Alright, I believe you, my apologies. I was just surprised that when it comes to Hammer samples, you referenced a fairly obscure album track, rather than his much better known, globally successful single release that also uses a famous sample, and which was released around the same time as the equally successful, Queen sampling Vanilla Ice track.
I was having a joke as yes I was thinking of Ice Ice Baby. I got mixed up between them as everyone pointed out.
I think Paul Gambaccini has a point. If I heard Clara Amfo announce that Paul Simon had the number 1 album and then heard her say ask your Dad I would feel annoyed and patronised. I'm 29 years old I think Paul Simon is great and I like Simon and Garfunkel. I love music from the 1970's and 1980's I gained a musical education by listening to presenters like Paul Gambaccini on BBC Radio 2. Why does BBC Radio 1 treat their audience like they are ignorant.
Can only echo this. I'm 40 and spent much of my late teens listening to great 60s and70s music, both on Radio One and the Gold stations that sprung up in the early 90s, Honestly, for the first 2 or 3 years of the 90s the charts were awful, even worse than today.
By the time I was 21 or so I was listening to Robert Johnson and John Lee Hooker and Woody Guthrie, much of the music made before my parents were born.
I'm sure there are 15-25 year olds today who feel equally passionate about great old music,
Can only echo this. I'm 40 and spent much of my late teens listening to great 60s and70s music, both on Radio One and the Gold stations that sprung up in the early 90s, Honestly, for the first 2 or 3 years of the 90s the charts were awful, even worse than today.
By the time I was 21 or so I was listening to Robert Johnson and John Lee Hooker and Woody Guthrie, much of the music made before my parents were born.
I'm sure there are 15-25 year olds today who feel equally passionate about great old music,
This was why I made the comment about sampling. If some of the artists Radio 1 plays are influenced by Paul Simon's music, then he's relevant to Radio 1's audience.
Why on earth would Radio 2 listeners wish to hear the Top 40? The Top 40 is for Radio 1's teenagers the Radio 2 audience these days lost interest in the charts years ago. I doubt many Radio 2 listeners could even name the current No 1 I know I couldn't. I just asked a few Radio 2 listeners at work here and no one had a clue.
Very probably true unfortunately. I wouldn't listen, although in the download era, and now streaming, when almost everyone of all ages is computer competent and can use the tech I do not understand why the UK Singles Charts have not "matured" more favourably away from still being slanted to the under 25 / 30's and being dominated by their taste at the expense of the over 30's.
There is no rule that states the music chart has to be the sole preserve of the very young after all.
Whilst many "older" people are computer literate I am not so sure they are so keen on downloading. I have an ipod but I hate having to use Itunes its got far less user friendly than it used to be. Personally I still prefer to buy a CD even if it costs more than the download.
Whilst many "older" people are computer literate I am not so sure they are so keen on downloading. I have an ipod but I hate having to use Itunes its got far less user friendly than it used to be. Personally I still prefer to buy a CD even if it costs more than the download.
I am actually quite the opposite to you. I haven't bought a CD since 2008 and buy more music via download than I ever did or would do on CD or even vinyl of old. Although I agree that there is nothing better than owning physical music and a mere download feels far more disposable. I've never even attempted to stream a song yet and am not fussed by that aspect.
Of course the downside to downloading is that if your hard drive goes whoopsy, then it's goodbye to anything you've downloaded, unless you were wise enough to back it all up. Most people I suspect can't be bothered to do that. I stick with CDs/vinyl most of the time, although I've already downloaded a lot of rare stuff from YouTube, some of which is no longer even on there.
Very probably true unfortunately. I wouldn't listen, although in the download era, and now streaming, when almost everyone of all ages is computer competent and can use the tech I do not understand why the UK Singles Charts have not "matured" more favourably away from still being slanted to the under 25 / 30's and being dominated by their taste at the expense of the over 30's.
There is no rule that states the music chart has to be the sole preserve of the very young after all.
The album chart is very good though. There are albums that appeal to a wide audience and has I said I think Radio 2 should bring back an album chart show. Gambo would make a good presenter for the show.
The album chart is very good though. There are albums that appeal to a wide audience and has I said I think Radio 2 should bring back an album chart show. Gambo would make a good presenter for the show.
But haven't album sales dipped down to an all time low currently? Aren't people just picking and choosing tracks from albums via download more than buying the entire product nowadays?
But haven't album sales dipped down to an all time low currently? Aren't people just picking and choosing tracks from albums via download more than buying the entire product nowadays?
