There was never such a time, people look back with rose tinted glasses to a 'better time' as long as there has been popular music and charts there have been people manipulating them with the publicity machines, its just now we can see the mechanisms more clearly...and just as many 'crap songs' charted all those years ago, its just only the 'good' ones have lived on leaving the impression music was much better back then.

In 20 years will we remember Jedward and Tinne Tempah? Most probably not (we'll probably forget 99% of the music and artists of today) Will we claim that people only bought good music in 2010 compared to the mufactured crap in 2030? Most probably yes!!!

^ ^ ^ I agree with this. It really annoys me when people say that earlier music was better, that music today can't be classed as 'music'.

Maybe you're right there - I suppose it just represents what the charts would ideally be!

I only had this convo the other night with my family, my dad was saying how everyone used to know the number one and it was a big thing back years ago, even in the 90s when i a kid, now even me who is a big music fan usually has no idea whos at number one, and sometimes i find out and im like who the hell is that lol

Here are the number ones from 30 years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_in...er-one_singles

Its hard to say that the charts havent got worse.

I don't have the foggiest what is #1 this week..I think it may just be a sign of me getting older though. I don't listen to the radio as much these days.

I get the rose tinted glasses comment, personally I think music was better 10 years ago, but thats my opinion not a fact.

However the charts are dying. The amount of new releases hitting the charts has plummeted. Whilst it could sometimes be frustrating that in the late 90s there would be tons of new entries in the charts, and songs would quickly plummet out with no longeivity, it was great in that there was a great variety of music.

Whilst some people will obviously be loving their absence, where are the random dance/ ckub tracks that would bullet into the top 30 for a week then go? Unless its a big Top 10 hit, they wont even scrape the top 75 and thus one genre of music is absent from the charts.

Quite often now, follow up singles from established artists dont make it. Take Mika- Im not a big fan, but the first track from his new album hits the top 10. In the 90's, the 2nd single may have just scraped the top 10, the 3rd goes top 20. Instead in 2009/2010, the 2nd and 3rd singles miss the top 40, as the album is out and there is no point in the record company promoting the tracks.

It cant be denied that single sales are up- thats a fact- and hurrah I suppose. And whilst a click of a button is less of a commitment than actually going to a shop to buy it, its still a sale. However, in this digital age people dont get to see a wide selection of singles like they would use to in a record store- remember the days when Virgin would have 3-4 racks with new release singles let alone the entire top 40? There's just a plain list of the bestsellers and a couple of others on the itunes homepage, and thus this restricts the casual music purchasers knowledge to what they see there, what they hear on commercial radio and whenever a song appears on a big TV show like the X factor.

And thus the same songs get bought over and over again and clog up the chart, keeping out a variety of small acts or those that dont have the hype machine about them- to go back to my example- the club tracks from the late 90s that would hit the chart briefly without having a hype machine behind them, just dont chart now as with no hype and no record store presence, they pass people by.

Im not sure why rap and R&B have become the most prominent force in the download era- maybe thats a post for someone else- but personally I can't stand it. Anyone remember when R&B used to 'Soul' music?

But personally, I miss the charts of 1996-2002!

Good post.

There where times in the 80s and 90s where the most appalling songs got to number one, keeping some exceptional and well remembered tracks off the top spot.
There where also ocassional fluke periods like 1983/1984/1987 where the majority (IMO) of the number ones where pretty cool but this a rarity.

As for the 1970s, well it was'nt all glam rock, punk and Disco that got to number one-there was some horrendous stuff-Ernie the Fastest Milkman in the west by Benny Hill!!!!

I dont follow the charts as much now as I have grown out of them, but I think there have been some decent tracks get to number one in the last 18 months, Bad Romance, Meet Me Half Way for example which I have bought and so did a lot of other people.

The charts will always have some importance to someone.

I've never heard of the artist who is #1.

Ok well there's Bowie, Abba and Lennon, the Jam, Pink Flloyd, Blondie and who are all icons and known today.

Then we have Jonny Logan (Loiuse Walsh's first act-or one of them) and St Winifreds.......plus a theme from TV series which was boring and two Country and Western songs. Very few 13 year olds where interested in that.

What this shows is things have'nt actually changed-there's always a mixture of good and bad.

I can remember my mum telling my sister and I to 'turn off' Blondie on Top if the Pops because Debbie Harry was a discrace (lol) and that it was'nt as good as the 60s.

What has changed is there is less broad appeal in the charts but this was the case from the mid 1980s onwards.

You forgot The Police , The Specials , Barbara Streisand and Kenny Logan is a pretty big country star isnt he , aswell as ELO and Olivia Newton John.

Most of those songs that were number one back then are still played on the Radio now , i honestly cannot see Tinie Tempah , Jason De Rulo or Owl City still being played in 2040 and being thought of in the same way that Bowie and Blondie are now.

And i very much doubt there's any bands in the 'underground scene' at the moment that will have the same influence that Joy Division had.

He doesn't have much radio support beyond Radio 1, and it's his debut single.

I heard of Tinie Tempah (Who's currently No.1) for quite some time now. I think most of his stuff was underground. I like his song 'Pass Out' and am happy for him.

