May 4, 201114 yr But are there lots of people in their 30s and 40s who buy individual songs digitally? Compared to the 2004-2005 the situation is totally different. Young people didn't take all those Elvis re-releases to number one or buy any of those two #2 singles by Manic Street Preachers back then. While the singles chart more represents what's really popular, it also represents what's popular among younger audience. And when they grow up, there'll be more variety on charts. In one or two years time I'd say - the success of Adele and Bruno Mars is a step to that direction. Things go in cycles. Also, I think that the majority of people are willing to buy mostly 'feel good songs' to dance to or a sentimental ballad (again, Adele). Hence the success of dance/pop/urban hybrids. Edited May 4, 201114 yr by SKOB
May 4, 201114 yr 2010 actually had loads of #1s I hated, looking back. Replay (generic and boring), In My Head (generic and boring), Bad Romance (generic and boring), This Ain't a Love Song (generic and boring), All Time Low (generic and boring), Beautiful Monster (generic and boring), Forget You (generic and boring), Just the Way You Are (generic and boring), Love You More (generic and boring), Please Don't Let Me Go (generic and boring), okay, I'm getting very carried away here! :lol: define generic please.... until some genre-defying avant garde electronica and classical music start going to number 1 in the singles chart we are going to have generic songs at number 1. Edited May 4, 201114 yr by tonyttt31
May 4, 201114 yr Err, you do realise that Adele technically counts as indie, since she's on an indie label? :) Umm, no, she does not. When people talk "indie" in this thread (and in any music discussion in general these days), they are referring to the genre that has emerged in the last couple of decades, not acts who are on an independent label and thus get included on the indie chart (which is a completely different thing nowadays, although they used to be quite similar at one point, hence the use of the term). It's basically used to describe pop music that is different in that it has heavy emphasis on guitars. But are there lots of people in their 30s and 40s who buy individual songs digitally? Compared to the 2004-2005 the situation is totally different. Young people didn't take all those Elvis re-releases to number one or buy any of those two #2 singles by Manic Street Preachers back then. While the singles chart more represents what's really popular, it also represents what's popular among younger audience. And when they grow up, there'll be more variety on charts. In one or two years time I'd say - the success of Adele and Bruno Mars is a step to that direction. Things go in cycles. Also, I think that the majority of people are willing to buy mostly 'feel good songs' to dance to or a sentimental ballad (again, Adele). Hence the success of dance/pop/urban hybrids. I think it was claimed a few years ago that the average downloader was in their early 20s. I might have just pulled this out of my arse but I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere in some kind of statistics at the time. But since then downloads have become even more common place, therefore probably attracting more older people who aren't so up-to-date on the latest technology, plus coupled with the aging by a few years of the previous downloaders, then I would not be surprised if the average age of downloaders was tipping more and more to the 30s by now. Also, it's worth mentioning that Radio 1, who basically play entirely modern chart music, has an average listeners age in their 30s!!! Therefore, if Radio 1 have has big an impact on the charts as some people claim, then it's probably not wrong to speculate that the average age of downloaders might even be THAT high. I disagree that the charts will become more varied over the years though. The singles market is aimed at the young, and once they age they'll go on to buy albums. The only reason the charts used to have more adult buyers is because certain fanbase acts were so front-loaded and surely almost entirely bought by adults (see: Iron Maiden, Morrissey, for example), and now their chart positions have dropped with the decline of the physical. In terms of what was truly popular and hung around the charts rather than going 2-18-46-OUT, it was still stuff that was most probably bought by teens and people in their 20s. The problem with the charts (in terms of variety) is that hardcore rock and dance fans aren't really that interested in buying individual downloads, and the casual buyers that make up the chart aren't that interested in the genres as a whole either. That then brings us back to the same old thing - radio stations. Edited May 4, 201114 yr by superbossanova
