Obviously it's hard to argue against any of the first five number one hits. But then "Nothing But Heartaches" comes around. A lot of fans love it, some don't, but I have noticed there seems to be an increasing number of fans who- love it or not- are not surprised that it didn't become the sixth number one hit, myself included. I love the song [[especially the extended version) and it wouldn't have surprised me if it had gone all the way, but I'm also not surprised that it didn't. [[Although the fact that it stalled at #11 pop is a bit peculiar.)

So with hindsight being 20/20, would anyone have put their money on "I'm In Love Again" following "Back In My Arms Again" instead of "Heartaches"? There's been a theory circulating that "Nothing" didn't do what it's five predecessors had done because it seemed like it was more of the same and not different enough. "I Hear a Symphony", aside from just being a damn good song, was definitely a departure from the sound of their previous singles and may well have added to it's appeal. I'm entering into the record the theory that "I'm In Love Again" might have followed "Back" into the number one spot because all of the elements that made the Supremes The Supremes were present in a song that doesn't quite sound like the five before it, in a similar way as "Symphony".

Workable theory? Or wishful thinking? Was "I'm In Love Again" worthy of a major hit, number one in particular, or was it really just a good album track/b side and nothing more?