I would argue that what attracts me more to rock and indie music is that the artists stay true to music they like and the music their fans like. Mixing with genres imo is like collaborations these days-it used to be exciting/interesting but now it is done too often and become incredibly boring.

 

The last album I bought was Suck It and See by Arctic Monkeys. I love it and its exactly what I hoped it would be. I'd have hated it if it was mixed with electronic/dance music. Most of the genres you speak of, to me, are only subgenres because they sound so similar to each other and if I'm not concentrating whilst listening to the chart I could easily miss 3 or 4 songs.

 

Whatever needs to be done, taking away what makes rock/indie music so unique is the last thing I'd want.

 

The bit in bold, yes, I did kind of figure that out about a lot of rock fans on here. :kink: Which is why I asked that question about whether Person A or Person B has a more varied musical taste. Although nobody answered the question, I think I know what a lot of people would say.

The bit in bold, yes, I did kind of figure that out about a lot of rock fans on here. :kink: Which is why I asked that question about whether Person A or Person B has a more varied musical taste. Although nobody answered the question, I think I know what a lot of people would say.

 

I'm not saying I dislike the music, just that the genres are too similar to each other to stand on their own. When I first started listening to the chart a single would either be pop, rock, dance or rnb/rap. And that was fine but these days people will talk to me like an idiot for calling an electronica song pop or a dubstep song dance.

 

I think it's wrong to look down your nose at people for not having a 'varied' taste, particularly when the charts have never had such lack of variety as they do now. People like what they like and if they only like one type of music, so what?

Perhaps Radio 1 should dump all the songs people *are* already buying off the

playlist, on the basis they can stand on their own already (*), and concentrate on

giving airtime to a wider range of genres. If listeners are given the chance

to hear them, then by definition they're more likely to buy them.

 

(*) It's not as if radio is the only place people can hear such songs nowadays, anyway.

 

[Just to be clear, this is only a semi-serious suggestion]

 

R1 will never change they would sooner push obscure Indie acts that only there DJs rate or American urban rubbish.As a public service broadcaster they should showcase more diversity but they are very biased towards certain acts and there playlist lacks any direction.There are so many amazing English and European acts that do not get alook in like Natalia Kills, Cocknbullkid, VV Brown, Jamie Woon.Yet every banal Pixie, The Saturdays and Ellie Goulding song is playlisted without fail.

Expect Bre in 5, 4, 3, 2...........

I think we are lucky having R1, most countries don't have a national station that is so diverse.

I don't listen to the station (6Music fan here), but on looking at this weeks playlist I think it's a good mixture.

 

 

I don't think I will ever understand the criticisms of Radio 1 (and the BBC in general really). They play more British music than any other stations, they play more new music than any other stations, they play more new acts than any other stations, their playlist is more varied than any other stations, and yet they always seem to get 'blamed' more than any other stations.

 

Their current A-list contains rap, dance, pop, acoustic, indie, dubstep, r&b, ballads... It features 3 acts who've been around for a long time having hits but also features the debut singles of 3 acts. The only thing you could possibly criticise is that the vast majority (maybe all, I'm not completely sure) of the songs which aren't by British acts are by American acts. But other stations will only differ because they've kept songs on their top lists for longer.

 

I'm not saying I dislike the music, just that the genres are too similar to each other to stand on their own. When I first started listening to the chart a single would either be pop, rock, dance or rnb/rap. And that was fine but these days people will talk to me like an idiot for calling an electronica song pop or a dubstep song dance.

 

I think it's wrong to look down your nose at people for not having a 'varied' taste, particularly when the charts have never had such lack of variety as they do now. People like what they like and if they only like one type of music, so what?

 

I agree that the charts have the least variety in them at the moment, possibly in chart history.

 

However, from previous discussions on here, I got the impression that out of these two charts:

 

Chart A : 8 pop songs, 8 dance songs, 8 hip hop songs, 8 RnB songs, 8 electronica songs

Chart B : 20 rock songs, 20 pop songs

 

Many would think Chart B is the one with most variety. Yes, it'd be a shame if we had Chart A, as there'd be no rock music, but surely that's more variety than Chart B?

 

Unforunately, the typical chart of 2011, Chart C, seems to be something more like:

 

Chart C : 25 pop songs, 4 electronica songs, 4 dance songs, 3 hip hop songs, 3 RnB songs, 1 rock song (I hope this adds up to 40 :lol:).

 

I don't think I will ever understand the criticisms of Radio 1 (and the BBC in general really). They play more British music than any other stations, they play more new music than any other stations, they play more new acts than any other stations, their playlist is more varied than any other stations, and yet they always seem to get 'blamed' more than any other stations.

 

Arguably, Capital plays more new music than Radio 1 (this will be very hard to explain to people, but it does if you look at it from a slightly different aspect).

 

Also, there was an article posted on Buzzjack a couple of months ago which compared the amount of British songs played by Capital and Radio 1. You may be surprised by the results.

