Top of the Pops declined because of awful presenters and a bad format. And we can't forget the TERRIBLE decision to move it from its normal slot (Thursday) to Friday night against Coronation Street which pretty much killed it stoned-dead. Plus the fact that back when it really started going downhill it didn't help that the pop music scene was utterly DIRE, coupled with the falling sales and boring pop like Atomic Kitten, Blazin' Squad, Steps etc.

 

Admittedly the pop scene is a little better now and I do think people have more interest in the charts than they did then, but then the charts now are sorely lacking in variety so simply sticking to them is not going to cut it IMO. They are nowhere near fast enough that it could only do that, at least higher up, which is what TOTP used to focus on (i.e. it very rarely had a performance from anyone below the top 20) or if they did focus on the charts then they would at least have to look further than the top 20 (which would make sense since the new entry spread is much thinner now, and something like that could really help speed them up a bit) and even at the albums to get the full picture - for example, you could have someone like Rumer who doesn't set the singles chart alight performing on it, Arcade Fire, The xx, Mumford & Sons etc. Not to mention that nowadays just because a single misses the top 40 doesn't mean it wasn't popular, with trickle sales and whatever occuring months beforehand. I think the charts have moved FAR beyond just the top positions nowadays, which is what they basically were about ten years ago.

 

Since this would be a new music show it can set its own precedent. Of course they should showcase acts that are popular in the charts but I don't think they need to stick to it rigidly. Radio 1 plays stuff from the charts but doesn't just limit itself to that and they don't have any problems (well, okay, it's not as listened to as Radio 2 or whatever, but it's popular among its target audience - which should be a similar to the one this show is aiming for). And as I said before, having a new music show on TV would really compliment Radio 1 with people getting a chance to see the acts perform live (yeah, Radio 1 has the Live Lounge, but that's only one act every week or whatever).

 

Basically, it needs musical variety and two presenters (probably one male and female) with great chemistry that pair off each other well, plus a good time slot obviously. I don't think it narrowly focusing only on the charts is vital to its success at all :wacko:

Edited December 11, 201014 yr by superbossanova

Would be amusing if Simon hired Jedward to present it, not saying I'd like it, and I don't see it happening, but it would be ironic.

 

I think one main presenter and one guest presenter every week to keep it fresh, or a well known duo so there is chemistry, but I can only think of 2 well known suitable duo's, Ant & Dec, who did CD:UK and have done SO many things already or Dick & Dom (or is it Don) who I don't think would be good because I can't STAND them! But that's just my personal opinion.

 

I know it's a cliche considering she was on X Factor, but I think Stacy Solomon would make a good main presenter, with a different guest every week.

Perhaps they should have lots of different presenters. Like a pool of 6, and have 2 of them present each week. More variety that way, and less bias (if the presenters do let bias slip through, then at least it would be different bias every week). Plus, if there's a presenter the public are finding really annoying, they can replace them without completely turning the show upside down.

 

The most important thing is, that if the show does actually come into existence, the presenters are interested in current chart music. Nothing annoys me more than when you get a presenter of a TV show, who blatantly isn't passionate about it, like some of the presenters on Big Brother.

Would be amusing if Simon hired Jedward to present it, not saying I'd like it, and I don't see it happening, but it would be ironic.

 

I think one main presenter and one guest presenter every week to keep it fresh, or a well known duo so there is chemistry, but I can only think of 2 well known suitable duo's, Ant & Dec, who did CD:UK and have done SO many things already or Dick & Dom (or is it Don) who I don't think would be good because I can't STAND them! But that's just my personal opinion.

 

I know it's a cliche considering she was on X Factor, but I think Stacy Solomon would make a good main presenter, with a different guest every week.

 

What about Sam and Mark? They hosted Top of the Pops Reloaded with Fearne Cotton and I thought they were quite good. There wouldn't be as many silly antics as I guess this will be aimed at a 16-30 age market (with obvious younger audience tuning in as well). They also seem to be moving away from the children presenting (slowly) by getting guest parts on This Morning

would be great. the only show music acts can really promote on television are chat shows which don't pull many viewers in! so hope this goes ahead.

did the original top of the pops have many big us acts??

They usually appeared on video, or occasionally by satelite. I think that Simon Cowell may have the pulling power to get them there though. I'm quite excited at this happening, I just don't want X Factor acts to dominate it.