Very much so. Why would I want to waste money buying an album when I can just stream the tracks that I like. All too often albums at best have had four or five great trscks and the rest of lower quality. I'm not really sure why bands make albums anymore as they are based on an artificial lrngth of time and number of songs to fit vinyl and CD lengths that are now irrelevant.
Why on earth would Radio 2 listeners wish to hear the Top 40? The Top 40 is for Radio 1's teenagers the Radio 2 audience these days lost interest in the charts years ago. I doubt many Radio 2 listeners could even name the current No 1 I know I couldn't. I just asked a few Radio 2 listeners at work here and no one had a clue.
They may not be able to say who is number one, but the Radio 2 playlist often has artists who are in the top 40, and indeed have been number one, such as Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, Clean Bandit, Pharrell, Magic, Meghan Trainor, Mark Ronson. The chart itself has lost impact and interest for a lot of people, but a lot of the music in it would still be fairly Radio 2 friendly, but maybe I would be the only oldie listening
But haven't album sales dipped down to an all time low currently? Aren't people just picking and choosing tracks from albums via download more than buying the entire product nowadays?
They have but a fair number of people still buy albums. Also streaming is also included in the album chart as well now I believe?
I think what the BBC Should do is bring back the album chart show as mentioned by other posters to Radio 2 and get Paul Gambo to present it as others have pointed out.
As for the weekly chart show moving from Sunday to Friday on Radio 1, I think its a shame after so many decades, but I suppose with the release of new songs on the Friday maybe it makes sense.
I think what the BBC Should do is bring back the album chart show as mentioned by other posters to Radio 2 and get Paul Gambo to present it as others have pointed out.
As for the weekly chart show moving from Sunday to Friday on Radio 1, I think its a shame after so many decades, but I suppose with the release of new songs on the Friday maybe it makes sense.
This is not a logic I really understand, after all until 1987 when the chart was out on a Tuesday, records were not also released on that day of the week, so why does the official chart have to match the release date of music anyway?
Now it's Josh Groban at number one on the album chart - radio 1 will be running out of family members for its audience to ask. There is a strong case for an album chart show on radio 2 on a Sunday or Monday night along the lines of Paul's Capital album chart show in the 80s. A mix of current and classic tracks rather than Sam and Ed every week.
Moving it to Friday teatime ( I know they say it's to do with the global release date, but I don't buy that excuse) and reducing it by an hour just shows that Radio 1 doesn't really give a stuff about the chart anyway. I don't think many youngsters have the same attachment to it like us oldies do. Best to give it to Radio 2 and let someone like Gambaccini present it who cares about music and can give detail and background on it. Any youngsters left who are bothered about the chart can change channels for once!
P.S. They could cover the new vinyl chart too!
Why don't you buy the excuse? If anything it's a major inconvenience for Radio 1 to rip up the format of a successful weekday show to do the chart on a Friday.
This is not a logic I really understand, after all until 1987 when the chart was out on a Tuesday, records were not also released on that day of the week, so why does the official chart have to match the release date of music anyway?
Because record labels want a high chart entry. If they release a record halfway through the chart week it won't chart as highly.
Because record labels want a high chart entry. If they release a record halfway through the chart week it won't chart as highly.
Who cares?
A proper chart has climbers! The worst charts of all have been those ones a few years ago when literally everything new that entered the charts was at the peak position. Some of the biggest and best known No1 hits of the past actually had lowly chart debuts before making the top spot. Some even entered the top forty at No40 shock of horrors - singles like The Lady In Red, You Spin Me Round (Like A Record), West End Girls, I Should Have Known Better and Reet Petite all did so within just 2 years of each other.
This obsessive focus on a first week debut is just vacuous in the end.
This is not a logic I really understand, after all until 1987 when the chart was out on a Tuesday, records were not also released on that day of the week, so why does the official chart have to match the release date of music anyway?
Well, it was different in the eighties because the chart took that long to compile and they couldn't do it any other way. If they could have done it quicker and published it instantly, they would have. The point of doing it like this is so it's a level playing field and the chart actually means something. It wouldn't make sense to have a chart where half the records have been out for a week and half for three days, it would be unfair.
Otherwise you would get a number one single and have to put "(but it was on sale for longer than the number two single)" after it. You couldn't make any kind of comparison. It would be like announcing Chelsea had won the league even if the team in second place had six games in hand.
There is no rule that states the music chart has to be the sole preserve of the very young after all.
