The Beatles’ iconic Abbey Road returns to Number 1 and sets UK Official Albums Chart record
The Beatles’ iconic Abbey Road album returns to Number 1 on this week’s Official Albums Chart, setting a new UK chart record.
The Fab Four’s eleventh studio album reclaims the top spot thanks to a special edition release to celebrate its 50th anniversary featuring previously unheard material from the recording sessions.
Abbey Road sets a UK chart record as the album with the longest time between reaching Number 1 on the Official Chart, at 49 years and 252 days. Its initial 17-week run at the top came to end on January 31st 1970. View The Beatles' complete Official UK Chart history here.
The Beatles previously held the record with their Sgt Pepper’s album, which had a gap of 49 years and 125 days between topping the chart, when its anniversary re-release reached Number 1 in June 2017.
Celebrating the news, Sir Paul McCartney said: “It’s hard to believe that Abbey Road still holds up after all these years. But then again it’s a bloody cool album.”
Abbey Road is also this week’s best-selling album on vinyl, shifting just under 9,000 copies on wax.
MORE: 13 facts about The Beatles' Abbey Road album
Meanwhile, last week’s Number 1, Why Me? Why Not. by Liam Gallagher drops to 2, and Lewis Capaldi’s Divinely Uninspired To A Hellish Extent rebounds four places to Number 3 following his recent BBC Radio 1 Live Lounge Symphony. The album is currently the UK’s biggest record released in 2019 with 423,000 chart sales to date.
South London collective D-Block Europe score a big entry with their PTSD mixtape, new at Number 4, and Swedish prog-metal group Opeth land their fifth UK Top 40 with their thirteenth collection In Cauda Venenum at Number 13.
US singer-songwriter Beth Hart is new at 19 with War In My Mind, North Carolina rapper Dababy opens at Number 24 with his second album Kirk, and Scouting For Girls land their seventh Top 40 album with The Trouble With Boys at 25.
Further down, Becky Hill’s Get To Know – a collection of her biggest tracks to date – is new at Number 33, and a new greatest hits by British rockers Thunder opens at Number 35.
Join the conversation by joining the Official Charts community and dropping comment.
Already registered?
Log in
No account?
Register
Spitfire
GO BEATLES GO.....
BEATLES stand for:
Best Exciting Amazing Talented Lads Even Seen.
Oh- and Mr Quinn hope you feel better after your 1 cent comment. Every time the Beatles chart on the UK charts, there is always one crumply Elvis fan making a jealous comment. Here is a few facts: The Beatles sold just as much records as Elvis if not more. The Beatles also became bigger than Elvis. FACT...
Elvis had 21 years to do what he did- the Beatles did it under 9years. Show me anyone
who can do this and I will tell you, they are the Beatles. Also Remember....
if there was NO ELVIS the songs he recorded ( and many were sung by other artists first) would still be around, unlike The Fabulous BEATLES who wrote many many world wide famous songs and did not rely on any writing teams to write their huge hits. What the Beatles accomplished was beyond fantastic, so maybe in future remember this before you compare, especially by someone who is called by some king of rock and roll and yet did not write one rock song. I can also guarantee you if there was no Elvis the Beatles would of still existed as they were inspired by other acts also in the music industry..
jake pepper
Did the legendary Marilyn Monroe write her scripts or songs for her movies? No Elvis, no Buddy Holly, no Beatles. Besides, you fail to mention that Elvis had a string of number one and top tens that hit the album charts in recent years. "Nation's Favorite" "50 Greatest Hits" "If I Can Dream" "The Wonder Of You" "Christmas With Elvis" and "The Best Of '68," Wow that's six top ten hits, which one was number 2, and two went all the way to number one from 2013-2019. The Rolling Stones won a Grammy for a brand new release called, "Blue And Lonesome," Ironically, it is an album of blues covers, which they never wrote. As for McCartney, the best song he has written in at least 40 years is the sappy, "Ebony And Ivory" sung with Stevie Wonder. In more recent news, Paul McCartney admitted that he and John Lennon use to choke each others chickens in dark rooms. They used to "Come Together." Embarrassing. You Beatles clowns are hilarious. You always believe that pelvis fans would be jealous of your mop head swinging heroes. The beating Beatle boy band inspired The Monkees. lol,
G
Giorgio
Come on, mate, it is your comment that is embarrassing!? Marylin Monroe is not a great actress to be mentioned. She is famous for other things. You suddenly mentioned Buudy Holly beside Elvis. Was it because he actually wrote his songs and his songwriting skills were influence on The Beatles? This doesn't change the fact Elvis was not a songwriter. But what was totally stupid of yours is the fact you apparently don't have an idea of the songs Paul McCartney wrote (in the last 40!! years)?! Ebony and Ivory is a great tune, but far from his best from that period. We are talking Paul McCartney here, The Genius. Give a listen to "Waterfalls", "No More Lonely Nights", "Once Upon A Long Ago", "Beautiful Night", or "Tug Of War". Or "Wanderlust", "Only Love Remains", and "Mistress And Maid". And then you can give an opinion.