May 4, 201114 yr But none of these acts are particularly 'new' though, and that's where the problem comes in. As far as I can tell, The Vaccines are the only rock band this year to obtain their first top 40 hit in 2011 (and perhaps Beady Eye as well, although that's really a continuation of Oasis). And many of these bands have had success in the singles chart (Iron Maiden even had a number 1 single, although that has more to do with when they released it than how good the song is). Touring money is all well and good, but if they're not getting the attention from top 40 singles, how are they ever going to accrue a fan base that will sustain them for 20+ years? The simple answer to that is very easily. If a band is good enough, the rock/metal community will start talking about them. People will go to their gigs and buy their albums. They'll probably download their singles illegally or listen to them on YouTube, or increasingly the band themselves will give them out for free. Why? Because if you are a rock band, in this day and age, success in the singles chart is irrelevant to your overall success. I realise this is controversial here on Buzzjack, but it's as close to a fact as you can get. Who was the last rock band to have sustained success in the UK singles chart? Probably The Darkness, and we all know what happened to them. Conversely, look at the success bands formed in the early 00s are now having, such as Avenged Sevenfold, Bullet for My Valentine, Lamb of God, Disturbed etc. Not in the singles chart, but more in album sales and touring. Heck, this trend is even starting to be found in pop music - aside from 'The Flood', Take That's latest album has failed to meaningfully impact the singles chart. Yet it hasn't affected the performance of the album one bit. The world has moved on. The singles charts are merely one way of measuring popularity, no longer the be-all-and-end-all of it. Particularly in the UK and US over these past few years the singles chart has merely become a selection of generic club and R&B tunes, with the odd exception. Rock music may not be in vogue in the singles chart atm - in fact it may never be again - but ALL the other evidence points towards the fact that it remains strong in album sales, and particularly in touring performance. There are hundreds of thousands of people attend Download and Sonisphere in the UK each year, yet the media like to pretend they don't even exist. Rock is not a genre in decline, but a genre in transition between the old media and the new.
May 4, 201114 yr This is honestly going to last until the end of time. Buzzjack 1981: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All these weird 'synthpop' artists, all they do is press a couple of notes on a synthesiser. That's not real music, it's not even a proper instrument! Bring back 1971, with good old fashioned glam rock like David Bowie and Marc Bolan" Buzzjack 1991: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All this 'rave' nonsense, no tune, no popstars, just a load of faceless DJs sampling a load of drum beats and weird noises! That's not real music! Bring back 1981, with good old synthpop like Soft Cell and the Human League" Buzzjack 2001: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All this kid-friendly pop by manufactured groups, melodies so basic that a baby could have written them! 'Who let the dogs out'? What kind of a song is that? That's not real music! Bring back 1991, with good old proper hardcore rave tunes like The Prodigy and The KLF" Buzzjack 2011: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? Every song is some electro-dance pop track featuring some rapper over a sample from 20 years ago! And half of it's just Simon Cowell's X-Factor acts too! That's not real music! Bring back 2001, that had good old memorable pop tunes that everyone could enjoy, like Steps and S Club 7" I can't wait until 2021 when everyone wishes for the days of Gaga and Rihanna to come back :P I honestly don't mind the charts right now. Yeah it's all a bit samey, but I've really enjoyed the pop sound that's defined the charts since 2009. I didn't mind the mid-2000s indie years, but I've just always been more of a pop fan than I have rock, and as lazy as some of the music is right now, it's defining my year and when I look back in the future, the likes of On The Floor, Party Rock Anthem, S&M, etc, will bring back lots of good memories for me. This will be the dominant sound for another year or so, and by about 2013 we'll be moving onto something else. Maybe another rock boom like the mid-90s or mid-00s!
May 4, 201114 yr SURELY GREG JAMES OFFICIAL CHART UPDATE SYMBOLISES THE CHART THESE DAYS - HE PLAYED THE NEW PITBULL AND DAVID GUETTA TRACKS TOGTHER AS HIGH CLIMBERS AND EVEN HE SAID THEY SOUND VERY SIMILAR.IMEAN HOW ARE THEY EVEN RISING SO HIGH - THEY MUST HAVE VIDEOS AND NOTHING ELSE - YES WELCOME TO THE CHARTS IN 2011!!