Edited July 21, 201113 yr by Eric_Blob

I agree that the charts have the least variety in them at the moment, possibly in chart history.

 

However, from previous discussions on here, I got the impression that out of these two charts:

 

Chart A : 8 pop songs, 8 dance songs, 8 hip hop songs, 8 RnB songs, 8 electronica songs

Chart B : 20 rock songs, 20 pop songs

 

Many would think Chart B is the one with most variety. Yes, it'd be a shame if we had Chart A, as there'd be no rock music, but surely that's more variety than Chart B?

 

Unforunately, the typical chart of 2011, Chart C, seems to be something more like:

 

Chart C : 25 pop songs, 4 electronica songs, 4 dance songs, 3 hip hop songs, 3 RnB songs, 1 rock song (I hope this adds up to 40 :lol:).

Arguably, Capital plays more new music than Radio 1 (this will be very hard to explain to people, but it does if you look at it from a slightly different aspect).

 

Also, there was an article posted on Buzzjack a couple of months ago which compared the amount of British songs played by Capital and Radio 1. You may be surprised by the results.

 

You could claim Chart A has more variety, but I'd say they were almost the same. There are very thin lines that differentiate rnb and hip hop and also dance and electronica. Chart A wouldn't sound any more varied than Chart B to me. Back in 2006, even though rock/indie was extremely popular, there was a decent amount of dance, pop, rap and rnb in the singles chart, as the rock/indie fans are always more likely to purchase albums than singles (and illegally download, of course). Is it so wrong to ask for four songs in a row to sound different from each other? Even if they 'technically' are different 'genres'?

How can you say that Capital plays more new music than R1!!!!!!!

 

Todays stats... looking at the variety guage - Captial is at a dismal 3%, while Radio 1 is at 24%..

 

 

 

You could claim Chart A has more variety, but I'd say they were almost the same. There are very thin lines that differentiate rnb and hip hop and also dance and electronica. Chart A wouldn't sound any more varied than Chart B to me. Back in 2006, even though rock/indie was extremely popular, there was a decent amount of dance, pop, rap and rnb in the singles chart, as the rock/indie fans are always more likely to purchase albums than singles (and illegally download, of course). Is it so wrong to ask for four songs in a row to sound different from each other? Even if they 'technically' are different 'genres'?

 

I'm fine with 4 songs in a row sounding different to each other. But I'd say you can accomplish that with, say, Empire State of Mind, Part II, followed by Boom Boom Pow, followed by What's My Name?, followed by Airplanes. And this isn't even venturing out of US urban music. Although those songs might sound the same to you, I guess, but they sound completely different to me.

 

But yes, I'd like 4 songs to sound different to each other. If you look in the Sunday Chart Show thread for last week, you'll see me complaining that they played like 8 songs in a row that sounded exactly the same. :lol:

 

How can you say that Capital plays more new music than R1!!!!!!!

 

Todays stats... looking at the variety guage - Captial is at a dismal 3%, while Radio 1 is at 24%..

 

Firstly, new music =/ to variety. That is a fallacy.

 

Secondly, I'm not very good at explaining this sort of thing, but I'll try to explain how some could argue Capital plays more new music. I guess there's 3 ways you could argue it, and combine them:

 

Firstly, Capital plays MORE music. I listen to the Chirs Moyles show on the way to work sometimes, and it seems to me you get like 1 song played every 10 minutes. As a music fan, this isn't good enough for me, and Capital plays, perhaps, 3 songs every 10 minutes. Now, say Radio 1 plays 50% new music, and Capital plays 25% new music. So on Radio 1, in 40 minutes, you'll hear on average 2 new songs, and on Capital, in 40 minutes, you'd hear on average 3 new songs. And it's funny, because on Chris Moyles's show, I heard a joke made about there "now being 10% more music". Try 200%...

 

Secondly, Capital plays less OLD music. For example, let's consider Example (no pun intended). Capital are probably still playing Kickstarts more than Radio 1. However, let's look at Example's single before that, Won't Go Quietly. I hear that much more on Radio 1 than I do on Capital. I listen to, I think it's Greg James, during my lunch breaks sometimes, and I'm still hearing Won't Go Quietly on his show quite regularly tbh. I still hear Shake It by Metro Station and Hollywood by Marina and the Diamonds on there a lot. I can't remember the last time I heard those on Capital.

 

And thirdly, Capital gets songs into constant rotation much faster than Radio 1. A good example of this is Blind Faith by Chase and Status. Now, that song got its radio premiere on Radio 1. However, a couple of weeks afterward, Capital started playing it (this was still before the song was released, mind). Radio 1 seem to premiere a song, and then sometimes not play it again for weeks. Or sometimes only very occasionally. Capital, probably within a week or so of playing Blind Faith for the first time, I was hearing it on there every few hours, and this was still before the song was released (and it annoyed me when people was surprised it went top 10, when Capital had been playing it constantly the past few weeks). So, in that, and other cases, Capital played a new song MORE than Radio 1, even though it only played the song for the first time a few weeks after Radio 1 premiered it.