jake pepper
Elvis was never expected to be a songwriter, but yet, some jealous Beatles fanatics use the fact to attack him. I mention Buddy Holly because like Roy Orbison, they were doing country music before they saw Elvis play live in Texas. Holly is on record giving Elvis credit for his transformation into doing rock n roll. However, being the genius that he was, Holy developed his own style and did not copy Elvis. No Elvis, no Buddy Holly, no Beatles is 100% correct. I point to the reality that The Rolling Stones could make such a great return to form with their Grammy winning blues album, "Blue And Lonesome" and not have one original song on it. It was a covers album. Are The Stones attacked because they did not write any of the songs? Marilyn Monroe was a great actress, but she was simply typecast in dumb blonde roles because she was a symbol, Nevertheless, she did the classic dramas, "Niagara" and "The Misfits." which showcased her acting abilities. As the standards of the day required, Hollywood stars that made a living making movies were not writing songs or scripts. And as a songwriter, which you believe is so important, Paul McCartney has written no memorable classics in over 40 years. John Lennon last two albums, "Double Fantasy" and "Milk And Honey" feature more, and Yoko Ono had half the albums. All those Paul McCartney songs you mention are not rock, the best one being "No More Lonely Nights." Ironically, it was from his eighties box office turkey, "Give My Regards To Broadstreet." It was apparent that Paul McCartney showed the world once again that he could not act. The movie was terrible. McCartney spent decades writing sappy tunes about sheep dogs, flowers and little dragonflies. My opinions are based on ditties like "Coming Up Like A Flower" "Spies Like Us" "Wonderful Christimastime" "Dress Me Up Like A Robber" and "Pipes Of Peace." Not one classic in the bunch. His new albums are probably the worst he has ever done, plus as an aging live performer, his voice is now shot.
jake pepper
My comment seems to have been removed. There was nothing in my reply that wasn't 100% fact, but it was still censored. Apparently, the honest truth can not be told because it would upset the weak hearts of Beatles fanatics. Nice job, Billboard. We know it is all payola to the aging ham, Sir Paul McCartney.
S
Sarah
Hi
Just saw your comment. Not sure what you meant by, No Elvis, No Buddy Holly, No Beatles. I hope you are not implying that without Elvis, Buddy would not have existed in music?. Buddy was around in 1952 and even preformed in local television station and formed a group called Buddy and Bob in 1953.He was yet to make a name for himself.. He came from a musical background, so clearly by 1952 he was into music. Elvis came in 1954. So I think it's fair to say, your comment was incorrect. According to Wikipedia( who by the way I do not trust 100% with real facts) after Holly opened for Elvis he decided to pursued a career in music. Now, I find this really strange, as he was already into music, and Wikipedia just contradicted itself. Go Figure? I know after seeing Elvis he changed his music style to Rock N Roll, so yes, there was influence there. Wikipedia states that Buddy was a major influence, on Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones and many more. I also think when the Beatles made comments, such as Before Elvis there was nothing, or if there was NO Elvis there would be NO Beatles it should not be thrown back in their faces. I find many people do this, and think its very unfair. I like both Elvis and The Beatles and clearly Elvis admired the Beatles and vice versa. I tend not to listen to people who try to put down other artists, as this simply causes conflict, and I refuse to go down to their level.. We all have different taste in music and I believe all artist some way or another brings something to the table.
jake pepper
I never said that Buddy And Bob did not exist. Like Eddie Cochran with Hank Cochran (unrelated)....Buddy Holly was doing country music, If he had never seen Elvis, he probably would have stayed country, without the change over to rock songwriting and performance. Elvis simply inspired Buddy Holly as the man admitted himself. Holly is on record as saying, "Without Elvis, none of us would have made it." As for The Beatles, British music before the dawn of American rock n roll was dire. Elvis made films that millions of kids saw first including John, Paul, George and Ringo. No one helped spread rock n roll to the masses with such force, and so quickly like what Elvis did. No Elvis, no Buddy Holly, no Beatles does have a ring of truth to it as it was a chain reaction to everything that came after the king's initial impact.
