SHAMEN

SHAMEN Songs stats

UK No1s
2
UK Top 10s
6
UK Top 40s
13
UK Top 75s
16
Weeks at No1
4
Weeks in the Top 10
26
Weeks in the Top 40
51
Weeks in the Top 75
77

SHAMEN Albums stats

UK No1s
0
UK Top 10s
1
UK Top 40s
5
UK Top 75s
6
Weeks at No1
0
Weeks in the Top 10
9
Weeks in the Top 40
32
Weeks in the Top 75
54

Join the conversation by joining the Official Charts community and dropping comment.

Already registered?

Log in

No account?

Register

avatar

Moncho Monchito

0

Hola, busco una canción de Shamen en la que usan la música de Harold Faltermeyer (Axel F) que es como un remix electrónico.

O

ohnoitisnathan

5

You've made a mistake here, with 'Ebeneezer Goode' being listed as two separate releases in 1992 (one charting for a sole week at #1; the other dropping out of the chart from #1 then re-entering at #1 a fortnight later).

avatar

Charlie_Jackpot

0

Yeah the catalogue number is different but they should really merge the two entries

avatar

TALLPAUL713

-1

No mistake. It was in the charts for 9 weeks, the songs highest ever position was 1. It slippex out the chart and came back in for 1 week... Its highest position though is still number 1, you see? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ thats how im reading it anyway

avatar

Velvet Android

0

It's definitely a mistake. If you look at the dates and positions it's manifestly the same chart run, as the claimed 'separate' run shows it at Number One in its only week on chart (!), in the middle of the three weeks it spends at Number One in the 'other' run!

According to the page it allegedly went 6-2-1-1 and then dropped out of the Top 100 the next week, to be replaced by itself under a different catalogue number, which itself then disappears altogether the very next week but the 'original' supposedly reenters at Number One and then carries on... which is blatantly nonsense.

Its One Little Indian catalogue number is 78TP7, except for that one week where it's shown as 68TP7 – which surely smacks of someone simply making a typo (hitting the 6 instead of the 7 by mistake) and thereby mucking up the whole thing.

The fact that the error has apparently been on this page for at least 7 years, despite it being pointed out, doesn't breed confidence it'll be fixed any time soon though...