It seems a lot of people who say that most songs these days will be forgotten about in the next fews years or whatever are probably just not fans of todays music. I know for sure that I won't be forgetting some these songs as time goes on.

The 1st death blow to the charts was in the early 90's record exects started getting cynical and flooding the charts with garbage manufactured boy bands, Mr Blobby and the likes of Robson and Jerome because they knew enough stupid people would buy them. When they outsold the cred music it totally destroyed any link between quality music and chart position.

The 2nd death blow was the advent of people stealing music off the internet. To quote an arguement I have with a friend of mine-his words: "I've bought enough crap CD's in my lifetime, what harm am I doing?" Well your killing off all the good music buddy. Somebody slagged off 13 year old girls- I have total respect for 13 year old girls they are supporting what they like. Its 30 year moaners that wont buy what they like and then subsequently can't understand why their fave bands are bombing or even getting dropped by their labels that do my head in...

Album sales are actually much healthier now than they were in the 70's / 80's and im sure just as many people are going to gigs.

And none of this is Mr. Blobby's fault

I don't listen to the radio, so that's probably why I don't know him. I haven't seen his video on any music channels either. Good luck to him anyway.

I totally agree. But it does'nt make the current number ones of any less worth to current teenagers.

My nephew is a good example-he likes alot of the current chart stuff. He also has the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack and wont stop playing it.

As a teenager in the late 80s, I can remember every other song in the charts 1988 had the word 'house' in it. It sold loads-but do we hear then now-no! I bought into that-but I grew out of it and refined my taste.

Teenagers today are sophisticated enough to see through all the crap-they will do in the end.As will the next lot after that.

Its the industry that wont let bands like Joy Division through now-or could it be they have run out ideas?

Not particular worried about what is No.1 in the singles chart at least.But I do get a little bit wound up about how the media seem to get caught up in how much prominance they give it sometimes.Especially with some artists (celebrity types).This seems to cause a self perpetuating thing & the celebrity artists play on it as well - the publicity that is gained from it increases singles sales.I think that this was actually a much bigger in the past even (excluding the X-factor / Cowell phenomenan at the moment).
Alot of No.1 don't seem to the level of publicity that the celebrity & Cowell linked artists get though.Hence most of us haven't heard of them.There is alot of music out there that is popular with a certain sector of the public that is not given the right level of prominance it deserves to get.Even though they are popular they don't show up in the charts (definately not the singles charts & even some rarely in the album charts).
If you look you look at the popular artists in something like Last-FM etc. (or other similar online playing lists).You will notice there is a glaring difference between the artists / genre preferences than you will find in the UK Official Charts Company.I often wonder if there is sort of cheating going on to get artists to the top (proberly there is a little bit of it going on).I also thing that peoples consumption of music has drastically changed (of course there is no need to actually consume music in a monotaristic way any more even - Spotify, illegal downloading etc.).If people do actually buy music they take far more time in desciding what they actually want to buy - albums anyway.In many cases artists have strong sales but low peaks in their sales.
The media seem to judge whether artists are successful on their peaks of their sales rather than having an strong continous sales.The artists that have strong continous sales but low peak sales are vertially ignored by the general media, therefore their popularity will get limited because of the lack of exposure they get.

Of course being number 1 means something, what an idiotic thing to say it doesn't - number 1 means it was the biggest selling single of the week prior.

Now, the charts have always been the same, they haven't changed at all, music may have changed, but that is because generations of people change, and music tastes change, if you don't like it then that's fine, but to try and redicule the charts and make it seem like the charts mean less than they did before, sort of suggests that music today is not as good as music in the past - which obviouly, is complete BS.

Album charts mean very little. Yes, being high up in the album (or single) charts is very good for any artist, but a wildfire single that catches on everywhere around the globe is what is going to propel an artist to superstardom. I have looked at the album charts on many occasions through the top 10 and thought "who the hell is that!" and whilst it was a good achievment for them, never to hear from them again.....

People DO follow the charts. The music industry now has the addition of downloading and iTunes, and there is no Top of the Pops - if you really thing that makes the charts less important, then that is crazy.

The charts cannot be - and have NEVER - been about who is best necessarily, so yes promotion and hype is part of it. How could it be about who is best? My best is different to your best - music quality is in the mind of the beholder.

People buy and download music because they want to listen to it; end of. They do not buy music because they want on their iPod what tom, dick or harry has on theres - that makes no sense whatsoever. The human race is by nature, selfish, whether we like that or not - and we buy what WE want. Don't try and make the charts look bad because YOU personally don't like what is going on with them right now. If you don't like it, go ahead and buy the songs you do like and help them get in the charts, because obviously nobody else is

Try telling that to acts who've had huge global #1 singles, but then failed to sell enough albums and then been dropped.

And that is a problem because.........?
So you were never 13 and bought the latest single by the latest biggest thing?
I was and it was Slade, Garry Glitter and T Rex. It is nearly ALWAYS the latest flash in the pan that gets to number 1. That is how the charts work.

That was entirely my point , i didnt say there was a problem

This is of course complete rubbish but nevertheless the charts don't reflect some of the great music that's out there right now.

All in all they are largely irrelevant.

Besides - Tom's comment is probably the biggest stereotype i've ever heard!

Its just an observation , i cant imagine many people over the age of 30 buying Pass Out or Rude Boy