Now Black Eyed Peas' Where is the Love is in the same league as Cher's Beleive.... the Peas have now gone 5 weeks at number one, a feat which was previously matched in 1997 with Cher.

Not a song I would personally have rated up there, but a gap of 154 number 1s and just over 5 years is certainly telling for a song not to spend more than a month on the top spot

and i absolutely hate both of those songs

Cher was number one for seven weeks though.

Cher was number one in October 1998 and I believe (get it?! :P ) it was only 5 weeks.

For once Peej, i can say that you are wrong :
http://www.everyhit.com./number5.html

I thought it was 5 as well...i think Wes said so on the Top 40 this week - but apparently not.

I've got to say i remember B*Witched knocking it off the top spot - i was literally obsessed with Lindsay at the time. So, so hot

The cher song was good but the Black Eyed Peas song is poor, it's amzing how rubbish songs these days can stay number 1 or even get there.

Clearly you're in a minority then, given that it's been number one for 5 weeks. Just goes to show that trite comments about "rubbish songs" are meaningless, doesn't it Junior?

If you actually look at the number 1's today and compare them to 1993 or 1983 you would see the dip in quality.
10 years ago Black Eyed Peas would have been top 10 at the most.

i really disagree with that about the 90's.The amount of crappy europop that was around in the early 90's was beyond belief and loads of truly awful songs charted.

But they were catchy and memorable not like today's stuff

It's just opinion...you never actually quantify ANYTHING you say, dude. "Black Eyed Peas would be Top 10 at most"....WTF? On what grounds?

Jesus, it's like swimming through treacle sometimes around here....

DUDE some of us might not like what's in the chart and are annoyed at the slip in quality in the last 4 years. I personnaly believe there is too much rap shite in the charts.Black Eyed Peas would not enter the top 10 cuz if you look at the top 10 from about 93 the songs then were generally better.

THIS. IS. MY. POINT.

How can anyone take your opinion seriously when you are so ridiculously unobjective? "rap shite" pretty much negates ANYTHING else you say, because dismissing an entire genre as poor music is the sort of thing a TEN YEAR OLD would do, not someone who wants other intelligent people to take his point of view as anything other than uneducated.

You dig?

Yeh but there is so much shite in the charts today and most of it can be seen on the music channel 'kiss' and 'mtv' which used to be a good music channel but now plays rap and most of it being poor . Most of the stuff floating around these days is r'n'b and about 10% is good.

OH. MY. GOD.

Does it even matter what i write? Do you lack even the basic comprehension skills to fashion an answer to the questions i'm posing you? I'll repeat what i just wrote. Please try to understand it.

THIS. IS. MY. POINT.

How can anyone take your opinion seriously when you are so ridiculously unobjective? "rap shite" pretty much negates ANYTHING else you say, because dismissing an entire genre as poor music is the sort of thing a TEN YEAR OLD would do, not someone who wants other intelligent people to take his point of view as anything other than uneducated.

You dig?

Yeaaahhh! Check out the pictures at fhm.com. They still have them.

Absolutely. The decade that gave us unyielding number ones from Aqua, Ace of Base and Whigfield has a lot to answer for.

I'll take Black Eyed Peas over that lot any day of the week.

The point that seems to be missed is that in order to reach #1 these days takes very little in the way of actual sales, compared to the 90's, 80's, 70's, all of which had much higher sales requirements with a smaller population. This can be bourne out that chart fixing was rife in the past decades as it was harder with a sub standard song to get anywhere.
I also personally feel that music theses days is more about image and being trendy, than quality.

Oh yes. Where did she go? :_(

I would take exception to that. It seems to me that pop music is in a healthier and more creative period than at any time since the 80s.

Look at the top of the pop tree - Justin Timberlake. He's really pushing the boundaries of what volume sales pop can be, with some really innovative and eclectic stuff. Beyonce is also pushing R&B boundaries to an extent.

And over here, bands like Girls Aloud, Liberty X, Sugababes, Rachel Stevens and Pink are all making hits out of songs that wouldn't have even been considered for the pop 'A list' ten years ago - very quirky and interesting songs.

10 years ago...
Relight My Fire, I Will Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)....

I don't think the quality is any worse...

Jeez... 10 years since Meatloaf OWNED the Charts with that song... I FEEL SO OLD !!

(btw i'm 21)

I'd say that was because taste in music has moved along... and the quirky parts of the songs are just borrowing formulae thats been tried and tested in other genres and watered down into a new market....

But, what is being done in pop is rather innovative... Thats why the boy band sales have started to nose dive now... Because people are getting sick of "different song, different band, same image"

Pink's new single is the absolute pits though... Really poor.

The last i knew, Lindsay was living up in Carlisle with Lee Brennan from 911 ( who? LOL, exactly!).

Which of course pop has always done (although the use of the term 'watered down' betrays your less-than-objective stance on the issue, Peej, doesn't it? ) - it's just now they're casting their net further to find the hooks they like.


Exactly - even Westlife are seeing themselves marginalised - their new single will be lucky to go Top Ten the rate it's going. Not that i'm complaining - vanilla ballads do nothing for me.


I actually think it's pretty catchy. Did you know her new album was all recorded with Rancid as her backing group? I think it'll be an interesting collaboration.