May 4, 201114 yr This is honestly going to last until the end of time. Buzzjack 1991: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All this 'rave' nonsense, no tune, no popstars, just a load of faceless DJs sampling a load of drum beats and weird noises! That's not real music! Bring back 1981, with good old synthpop like Soft Cell and the Human League" Buzzjack 2001: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All this kid-friendly pop by manufactured groups, melodies so basic that a baby could have written them! 'Who let the dogs out'? What kind of a song is that? That's not real music! Bring back 1991, with good old proper hardcore rave tunes like The Prodigy and The KLF" Buzzjack 2011: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? Every song is some electro-dance pop track featuring some rapper over a sample from 20 years ago! And half of it's just Simon Cowell's X-Factor acts too! That's not real music! Bring back 2001, that had good old memorable pop tunes that everyone could enjoy, like Steps and S Club 7" I was listening to music at all these points in time and the past two years have been the worst. Back in 2001 I wasn't longing for the time when music was good because we had a huge variety of hits in 2001. Same in 1991 and looking at the charts in 1981 it was the same.
May 4, 201114 yr This is honestly going to last until the end of time. Buzzjack 1981: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All these weird 'synthpop' artists, all they do is press a couple of notes on a synthesiser. That's not real music, it's not even a proper instrument! Bring back 1971, with good old fashioned glam rock like David Bowie and Marc Bolan" Buzzjack 1991: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All this 'rave' nonsense, no tune, no popstars, just a load of faceless DJs sampling a load of drum beats and weird noises! That's not real music! Bring back 1981, with good old synthpop like Soft Cell and the Human League" Buzzjack 2001: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? All this kid-friendly pop by manufactured groups, melodies so basic that a baby could have written them! 'Who let the dogs out'? What kind of a song is that? That's not real music! Bring back 1991, with good old proper hardcore rave tunes like The Prodigy and The KLF" Buzzjack 2011: "Aren't the charts rubbish these days? Every song is some electro-dance pop track featuring some rapper over a sample from 20 years ago! And half of it's just Simon Cowell's X-Factor acts too! That's not real music! Bring back 2001, that had good old memorable pop tunes that everyone could enjoy, like Steps and S Club 7" I can't wait until 2021 when everyone wishes for the days of Gaga and Rihanna to come back :P I honestly don't mind the charts right now. Yeah it's all a bit samey, but I've really enjoyed the pop sound that's defined the charts since 2009. I didn't mind the mid-2000s indie years, but I've just always been more of a pop fan than I have rock, and as lazy as some of the music is right now, it's defining my year and when I look back in the future, the likes of On The Floor, Party Rock Anthem, S&M, etc, will bring back lots of good memories for me. This will be the dominant sound for another year or so, and by about 2013 we'll be moving onto something else. Maybe another rock boom like the mid-90s or mid-00s! That's only funny cos it's true :) No doubt Buzzjack 1971 would be lamenting the split of The Beatles and moaning about acts like The Osmonds & David Cassidy that teenage girls would scream at but had no real talent......
May 4, 201114 yr I think indie-rock did better in the mid-00s, but R&B was by far the biggest genre at the time, with pop 2nd.