Well, it isn't, and this is why I never understand Gambo's point, which he also made during the Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead business, that "the chart is the news". The actual chart is the news, yes - the actual printed chart issued by The Official UK Charts Company that you can read online and in the trade press and study and dissect as you see fit. The Radio 1 Chart Show, however, is not the chart, it is an entertainment show based on that chart aimed at the Radio 1 audience.
The argument that "the chart is the news" and therefore has to be broadcast in full, at dictation speed, with some level of formality, is a bizarre one. Compare it to the actual news, does Newsbeat broadcast the same stories in the same order in the same style as The World At One? No, both shows have the same source material but reflect it in different ways to better serve their target audience. Same with the football results, the papers don't devote exactly equal space to every single game, the highlight the results that are the most relevant and interesting to their readers.
If Radio 2 wanted to do a chart show as well, they could, and they could do it in a different way from Radio 1. They'd be the same chart, just presented in a different way. The chart is the chart and you can see that in loads of places. What Radio 1 then do with the chart is up to them and what their audience wants to hear. There are other sources if you don't like the way they do it, you can read it online and play all the tracks in order on Spotify if you want.
The point of doing it like this is so it's a level playing field and the chart actually means something. It wouldn't make sense to have a chart where half the records have been out for a week and half for three days, it would be unfair.
Otherwise you would get a number one single and have to put "(but it was on sale for longer than the number two single)" after it. You couldn't make any kind of comparison. It would be like announcing Chelsea had won the league even if the team in second place had six games in hand.
How would that be any different to the past? Whilst most singles used to get released on a Thursday or friday. some got issued on other days. (One of the reasons that The Jam's 'Going Underground' was the first single for seven years to enter the chart at number one was that their record company released it on a Monday. That's not unfair. That's just clever marketing.
The argument that "the chart is the news" and therefore has to be broadcast in full, at dictation speed, with some level of formality, is a bizarre one.
But Gambo isn't arguing that. Numerous past top 40 presenters have done the show in a fast, engaging style, but laced their approach with authority and information. Tommy Vance was a classic example.
But Gambo isn't arguing that. Numerous past top 40 presenters have done the show in a fast, engaging style, but laced their approach with authority and information. Tommy Vance was a classic example.
A surprisingly great host of the Sunday Top 40 Chart on Radio 1 he ended up being too.
The Chart Show on Radio 1 does not need to be dressed up with gimmicks and pointless fluff even for that audience. It never needed to be before and it certainly doesn't now either. As for sneering opinions about more mature artists who have sold well and have to be played or mentioned on the show by the host, well it's just not the thing to do and says more about the shallow hosts who would say such things in my opinion.
How would that be any different to the past? Whilst most singles used to get released on a Thursday or friday. some got issued on other days.
But under the new rules all records are going to be released on Friday, so it doesn't make any sense as a survey of what was selling all week. Occasionally under the old system you got records released on other days, but not many.
The Chart Show on Radio 1 does not need to be dressed up with gimmicks and pointless fluff even for that audience. It never needed to be before and it certainly doesn't now either. As for sneering opinions about more mature artists who have sold well and have to be played or mentioned on the show by the host, well it's just not the thing to do and says more about the shallow hosts who would say such things in my opinion.
And yet, of course, Johnnie Walker famously got death threats for saying the Bay City Rollers were "musical garbage" while announcing the chart.
If Radio 1 still believed that the audience wanted the chart delivered dead straight with no opinion or any other features, they'd still do it like that, but they clearly don't think the audience wants that. It is an entertainment show. And at the end of the day, who cares? It's a list of pop records, not anything important. They could make the whole chart up and if it's playing stuff listeners want to hear they wouldn't care.
Comments
Loleatta Holloway.....thought everyone knew that, as it was very common knowledge.
It's common knowledge amungst people like us who know our music. I wouldn't say the tune was huge though or on the radar if a large number of people.
I was having a joke as yes I was thinking of Ice Ice Baby. I got mixed up between them as everyone pointed out.
Can only echo this. I'm 40 and spent much of my late teens listening to great 60s and70s music, both on Radio One and the Gold stations that sprung up in the early 90s, Honestly, for the first 2 or 3 years of the 90s the charts were awful, even worse than today.
By the time I was 21 or so I was listening to Robert Johnson and John Lee Hooker and Woody Guthrie, much of the music made before my parents were born.
I'm sure there are 15-25 year olds today who feel equally passionate about great old music,
This was why I made the comment about sampling. If some of the artists Radio 1 plays are influenced by Paul Simon's music, then he's relevant to Radio 1's audience.
