Like their Big-Beat chums the Prodigy, the Chemical Brothers enjoyed two chart-toppers across 1996-97. When it came to the Prodigy’s ‘Breathe’, I wondered if it could be mentioned in the same breath as the pop culture moment that was ‘Firestarter’. I won’t be asking a similar question this time around…

Block Rockin’ Beats, by The Chemical Brothers (their 2^nd and final #1)

1 week, from 30^th March – 6^th April 1997

For ‘Block Rockin’ Beats’ is not up to the standard of the wonderfully trippy ‘Setting Sun’. Not that it isn’t ear-catching, or that there’s nothing interesting in this melange of sounds. Or that underpinning the entire five minutes of noise there isn’t a pretty cool bassline. All this is true. But at times this song has the feel of a dance record from a decade before, when samples were thrown together with novelty, rather than musical, value in mind.

‘Block Rockin’ Beats’ contains what sounds like sirens, snatches of different hip-hop songs (including the constantly repeated Back with another one of those block rockin’ beats…!) and what I imagine is a donkey being assaulted with a red-hot poker. I’m not writing it off, because I do enjoy dance music when it’s this chaotic and aggressive, but it also feels like a Big Beat song written to order. ‘Setting Sun’ had the advantage of Noel Gallagher on vocals, and a thick dollop of inspiration from the Beatles, which this record lacks.

Looking further into the chart history of ‘Block Rockin’ Beats’, and other one-week #1s of the time, is interesting. It’s maybe time to introduce the term ‘non number one’. Not that I want to deny the Chemical Brothers their second chart-topper. They’ve added to the rich and interesting tapestry of 1997’s #1s, making it an enjoyable year so far. But after entering at the top, it dropped to #8 the following week, and ranked at #88 on the best-selling songs of the year list. Similarly, Blur’s ‘Beetlebum’ had fallen #1 to #7, while U2’s ‘Discotheque’ fell #1 to #6, both after just one-week stays on top.

I was asked recently by a commenter why this was, and I answered that it was to do with songs in the mid-late 1990s being promoted heavily, sometimes for weeks, before being released. So the majority of their sales were concentrated in the first week they were available. But it also ties into the fact that this period also saw some of the highest singles sales of all time. I don’t know if it was to do with disposable income, or the ubiquity of CD players, or even the quality of the music, but demand was there and record labels needed something to fill it. If anyone has noticed that it is taking us ages to get through entire years now (there will be as many #1s between January and May ’97 as there were in the entirety of 1992) then there’s your answer.

None of this is to say that the Chemical Brothers weren’t a genuinely popular act. They had no further #1s, but would go on scoring Top 20 hits for another decade after this. Including what is probably their signature song, ahead of either of their chart-toppers, 1999’s ‘Hey Boy Hey Girl’, which made #3.