May 4, 201114 yr The simple answer to that is very easily. If a band is good enough, the rock/metal community will start talking about them. People will go to their gigs and buy their albums. They'll probably download their singles illegally or listen to them on YouTube, or increasingly the band themselves will give them out for free. Why? Because if you are a rock band, in this day and age, success in the singles chart is irrelevant to your overall success. I realise this is controversial here on Buzzjack, but it's as close to a fact as you can get. Who was the last rock band to have sustained success in the UK singles chart? Probably The Darkness, and we all know what happened to them. Conversely, look at the success bands formed in the early 00s are now having, such as Avenged Sevenfold, Bullet for My Valentine, Lamb of God, Disturbed etc. Not in the singles chart, but more in album sales and touring. Heck, this trend is even starting to be found in pop music - aside from 'The Flood', Take That's latest album has failed to meaningfully impact the singles chart. Yet it hasn't affected the performance of the album one bit. The world has moved on. The singles charts are merely one way of measuring popularity, no longer the be-all-and-end-all of it. Particularly in the UK and US over these past few years the singles chart has merely become a selection of generic club and R&B tunes, with the odd exception. Rock music may not be in vogue in the singles chart atm - in fact it may never be again - but ALL the other evidence points towards the fact that it remains strong in album sales, and particularly in touring performance. There are hundreds of thousands of people attend Download and Sonisphere in the UK each year, yet the media like to pretend they don't even exist. Rock is not a genre in decline, but a genre in transition between the old media and the new. Excellent post, got to pull you up on the Darkness bit though. They had I think five top 10 singles (two of each of their studio albums and the Christmas one in between) with the last one in 2006. The Killers and Muse both have four with a far greater number of smaller hits in between, starting in 2004 for the former and 1999/2000 for the latter, and they're pretty nailed on to get at least one more top 10 with their next album. Coldplay scored a #1 two years after the Darkness sank - that was their tenth single in a row to reach the top 10.
May 4, 201114 yr Aren't you forgetting about the phenomenal success of the Kings of Leon in the singles chart? If you told me in 2004 that they would have a million selling single I would have guessed either that it was a ballad and was taken as a medium of grief when a world wide catastrophe had happened or that it was a ballad used in an box-office-record-breaking film.... Edited May 4, 201114 yr by tonyttt31
May 4, 201114 yr I think it was claimed a few years ago that the average downloader was in their early 20s. I might have just pulled this out of my arse but I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere in some kind of statistics at the time. But since then downloads have become even more common place, therefore probably attracting more older people who aren't so up-to-date on the latest technology, plus coupled with the aging by a few years of the previous downloaders, then I would not be surprised if the average age of downloaders was tipping more and more to the 30s by now. Also, it's worth mentioning that Radio 1, who basically play entirely modern chart music, has an average listeners age in their 30s!!! Therefore, if Radio 1 have has big an impact on the charts as some people claim, then it's probably not wrong to speculate that the average age of downloaders might even be THAT high. I disagree that the charts will become more varied over the years though. The singles market is aimed at the young, and once they age they'll go on to buy albums. The only reason the charts used to have more adult buyers is because certain fanbase acts were so front-loaded and surely almost entirely bought by adults (see: Iron Maiden, Morrissey, for example), and now their chart positions have dropped with the decline of the physical. In terms of what was truly popular and hung around the charts rather than going 2-18-46-OUT, it was still stuff that was most probably bought by teens and people in their 20s. The problem with the charts (in terms of variety) is that hardcore rock and dance fans aren't really that interested in buying individual downloads, and the casual buyers that make up the chart aren't that interested in the genres as a whole either. That then brings us back to the same old thing - radio stations. Good post! But I think the Radio 1 support is not as significant as you think: internet and clubs could be more important way for young people to find the new stuff. Yes, they play hits but they don't necessary make song a hit anymore. About the age thing: I too think that most people who download legally could be 20-30 something but are those the ones who buy the POPULAR hits? The difference might be there. I, for example, never buy the obvious hits individually, mostly songs I really really like but not enough to invest in the album. And I'm not expecting charts become more varied, I just expect other genres to strengthen their share of singles chart while others will fade a bit.
May 4, 201114 yr About the age thing: I too think that most people who download legally could be 20-30 something but are those the ones who buy the POPULAR hits? The difference might be there. I, for example, never buy the obvious hits individually, mostly songs I really really like but not enough to invest in the album. I have a feeling that teenagers are far more likely to download music illegally, than adults.
