|
||||||||
Why Are The Charts No Longer Important? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,539
|
Why Are The Charts No Longer Important?
I remember a time when the charts were a major talking point. You would discuss the latest top 40 with your friends. A long running number one like Bryan Adams in 1991 would be big news. You would listen to the top 40 on a sunday and look forward to the countdown. The radio stations would reference the fact that a song was at number two or number threee in the charts. But not anymore. the charts seem to count for nothing nowadays. Nobody i know ever talks about whats in the charts or seems remotely interested. You cant even buy singles anywhere now. Its all downlloading. It only seems to be at Christmas when the Christmas number one is revealed that there seems to be any interest in whats in the charts. Or when its to do with a show like The X Factor. So where did it go wrong? Maybe the end of Top Of The Pops had a lot to do with it. Oddly enough there is still an interest in older charts. radio two's Pick of The pops do old chart rundowns. Can you imagine a 2010 chart being played in 20 years time and being as nostalgic as a 1984 chart sounds now? It seemed to go wrong around 2000 when most number ones lasted one week. then around 2005 the charts seemed to go back to how they used to be with singles climbing to the top and staying there a few wekks. But this year it seems to have gone back ten years to a new chart topper every week.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,295
|
You said it yourself. Without any chart show on prime TV mainstream TV such as Top Of The Pops, it's hard to have any awareness of the charts. Anyway, the charts have always been indicative of the fastest selling tracks, not necessarily the biggest selling releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Council Estate
Posts: 35,538
|
You can't nip into Woolworths and change the singles around so that Belle & Sebastian are number one any more
![]() I miss that ![]() Most singles were sold as impulse purchases from record stores on weekends or in lunch-hours, for a whole generation now people have considered music free
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,943
|
Any five year old can contribute to the charts by downloading onto their ipod now , that accounts for the success of Cheryl Cole and others I don't care to mention
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,860
|
The UK charts have been bloody awful this year
I boycotted listening to the top 40 on a sunday a little while ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,890
|
They were never relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Mr. Fahrenheit's Sex Palace.
Posts: 9,072
|
Why did they ever become relevent?
It's all about the music and personal taste at the end of the day. I don't give a shit about 'which song is the most popular?' I buy and listen to music I want to hear. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,408
|
I'd argue it's because they're so clearly manipulated now. I'm not saying they're fixed, but there is a lot of manipulation involving promotion, radio airplay, the frontloading of singles - not to mention the record companies fascination with quick-fix artists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,758
|
I haven't listened to the top 40 for about 8yrs.
I've heard I haven't missed much
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,905
|
Well the UK charts are owned by Simon Cowell half the year, and the US charts are incredibly boring with the same songs spending months at the top because of counting airplay.
Generally though, I think it definitely has a lot to do with there not being TOTP or equivalent. Nobody would know unless they checked on DS etc. that gave a quick rundown. Listening to the radio countdown for hours on end isn't appealing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38,218
|
Quote:
I'd argue it's because they're so clearly manipulated now. I'm not saying they're fixed, but there is a lot of manipulation involving promotion, radio airplay, the frontloading of singles - not to mention the record companies fascination with quick-fix artists.
![]() I'll never listen to heart willingly again. Rant over. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Council Estate
Posts: 35,538
|
Quote:
that. The same songs are played day in, day out. It gets so unbelievably boring. Songs that I used to like (California Gurls by Katy Perry for example), annoy me now because the station we have at work (Heart) only ever play that song, JLS, Alexandra Burke (Start Without You...can't stand it!), along with others, with a song from the 80s thrown in.
![]() I'll never listen to heart willingly again. Rant over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 38,218
|
Quote:
Isn't Heart mainly for cab drivers and factory workers- nothing dull enough to send you to sleep but also nothing inspiring enough for you to down tools
![]() Not my choice of radio station. I've only been at my workplace for 3 weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,408
|
You think Heart is bad? Try working at IKEA - we had our own radio station which played the same tedious songs every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,058
|
Quote:
You think Heart is bad? Try working at IKEA - we had our own radio station which played the same tedious songs every day.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,408
|
All we heard was an atrociously happy song called 'Sunshine in The Rain' - to this day, I have no idea who it is by!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Council Estate
Posts: 35,538
|
Quote:
You think Heart is bad? Try working at IKEA - we had our own radio station which played the same tedious songs every day.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Manchester area
Posts: 15,204
|
While it is difficult to locate singles to buy these days, there is little point in even downloading them really. Most singles are on youtube or other websites, such as the artists' own websites that you can just go to one such website, click onto the song in question and listen to it without even downloading it.
