Record Breaking Song from David Bowie?
Is his new song 'Where Are We Now' the fastest ever drop out of the Top 100 from a song that entered in the Top 10?
Seems to have entered at 6, dropped to around the 40 area then out of the 100 altogether. So two weeks in the chart in total.
Quite incredible.
Seems to have entered at 6, dropped to around the 40 area then out of the 100 altogether. So two weeks in the chart in total.
Quite incredible.
0
Comments
...and?
It's chart run is currently 4 - 112
He's two follow up's also fell out of the top 100 in their second week. Lady Godvia & Stupid Stupid both peaked within the top 25.
I, for one, thought it was was a fairly interesting observation.
Lol but to be fair to him, he's not signed.
I know, but that's the record. Can't be changed.
Wet Wet Wet - Weightless - #10 - #96. (DOWN 86)
The Pogues - Fairytale of New York - #9 - #107 (DOWN 98)
Leeds United Team & Supporters - Leeds Leeds Leeds (Marching On Together) - #10 to #112 (DOWN 102)
are the ones behind alex.
My apologies...didn't mean to be so.
Any artist who did that would have a good chart position off of that... Any artist who did that would be shocked at how quickly it dropped out of the chart...
Except for David Bowie...
I have only become a fan of David as a result of this comeback, but I understand that he cares about creating and releasing music for himself and his fans at this stage in his career. Chart positions don't mean much to him anymore. Why should they, when he has created a vast of body of work that is currently pulling me in with no more than a whisper...?
It was the same when Kate Bush release King Of The Mountain first single in ten years off her first album in 12 interest and shock and huge media coverage can guarantee a top 10 but with little promo will drop out quickly. Most aritsts 40 years on would struggle for a top 75 let alone top 10 and most in the top 40 these days rely on huge promo and radio play to get a hit unless of course your rihanna
The song, however, is the dreariest dirge ever made, and sounds like it was made in his bedroom. Bought by remaining die hard fans only, hence it's swift rise and instant fall.
It is infact a great song IMO but regardless, the quality of Bowie's song has very little to do with it's swift decline from the charts. Bowie is never going to appeal in large numbers to the teen crowd who make up the majority of the people who download songs on a regular basis (in large numbers) to make up the current top 200. The same can be said for any artist over the age of 40 really - their audience are not the tweeny download crowd.
It was never going to be a long seller.
Can't help pointing out Gnarls Barkley's 'Crazy' disappeared from the #5 spot completely out of the top 200 because of chart rules in 2006.
I agree with you. It was a poor song & will mostly have been bought by his existing fanbase as soon as they were able to get hold of it.
Robbie Williamses 'Candy' has done well though.13 weeks in the Top 40.Not bad for a 38 year old !
So in effect the charts, and positions do not tell the whole story.
Another good example on the other end of the scale is that a song could sell a steady 1,000 copies a week all year long, likely not denting the Top75, the technical definition of a "hit" record, yet within the year it would have sold over 50,000 copies.
But "Candy" was no doubt played to death on commercial radio stations which people who download regularly listen to. Plus, you can tell Candy was intentionally manufactured to be a hit in the current music climate.
No matter how good an artists songs is, you can guarantee the 99% of artists over 40 will not get on those playlists, so it will be their fans only that download it.
LOL --- called Weightless
dropped like a stone ---- such irony
Not really. It really wasn't very good. In fact, it was totally forgettable and didn't have a tune. It only got any exposure because Bowie is a legend.
I did discover a new admiration for Jeremy Vine for daring to criticise the song on air despite being forced to play it on his Radio 2 playlist.
You are not wrong there! Their true "weightless" hit was of course Love Is All Around which was truly weightless in that it simply never wanted to drop, off the top of the 1994 charts, for those 15 weeks.
Talk about one hit extreme to the other!
Imbecile.
And Jeremy Vine is an arbiter of taste is he?
Precisely! I'm not a die hard fan, but bought the song by Bowie. As for Jeremy Vine, take a look at his incredibly unfunny brother Tim, who claims to be a comedian? Really!
No more than anyone else. He was just expressing an opinion, which someone is entitled to do without being insulted and being called an imbecile because they've dared to criticise anything by the great David. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure how Vine is responsible for his brother. Seems a bit of a weak line of attack. Can't you try something a bit better? :rolleyes:
Well OK, I will say that I think the Bowie track is a slow grower, and listened to under the right conditions, late in the evening, dimmed lights, it really is a fabulously melancholy and atmospheric song from the heart. To me anyway. At 1pm on a weekday it likely sounds and comes over somewhat different. We should relish the prospect that pop legends with a huge back catalogue of classic albums and singles are still prepared to create new music, and another album, when he hardly needs the money! Why should all creativity vanish after the age of 60?
However, not having heard the context in how Vine commented about the song I will leave it at that!