There is no rule that states the music chart has to be the sole preserve of the very young after all.
Very much so. Why would I want to waste money buying an album when I can just stream the tracks that I like. All too often albums at best have had four or five great trscks and the rest of lower quality. I'm not really sure why bands make albums anymore as they are based on an artificial lrngth of time and number of songs to fit vinyl and CD lengths that are now irrelevant.
They may not be able to say who is number one, but the Radio 2 playlist often has artists who are in the top 40, and indeed have been number one, such as Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, Clean Bandit, Pharrell, Magic, Meghan Trainor, Mark Ronson. The chart itself has lost impact and interest for a lot of people, but a lot of the music in it would still be fairly Radio 2 friendly, but maybe I would be the only oldie listening
As for the weekly chart show moving from Sunday to Friday on Radio 1, I think its a shame after so many decades, but I suppose with the release of new songs on the Friday maybe it makes sense.
Why don't you buy the excuse? If anything it's a major inconvenience for Radio 1 to rip up the format of a successful weekday show to do the chart on a Friday.
Because record labels want a high chart entry. If they release a record halfway through the chart week it won't chart as highly.
A proper chart has climbers! The worst charts of all have been those ones a few years ago when literally everything new that entered the charts was at the peak position. Some of the biggest and best known No1 hits of the past actually had lowly chart debuts before making the top spot. Some even entered the top forty at No40 shock of horrors - singles like The Lady In Red, You Spin Me Round (Like A Record), West End Girls, I Should Have Known Better and Reet Petite all did so within just 2 years of each other.
This obsessive focus on a first week debut is just vacuous in the end.
Well, it was different in the eighties because the chart took that long to compile and they couldn't do it any other way. If they could have done it quicker and published it instantly, they would have. The point of doing it like this is so it's a level playing field and the chart actually means something. It wouldn't make sense to have a chart where half the records have been out for a week and half for three days, it would be unfair.
Otherwise you would get a number one single and have to put "(but it was on sale for longer than the number two single)" after it. You couldn't make any kind of comparison. It would be like announcing Chelsea had won the league even if the team in second place had six games in hand.
Well, it isn't, and this is why I never understand Gambo's point, which he also made during the Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead business, that "the chart is the news". The actual chart is the news, yes - the actual printed chart issued by The Official UK Charts Company that you can read online and in the trade press and study and dissect as you see fit. The Radio 1 Chart Show, however, is not the chart, it is an entertainment show based on that chart aimed at the Radio 1 audience.
The argument that "the chart is the news" and therefore has to be broadcast in full, at dictation speed, with some level of formality, is a bizarre one. Compare it to the actual news, does Newsbeat broadcast the same stories in the same order in the same style as The World At One? No, both shows have the same source material but reflect it in different ways to better serve their target audience. Same with the football results, the papers don't devote exactly equal space to every single game, the highlight the results that are the most relevant and interesting to their readers.
If Radio 2 wanted to do a chart show as well, they could, and they could do it in a different way from Radio 1. They'd be the same chart, just presented in a different way. The chart is the chart and you can see that in loads of places. What Radio 1 then do with the chart is up to them and what their audience wants to hear. There are other sources if you don't like the way they do it, you can read it online and play all the tracks in order on Spotify if you want.
How would that be any different to the past? Whilst most singles used to get released on a Thursday or friday. some got issued on other days. (One of the reasons that The Jam's 'Going Underground' was the first single for seven years to enter the chart at number one was that their record company released it on a Monday. That's not unfair. That's just clever marketing.
The Chart Show on Radio 1 does not need to be dressed up with gimmicks and pointless fluff even for that audience. It never needed to be before and it certainly doesn't now either. As for sneering opinions about more mature artists who have sold well and have to be played or mentioned on the show by the host, well it's just not the thing to do and says more about the shallow hosts who would say such things in my opinion.
But under the new rules all records are going to be released on Friday, so it doesn't make any sense as a survey of what was selling all week. Occasionally under the old system you got records released on other days, but not many.
And yet, of course, Johnnie Walker famously got death threats for saying the Bay City Rollers were "musical garbage" while announcing the chart.
If Radio 1 still believed that the audience wanted the chart delivered dead straight with no opinion or any other features, they'd still do it like that, but they clearly don't think the audience wants that. It is an entertainment show. And at the end of the day, who cares? It's a list of pop records, not anything important. They could make the whole chart up and if it's playing stuff listeners want to hear they wouldn't care.