successful than the Spice Girls, bigger than Abba, hot on the heels of the Beatles. All, apparently, facts! The first act to debut at number one with their first five singles... ever.

This ought to mean that Westlife - five should-be trainee hairdressers with a penchant for saccharine karaoke ballads - are the most popular band British music has ever seen. A panacea for music in the 21st century, rewriting history as they stride through the annals of pop, with Madonna, Take That, and, of course, B*witched - whose record they broke - floundering in their wake.

Or does this simply reinforce how redundant and worthless the charts have become? In the 37 years after NME ran Britain's first ever chart - on November 14, 1952 - only 20 records debuted at number one. In the last 10 years there have been over 120. A number one record has been devalued so much that you'd almost suspect Norman Lamont's involvement.

Yours,
Ben Knowles
Editor, NME

Dear Ben,
Forty years ago, I bought the NME religiously to see what the chart was - but I was 12 or 13 then. You're not, and that's the point.

What you and I, as professionals, think of today's music is irrelevant. It's the people who buy singles who matter, the people who are excited by Westlife. From a business point of view, give me 20 number ones a year, please, and I'll be happy - in the pop business, anything less than the top five is not a result. The reason I'd have done anything I could to make Steps number one this week is that it's a barometer of the popularity of the band, a guarantee that I've got money coming in to pay my staff, and a signal to the band of how successful they are.

The case of the Beatles always gets trotted out - but every Beatles single did not sell a million. Certain singles did, such as She Loves You, because they became landmarks in pop history. But singles are enormous now, the biggest I've seen in the last 20 years: Tragedy sold 1.6m singles, and even in the 1980s those were the kind of figures too. Whether it's 1962, 1972 or 2000, that's a staggering amount of records. And now they cost £3.99: when I sold 600,000 Rick Astleys it was at 98p each.

When we grow old, we become cynical; we don't enjoy the excitement of making musical discoveries as we first did. My daughters are 10 and eight; they are excited that Westlife is number one again this week - and they know more about pop music than I do.

Yours,
Pete Waterman
Producer

Dear Pete,
Cynical, eh? I couldn't claim to get as excited as a nine-year-old pop kid when hearing the new A1 or Atomic Kittens singles - but I've got as excited as you seem to believe a grown-up is able by discovering new records from the likes of Kelis or Doves this year.

It's not who is buying singles, or even what they're buying, that is decimating the standing of the charts - but rather the where, the how, and to an extent the why. Woolworths, Britain's leading singles retailer by some distance, only stocks the 50 records they predict will be in the Top 50 that week. If your name's not on the list, you're not getting into the charts. You say you'd do anything you could to get Steps another number one, and of course you should - but the problem is, most acts simply can't afford to.

The people behind bands who are targeted at pre-teens (the Spice Girls were marketed in exactly the same way as the Teletubbies) who have big displays of cheap singles in Woolies and a snappy TV ad are going to keep most of the diverse and exciting new music out of the big shops. The volume of indie, reggae, bhangra or hip-hop sold at full-price through specialist shops will never bother Chart Information Network's computer.

Surely the charts should reflect the most popular sorts of music people want to buy? That, quite simply, doesn't happen. Cynical? No. Naive? Maybe.

Ben

Dear Naive,
Are you really saying Woolworths wouldn't want to make money on reggae singles if they could? They want to make money on any single; they don't care if it's hip-hop, bebop or doo-wop. The important point for them is that it brings people into their stores. There's no discrimination by Woolworths - that's just a ridiculous statement. And if you added up all the sales of bhangra, hip-hop and other independent music over the last week, would they have sold more than the top three pop singles? I don't think so. It's very important to me that we protect minority and independent music, but for the very reason that it isn't mainstream.

And just because a record makes the top five doesn't even mean that the record company will make money: it's a gamble. And what better arbiter of taste than putting your cash where your mouth is and losing a fortune? You don't have to buy any records that you don't want to, and I'm sure you don't. That's the wonderful thing about the charts: this week, for example, there are three records you probably think are brilliant: screaming feminists at number three, Mr Dour at number two, and a garage record at number one. When I first heard Artful Dodger, they were an independent outfit.

But if Doves or Kelis were lucky enough to sell a million records at Woolworths, I don't think they'd be sending the cheques back.

Yours,
Pete

Dear Pete,
Major record shops only want to make money? Record companies may not make money from top five singles? Next you'll be telling me that record companies give away free copies of their CDs to big record shops in an attempt to ensure they get into the charts. Which is - as I'm sure you're aware - exactly what happens.

People who work as reps for record companies proudly admit they know exactly the 500 or so shops that have chart return machines and so contribute to the Top 40. And they'll single them out for posters, display units, instore appearances and "special deals".

People who work in these chart-relevant stores tell tales of big new releases often being offered to them at a "buy one, get 10 free" rate - enabling them to put said single out at £1.99 and still make money. One buyer even reported that, after turning down such an offer, the store then simply received boxes of that CD free.

Of course record companies may not make money from a top five single. That's not the plan at that stage. As you quite rightly noted in your first letter, labels will do anything to get to number one because that still means something to the people who buy records. That can mean 1.6m sales, extra airplay, TV appearances plus a boost to those valuable album sales. Bands who can't afford to do this, or that refuse to, simply can't compete.

There was, famously, a Top 20 chart in Viz magazine where bands sent in their tape and a cheque. The band who sent Viz the most dosh got to number one, and so got the most publicity. Welcome to Britain's Top 40.

Ben

Dear Ben,
Music isn't free on the NHS: if you don't believe in the power of capitalism, give the NME away for free. We're all in this business for cash - it's just that some of us are honest about it and some of us aren't.

The idea that free copies guarantees hits is a wonderful myth. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink: the major record companies know where to sell records because they know where there's a natural demand for a single. It's far more complicated than a few artists doing public appearances in HMV or Our Price - and if it wasn't, the record companies wouldn't employ statisticians to work these things out for them.

And having a record in the top five does not mean you'll get airplay: quite the opposite, because radio stations no longer work on the premise that the record is a hit. It's absolutely standard to have a record at number one and not hear it on certain stations - Radio 1 included - because these places are full of 23-year-olds who want to be the taste police.

But at the end of the day, we're dealing with music - the public like what they like and you can't force them to like what you like. They think they can in America, but on this small island, most people still have a different view of music to the major companies, and there's still a free spirit roaming about somewhere. You need to get into Woolworths and Our Price, but unless you get your basic product right first, none of that is important. Us little independents can still have number ones because it's still the music that counts.

Pete