I agree, there's pros and cons about Simon Cowell being involved with a show like this. A great idea, but can we really trust him not to have Cheryl Cole and JLS performing every fortnight? Would someone like Katy B or Skepta ever have a hope of getting on the show? However, as mentioned, Simon will have a good chance at getting the big worldwide artists over.

I guess Simon Cowell wants to fill the gap between Jan & Aug, so he can control the singles chart all year. Indie tracks will bite the bullet, its like killing the music genre, when the Indie market is struggling.

I guess Simon Cowell wants to fill the gap between Jan & Aug, so he can control the singles chart all year. Indie tracks will bite the bullet, its like killing the music genre, when the Indie market is struggling.

 

Why would Simon care about "controlling" the charts? Do people really think he sits there all smug thinking "Yay, it's all thanks for me Britney Spears went top 75 last week" or something?

 

I think he just wants to make money tbh, and I don't care if he makes even more money, if the show is entertaining, and is representatitve of the charts (i.e. not just Alexandra Burke and Take That centric).

 

Also, I know this is a stupid question, but what does "Indie" mean? I thought it meant a genre of music, but then I read somewhere that it refers to artists that haven't been signed or don't have record deals or something, so I'm confused now. :D

Why would Simon care about "controlling" the charts? Do people really think he sits there all smug thinking "Yay, it's all thanks for me Britney Spears went top 75 last week" or something?

 

I think he just wants to make money tbh, and I don't care if he makes even more money, if the show is entertaining, and is representatitve of the charts (i.e. not just Alexandra Burke and Take That centric).

 

Also, I know this is a stupid question, but what does "Indie" mean? I thought it meant a genre of music, but then I read somewhere that it refers to artists that haven't been signed or don't have record deals or something, so I'm confused now. :D

As far as the charts are concerned "indie" means that the act is not signed up to a major record label. However, most people think of "indie" as being largely guitar-based music. This anomaly allowed Steps to get several number ones in the singles chart.

As far as the charts are concerned "indie" means that the act is not signed up to a major record label. However, most people think of "indie" as being largely guitar-based music. This anomaly allowed Steps to get several number ones in the singles chart.

 

Ah, I see. I'm guessing that's because most acts not signed up to a major record label were Indie, so people started to use the two terms interchangeably? Sort of like what's happened with RnB and hip hop.

 

Yeah, I was wondering, because I was looking at the Indie charts, and I think I saw people like Example and Dizzee Rascal in there, and I was thinking that couldn't be right. :lol:

 

Thanks. :)

 

And, I know nobody cares, but I LOVED Steps when I was younger. :wub: I stilll listen to loads of their songs, even though I probably wouldn't like some of them if they came out now.

Edited December 13, 201014 yr by Eric_Blob

Yeah, I was wondering, because I was looking at the Indie charts, and I think I saw people like Example and Dizzee Rascal in there, and I was thinking that couldn't be right. :lol:

 

 

oops -_- :doh: I'm not in the right frame of mind, another Mikey blooper -_-

I guess Simon Cowell wants to fill the gap between Jan & Aug, so he can control the singles chart all year. Indie tracks will bite the bullet, its like killing the music genre, when the Indie market is struggling.

 

The internet more or less killed indie music's chances in the chart. Most indie fans will happily download their favourite musicians music for nothing, under the pretence that they will go and see the band live (which is one of the greatest cop-outs in my opinion). It's only the 'indie' acts who can command a major label budget or reward their fans with plenty of b-side goodies (case in point for both - Biffy Clyro) that will continue to do well and chart.

Why would Simon care about "controlling" the charts? Do people really think he sits there all smug thinking "Yay, it's all thanks for me Britney Spears went top 75 last week" or something?

 

I think he just wants to make money tbh, and I don't care if he makes even more money, if the show is entertaining, and is representatitve of the charts (i.e. not just Alexandra Burke and Take That centric).

 

Also, I know this is a stupid question, but what does "Indie" mean? I thought it meant a genre of music, but then I read somewhere that it refers to artists that haven't been signed or don't have record deals or something, so I'm confused now. :D

 

he might not literally sit down and think of it like this but when trying to make money(which is his first thought)he does control the chart by installing and promoting what his view of 'good' music is whether he means to or not is an entirely different thing - therefore there is a reduced chance of anything 'different' ever charting - think of it as watering down if you will to attract a more widespread/mainstream audience/buyer.a bit like politicans before an election - they make their policies more attractive to the majority of people(middle england) so they get more votes!!