I take pride that 2010 has seen my favourite example of a contemporary song miss the top 40 in the last 30 years! (It's Joshua Radin with Brand New Day in case you're curious). |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
I agree with others. Heart FM is absolutely dreadful, and is giving a bad name for chart music.
I know a lot of adults who think chart music is dreadful, and when you ask them what chart music they've listened to, they're like "Oh, well the stuff they play on Heart FM". So, let's see, they've heard Empire State of Mind, Part II, Bad Romance, California Gurls, and a couple of other songs. Of course they've going to hate chart music, if that's all they've heard of it! |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,694
|
Because the songs are so cheap to buy now that people download any old shite even if they only half like it and so absolute trash is topping the charts. In the past you had to pay a few quid for a record/cd etc so people only bought what they truly liked. All the kids who get itunes allowance each week have destroyed it. Even though these acts are getting to number one, they're forgotten about a few months later. It means nothing. Look at someone like Tinchy Stryder. He had about 3 number ones last year and now nothing. The charts are definitely no longer important
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Midlands.
Posts: 731
|
Because the charts are mainly full of manufactured, talentless idiots these days. How I miss the 90s when Oasis, The Verve, Blur, U2 and Jamiroquai were frequently topping the charts. Now it's Tinchy Stryder, N-Dubz, Cheryl Cole and Alexandra Burke. Oh joy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
Because the charts are mainly full of manufactured, talentless idiots these days. How I miss the 90s when Oasis, The Verve, Blur, U2 and Jamiroquai were frequently topping the charts. Now it's Tinchy Stryder, N-Dubz, Cheryl Cole and Alexandra Burke. Oh joy.
I miss the 90s too, and I do get very nostalgic when listening back to those songs, but I've really liked the chart this year. January-March was pretty dreadful, but from May onwards, it's gotten really good again, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
Because the songs are so cheap to buy now that people download any old shite even if they only half like it and so absolute trash is topping the charts. In the past you had to pay a few quid for a record/cd etc so people only bought what they truly liked. All the kids who get itunes allowance each week have destroyed it. Even though these acts are getting to number one, they're forgotten about a few months later. It means nothing. Look at someone like Tinchy Stryder. He had about 3 number ones last year and now nothing. The charts are definitely no longer important
Yes, we've got people like Usher, who has had #1s in 3 decades, and people like Eminem, who now has the best-selling song of 2010, when he entered mainstream music like 10 years ago, but for everyone of those we get, we're going to get like a dozen Lady Gagas, Lily Allens, Mikas, Duffys, etc. who are massive for a couple of years, and then nobody cares about them later. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 3,996
|
Quote:
The charts have always been largely dominated by young children though, and today is no different. Yes, people like Lady Gaga won't be remembered in a few years time, but lots of people who got #1s in the 80s faded away into obscurity a few years later.
Yes, we've got people like Usher, who has had #1s in 3 decades, and people like Eminem, who now has the best-selling song of 2010, when he entered mainstream music like 10 years ago, but for everyone of those we get, we're going to get like a dozen Lady Gagas, Lily Allens, Mikas, Duffys, etc. who are massive for a couple of years, and then nobody cares about them later. |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,517
|
Quote:
The charts have always been largely dominated by young children though, and today is no different.
![]() In some ways charts aren't important, but never were. On the other hand, the media, radio stations and journalists can very selectively treat chart positions as important. If someone they like is number one, they think it proves they have great taste. If someone they like charts badly, it's all about having individual tastes and not being one of the masses. If someone they don't like charts low, it's because they are rubbish. But yes, now that there isn't a wall full of top 40 singles in high street shops, there is less interest in the exact position. Most people just presume that a song with a lot of airplay is a big hit, and one with little airplay is a flop, regardless of how many people actually buy it. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:26.