S
Sarah
Hi Again,
These were your words.
NO ELVIS, NO BUDDY HOLLY, NO BEATLES.
You may not have used the word existed, but nevertheless the meaning is there. You might not have meant it that way, but the way in which you wrote it, it comes across, to me, as if you might think / assume that these artist would not of existed in the music world, had it not been for Elvis, and am just pointing out to you that Buddy Holly, regardless of what type of music he was singing, was around before Elvis, so what you said is incorrect.
Sarah.
jake pepper
Again, I never said that Buddy Holly was not making music before Elvis. He was doing country and western, which The Beatles would have ignored. Buddy Holly saw Elvis play rock n roll as he, Scotty and Bill stormed through Texas on an early tour. Therefore Buddy Holly changed his act by doing rock n roll. I am only repeating what Holly himself said of Elvis. I am not sure what you are implying, because Elvis movies were shown worldwide, therefore The Beatles would be watching Elvis in the UK. Buddy Holly did not act in Hollywood productions that included series of musical clips, which made kids seek out the records. When millions of kids saw Elvis rocking and rolling, they were inspired to start their own bands. How exactly would I be incorrect? It is certainly common sense.
S
Sarah
Hi Again,
Ok then, let me put it to you this way.
What did you mean when you wrote,
No Elvis, No Buddy Holly, No Beatles.
I hope this is clear enough.
Sarah.
jake pepper
Read the comments. I've already explained myself several times. Obviously, you have attention problems. Time for remedial. Good day.
S
Sarah
You Sir, are a rude and angry man. This kind of attitude seems to follow you around, and maybe be your safety net when you cannot justify what you say. Reading your posts you seem to have issues with almost everyone, and I think maybe, you are the one who seeks attention. I will follow their lead, and ignore you completely.
Sarah.
jake pepper
I've already repeated myself several times to you, and yet, you claim that I am being rude and angry. That observation is certainly not true at the slightest. However, I do have a low tolerance to nonsense. You must be developmentally challenged. I am afraid that there is not much that can be done for you. Seek special education remedial for your attention deficit disorder.
V
Vikingman
Well done for another No.1 album. What I don't understand is how, like Sgt Pepper, is this being treated as the same album when it has previously unheard material on it. Surely they should both be ranked as new albums?
Q
Quaid
Easily the most melodious, entertaining and life changing group to ever come out of England
TITB
Trump is the best
They are not just the greatest band of all time, they are the greatest Act in entertainment history.
Brian Quinn
Elvis is the Greatest Act in Music History. There would have been no Beatles if it were not for him.
Antonio Carlos Bola Harres
Beethoven is the Greatest act in Music History. There would have been no Roll Over Beethoven if it were not for him.
S
Sarah
Hi
Think John Lennon said that if there was No Elvis there will be No Beatles.He so admired Elvis. It would help if Elvis fans stopped throwing this comment back to the Beatles in a insulting way. Very unfair. Elvis admired the Beatles. He sang their songs. He had taste.
Piran
One of the best albums from the most iconic group of all-time! :)
Glad to see it making Official Chart history today.
S
Sarah
Hi
Do you know how many #1 Albums the Beatles have in the UK. When you click on their chart history It states 16 but when you stroll to see Albums that hit #1 it shows only 15.
I am assuming Abbey Road is probably counted as another #1 because it has extra tracks and under a different label. They did this when Elvis re-released singles( under different label ) and 3 went to #1 and counted again as a new number one, so I suppose only fair to do the same on the Albums. Just confusing, as the charts have not been fully updated so not sure which is correct, and thought maybe you might know..
Thanks, Sarah.
Piran
Hi Sarah!
I'd say that The Beatles have 15 #1 albums in the UK! The OCC seem to be count 'Abbey Road's returning to #1 on its 50th anniversary as part of the album's original chart run back in 1969-70. I remember them stating in the article for that week that 'Abbey Road' set the record for longest gap between #1 stints for that album, at something like over 48 years! This seems to be consistent with other sources that I found, which mentioned that The Beatles have 11 #1 studio albums, two #1 live albums & two #1 compilation albums, hence bringing the overall to 15.
Hope this helps! :D
S
Sarah
Hi Again,
It still states that they have 16 # 1 Albums. I will assume it's correct.
Thanks heaps for your reply:)
Sarah.