April 25, 201114 yr I know, that is a strange one, considering Ellie Goulding and Cheryl Cole were much more well known, and sold a lot more. It's not always about the sales though. It's all about the quality although it's all personal opinion. I suppose the judges might be split between 2 nominees and then they somehow whittle it down to the 1 winner. That must've been the case with Craig David in 2000. Regardless of his UK #1 album and two UK #1 singles, the panel of judges just didn't see anything special. As someone mentioned earlier, how do we know if record companies aren't bribing the judges? It seems far fetched but how do we know for sure this has never happened?
April 25, 201114 yr Craig David (love him or loathe him) was undeniably one of the most successful British solo male artists in 2000. In 2001 he was nominated in 8 Brit Awards categories and won nothing. Had the public voted, this might've been very different. Craig was actually nominated in 6 categories and 3 were voted for by the public so Craig could have won a BRIT Award if the public preferred him a little more. -_- Edited April 25, 201114 yr by Griffo
April 25, 201114 yr It's not always about the sales though. It's all about the quality although it's all personal opinion. I suppose the judges might be split between 2 nominees and then they somehow whittle it down to the 1 winner. That must've been the case with Craig David in 2000. Regardless of his UK #1 album and two UK #1 singles, the panel of judges just didn't see anything special. As someone mentioned earlier, how do we know if record companies aren't bribing the judges? It seems far fetched but how do we know for sure this has never happened? I was trying to say that higher sales will mean that act is more popular with the public, and should get more votes. I feel Laura Marling winning was very dodgy, although I have nothing against her. Since he got all those number 1's, the general public oviously saw something special. It should always be the vote. Music taste is far too varied for a panel of a few people to decide. I am sure bribing has happened before, in the hope to get an act higer sales through the prmotion of winning.
April 25, 201114 yr Even if your idea becomes true (hopefully NEVER), a lot of critics don't always agree for a song/album. It would be around the same as it's 50% critics - 50% sales but with a some entries from unknown artist. Each one of critics will most possibly suggest something like his fave so i don't see a lot of non popular acts getting high. Maybe there should be a regular critics choice chart 0- it could get the general public interested in little promoted artists. That would be a good idea. If for example each Sunday we had the chance to hear Critic's choice Top 10 along with the Official UK charts. So a lot of people will get to know more acts.
April 25, 201114 yr Music charts are about what people like, not about what a bunch of snobbish "experts" decide is good or bad. It's not correct. Actually UK charts are about what ppl buy which doesn't mean what ppl like... (they usually do but not always) Anyway to answer the question it's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard about charts :P UK charts should remain as they are at the moment, they have history and its compilation methodology is respected worldwide such as the famous Billboard Hot 100's :P
April 25, 201114 yr 'L.I.F.E.G.O.E.S.O.N.' and 'Rope' being UK #1 hits would be brilliant. Of course I'm sure many a Buzzjacker would be horrified at such a thought. :D rope still got to no1 in the album chart!!
April 25, 201114 yr theres a buzz chart on music week each week with songs by artists that have never had a top 20 hit before get a chance to chart!!
Create an account or sign in to comment