Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Record Breaking Song from David Bowie?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-01-2013, 19:41
AKindSoul
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 147

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.
AKindSoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-01-2013, 19:49
RikScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,318
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.
...and?
RikScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2013, 20:54
HandsClean
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 695
Alex Day currently holds the record for biggest drop in the singles chart ever with Forever Yours dropping 108 places.

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.
HandsClean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2013, 21:01
abarthman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 6,329
Is there really any need for a rude post that?

I, for one, thought it was was a fairly interesting observation.
abarthman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2013, 21:05
LandslideBrad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,426
Alex Day currently holds the record for biggest drop in the singles chart ever with Forever Yours dropping 108 places.

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.
Lol but to be fair to him, he's not signed.
LandslideBrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2013, 21:11
HandsClean
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 695
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.
HandsClean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2013, 22:14
RikScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,318
Is there really any need for a rude post that?

I, for one, thought it was was a fairly interesting observation.
My apologies...didn't mean to be so.
RikScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2013, 22:32
Chris_Walton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 190
Realistically, where are we now? wasn't going to have a long chart run within today's music climate - it got to number 6 based on the fact that David completely shocked the music world by releasing a new single and video, and announcing his first studio album after 10 years, without any kind of warning...

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...?
Chris_Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2013, 22:47
Hav_mor91
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The rolling Green of Wales.
Posts: 15,222
Realistically, where are we now? wasn't going to have a long chart run within today's music climate - it got to number 6 based on the fact that David completely shocked the music world by releasing a new single and video, and announcing his first studio album after 10 years, without any kind of warning...

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
Hav_mor91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2013, 10:16
trevgo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Leafy London
Posts: 13,018
Hardly surprising, tbh. Huge hoo-harr about an iconic artist slipping out his first release for years. Even featured on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, and predictably played to death on 6 Music.

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.
trevgo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2013, 12:25
brunolover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,413
Hardly surprising, tbh. Huge hoo-harr about an iconic artist slipping out his first release for years. Even featured on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, and predictably played to death on 6 Music.

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.
brunolover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2013, 12:42
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 42,350
I'm surprised it got as high as it did to be honest. It is not the usual chart stuff, and those that were going to buy it would have done so at the outset.

It was never going to be a long seller.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2013, 22:01
jargon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 535
A fair number of tracks yo-yo around the chart so it could notch up a few more weeks in the lower reaches and possibly re-enter when the album is released.

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.
jargon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2013, 22:56
Electra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 41,142
Hardly surprising, tbh. Huge hoo-harr about an iconic artist slipping out his first release for years. Even featured on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, and predictably played to death on 6 Music.

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.
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.
Electra is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 01:18
Scraggy Taters
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,757
The same can be said for any artist over the age of 40 really - their audience are not the tweeny download crowd.
Robbie Williamses 'Candy' has done well though.13 weeks in the Top 40.Not bad for a 38 year old !
Scraggy Taters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 02:26
Rich Tea.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newport Pagnell
Posts: 11,195
In a way it looks shocking with such a drop with Bowie's song, which I bought, and the others mentioned. But it does not tell the whole story. Each week is taken in isolation, so technically you could have a single released, and within the 7 days sell a million copies, followed by none the next week. It would go from No1 to nowhere, but still be one of the UK's Top 200 biggest ever hit songs regardless. Taking it to extreme, if a song sold 5 million within the first 7 days, and none the next week, it would be No1 then fall to nowhere, but be the biggest UK single of all time! Sounds absurd, but remember that Elton John sold 700,000 on the first one day of release of his Diana hit in 1997.

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.
Rich Tea. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 08:49
brunolover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,413
Robbie Williamses 'Candy' has done well though.13 weeks in the Top 40.Not bad for a 38 year old !
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.
brunolover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 11:01
Slojo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,222
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.
LOL --- called Weightless ----- dropped like a stone ---- such irony
Slojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 11:48
Jon Ross
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere extremely creepy
Posts: 2,741

Quite incredible.
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.
Jon Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 19:28
Rich Tea.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newport Pagnell
Posts: 11,195
LOL --- called Weightless ----- dropped like a stone ---- such irony

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!
Rich Tea. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 23:55
Jim Moriarty
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
Hardly surprising, tbh. Huge hoo-harr about an iconic artist slipping out his first release for years. Even featured on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, and predictably played to death on 6 Music.

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.
Imbecile.
Jim Moriarty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2013, 23:56
Jim Moriarty
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
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.
And Jeremy Vine is an arbiter of taste is he?
Jim Moriarty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2013, 20:59
Rich Tea.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newport Pagnell
Posts: 11,195
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!
Rich Tea. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2013, 23:27
Jon Ross
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere extremely creepy
Posts: 2,741
And Jeremy Vine is an arbiter of taste is he?
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.
Jon Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2013, 23:32
Jon Ross
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere extremely creepy
Posts: 2,741
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!
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?
Jon Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:24.