Word on that entire post. I also prefer the fast moving chart era, at least I was never bored.

 

I also agree that the UK charts had its own identity during that time, all the other charts were relatively slow and the UK charts were really fast with songs debuting high up the charts rather than climb. It also made songs that climbed a lot more special than today.

 

However I dont blame the slowdown of the charts entirely on downloads, since it seems other charts across the globe are slowing down a lot too. Maybe its downloads too elsewhere, but I think there are fewer songs released each week, or fewer songs that have a chance of reaching the top40 - maybe radio / tv stations are to blame for playing the same artists, songs, 24/7. Or maybe the lack of places to do promo these days, who knows, there are multiple reasons for this. Shame really :(

Very true about radio. Comparing airplay charts from ten years ago to now and there's a definite difference in speed. Go back a few more years and the difference is even more striking.

 

But yeah, there are probably smaller reasons too like you mentioned, but I still think the introduction of the downloads compared to the physical is the biggest one. At least when radio used to bum songs in the past the naturally reducing stock (and occasional 'deletion' of it by the record companies) meant it didn't outstay its welcome too much. And the more hardcore fans of the main alternative genres (rock and dance) just don't seem to care about individual downloads. Lack of exclusive content (B-sides, etc.) doesn't help either.

 

1994 was a good chart year... again biased because I started listening that year, but it was a nice happy medium. There were plenty of new entries in the top 40, but not TOO many. Some songs would climb to a peak, some would debut high. Some stayed on the charts for a long time, but not usually ridiculously long like some do now.

:lol: I do wonder if I'm just partaking in rose-tinted nostalgia and ignoring all the bad aspects of the late 90s/early 00s climate (*cough* Westlife and their 14 #1s). Maybe you are more naturally inclined to prefer the style of the chart when you started listening as it's the first you knew and therefore seems to be the "right way".

Edited March 13, 201114 yr by superbossanova

The problem with the late 90s/early 90s charts was that they were meaningless - singles went to number 1 because of a young devoted fanbase who would buy several formats of a song they already owned on an album. Being #1 wasn't a true reflection of popularity.

I'm not sure if I like the charts at the moment or not.

 

I quite like a mix of the 2000-style fast movement and the 2008-style slow charts, which to some extent we do have now (except the fast movement is at #1 and the slow stuff is everywhere else).

 

Before 2006/07 songs spending 20 weeks top 40 was very very rare - I can only think of Atomic Kitten 'Whole Again' and 50 Cent 'In Da Club' between 2000 and 2006. Nowadays, there's probably 3 or 4 (at least) every week.

 

It's obviously downloads that have made the difference - and if the songs are still popular then fair enough, they should still be charting. But it's often a shame sometimes to have the charts clogged up with stuff from six months ago.

 

The charts now are obviously bad for some genres (like rock/indie, and often dance music too) but what bothers me more is that it's a lot harder for new acts to chart well unless they're American or hyped by BBC Sound Of/Brits/etc, and it's harder for many established acts to have as big/as many hits from each album - for example U2, Shakira, Take That, REM, Kylie, Morrissey...