May 4, 201114 yr I have a feeling that teenagers are far more likely to download music illegally, than adults. Could be...although those who learnt to download illegally in the early 00s are now way over 20. My thoughts of very young audience and party people dominating sales come from the fact that the most surefire way to have a hit is to release a dance song with lyrics like "let's f*** hard on the dancefloor, oh you're so dirty and I like sex." Edited May 4, 201114 yr by SKOB
May 4, 201114 yr Aren't you forgetting about the phenomenal success of the Kings of Leon in the singles chart? If you told me in 2004 that they would have a million selling single I would have guessed either that it was a ballad and was taken as a medium of grief when a world wide catastrophe had happened or that it was a ballad used in an box-office-record-breaking film.... I thought of them, but he said "sustained" success and the other acts mentioned had more top 10 singles over a longer time period.
May 4, 201114 yr Excellent post, got to pull you up on the Darkness bit though. They had I think five top 10 singles (two of each of their studio albums and the Christmas one in between) with the last one in 2006. The Killers and Muse both have four with a far greater number of smaller hits in between, starting in 2004 for the former and 1999/2000 for the latter, and they're pretty nailed on to get at least one more top 10 with their next album. Coldplay scored a #1 two years after the Darkness sank - that was their tenth single in a row to reach the top 10. You do have a point there, I actually forgot that Muse were a strong singles band as well. Although the extent to which either The Killers or Coldplay are true rock bands is a debatable matter!
May 4, 201114 yr Good post! But I think the Radio 1 support is not as significant as you think: internet and clubs could be more important way for young people to find the new stuff. Yes, they play hits but they don't necessary make song a hit anymore. About the age thing: I too think that most people who download legally could be 20-30 something but are those the ones who buy the POPULAR hits? The difference might be there. I, for example, never buy the obvious hits individually, mostly songs I really really like but not enough to invest in the album. And I'm not expecting charts become more varied, I just expect other genres to strengthen their share of singles chart while others will fade a bit. True, I don't think Radio 1 support is hugely significant as such. Although it seems to be more important for certain genres/acts than others. Most dance acts seem to completely fail without Radio 1 support, unless you're David Guetta and seem to have an absolutely huge fanbase by now. Same with indie acts, too - Radio 1 support is genuinely the only chance they have of doing well these days (although more often than not they obviously don't) because other major stations like Capital and Heart won't play those kind of songs until they do well in the charts. I guess the success of Noah and the Whale this era signifies the difference that R1 support could make to a band of that type (their second album wasn't supported by R1, I believe, and completely flopped, sadly). Internet is definitely significant if you have a huge fanbase, as the likes of Lady Gaga would never be able to get so high as soon as they release without the power of internet communication. But in terms of new acts? I really don't think it has much impact. For example, I keep seeing Oh Land every time I go on YouTube these days (is it just me?) yet I don't see any of her songs in the iTunes top 1000 (they are available). In that respect I definitely think Radio 1 is still important. You might have a point in some ways on the young persons thing. I know when I was young I didn't pay that much attention to stuff outside of the top 10 or so. I'd say when you're young it's much easier to be led by what is popular, and you haven't found your own personal music preference yet as such. Plus you're often just getting into music for the first time so everything sounds fantastic, fresh and exciting; before you get older and start complaining that everything in the top 10 sucks :lol: So yes, perhaps you do have a point there as such. Edited May 4, 201114 yr by superbossanova
May 4, 201114 yr SURELY GREG JAMES OFFICIAL CHART UPDATE SYMBOLISES THE CHART THESE DAYS - HE PLAYED THE NEW PITBULL AND DAVID GUETTA TRACKS TOGTHER AS HIGH CLIMBERS AND EVEN HE SAID THEY SOUND VERY SIMILAR.IMEAN HOW ARE THEY EVEN RISING SO HIGH - THEY MUST HAVE VIDEOS AND NOTHING ELSE - YES WELCOME TO THE CHARTS IN 2011!! Um, neither of those two songs have music videos... :lol:
Create an account or sign in to comment