 

I hope I've made sense. It's just that I listen to both stations a lot, and these are things I've noticed.

Edited July 21, 201113 yr by Eric_Blob

Firstly, Capital plays MORE music. I listen to the Chirs Moyles show on the way to work sometimes, and it seems to me you get like 1 song played every 10 minutes. As a music fan, this isn't good enough for me, and Capital plays, perhaps, 3 songs every 10 minutes. Now, say Radio 1 plays 50% new music, and Capital plays 25% new music. So on Radio 1, in 40 minutes, you'll hear on average 2 new songs, and on Capital, in 40 minutes, you'd hear on average 3 new songs. And it's funny, because on Chris Moyles's show, I heard a joke made about there "now being 10% more music". Try 200%...

 

The Chris Moyles Show is not the only show on Radio 1.

R1 will never change they would sooner push obscure Indie acts that only there DJs rate or American urban rubbish.As a public service broadcaster they should showcase more diversity but they are very biased towards certain acts and there playlist lacks any direction.There are so many amazing English and European acts that do not get alook in like Natalia Kills, Cocknbullkid, VV Brown, Jamie Woon.Yet every banal Pixie, The Saturdays and Ellie Goulding song is playlisted without fail.

Expect Bre in 5, 4, 3, 2...........

 

Don't expect me any more because I've had enough of responding to your ignorant and often plain wrong posts. :)

I'm not saying I dislike the music, just that the genres are too similar to each other to stand on their own. When I first started listening to the chart a single would either be pop, rock, dance or rnb/rap. And that was fine but these days people will talk to me like an idiot for calling an electronica song pop or a dubstep song dance.

 

I think it's wrong to look down your nose at people for not having a 'varied' taste, particularly when the charts have never had such lack of variety as they do now. People like what they like and if they only like one type of music, so what?

 

I consider my own music tastes to be very varied - I like songs from almost every genre except you-know-what... ;)

 

BTW, what genre would you say M.I.A.-Paper Planes counts as?

 

I don't think I will ever understand the criticisms of Radio 1 (and the BBC in general really). They play more British music than any other stations, they play more new music than any other stations, they play more new acts than any other stations, their playlist is more varied than any other stations, and yet they always seem to get 'blamed' more than any other stations.

 

It's not so much the radio station I have a problem with, but the DJ's. ISTM you have to have had a lobotomy before they'll hire you as one. :P

Edited July 21, 201113 yr by vidcapper

I still don't understand people moaning about Radio 1, its by far the best station for promoting new music - I know people on here whine at them not playlisting the new Alexandra Burke or Britney Spears song and promoting an Indie band, but you cannot argue they play a *wide* range of genres, and in many cases this helps them get a good chart position, it is not their fault the charts are like this, and its pretty ludicrous to suggest so imo

 

I still think that rock/indie songs *can* be successful, just look at Ed Sheeran and Coldplay, they just need the right promotion, the right radio support, not just a retread of their old work and NOT a f***ing midweek release!! albeit, in some cases, I just think the act is a bit of an impulse 'fanbase' buy and the rest of the public lose interest or are more focused on the album :( we can only hope that the UK moves on and rock/indie can make a comeback

Fans of indie/rock genres generally purchase album-worths of material (i.e. Foo Fighters, Arctic Monkeys and Beady Eye) - while pop is generally only good for the singles; which if enough are released will compell sales of the respective album.

 

R1 attempt desperately to introduce indie/rock music into the charts - but it just doesn't seem to catch on well. 'Walk' by Foo Fighters is a good example, without R1 support - there's no way this would've crack the T100, but has managed to stick around in the T75 for a good month now.

 

I agree that pop music will continue to dominate the charts as long as Heart and Capital exist - but they're established radio stations - famous for playing pop; so perhaps that's why people like then.

I consider my own music tastes to be very varied - I like songs from almost every genre except you-know-what... ;)

 

BTW, what genre would you say M.I.A.-Paper Planes counts as?

It's not so much the radio station I have a problem with, but the DJ's. ISTM you have to have had a lobotomy before they'll hire you as one. :P

 

I think my tastes are varied too. I have pop, rock/indie and even rnb/rap albums in my collection. But because I'm no fan of a lot of the music in the charts (to me it's samey and some of it not even the best of the genres they represent) I've got the rock tag on me for some members here-apparently this means I like rock, just rock, and variety to me is having only rock in the charts :lol: Go figure.

If they play what's popular, why are they playing rock songs? I'm not saying Radio 1 shouldn't play rock songs btw, but if you play what's popular, you end up like Capital. I think Radio 1 make a concious effort to play a wide variety of genres, even if some aren't popular at the time.

 

And also, just as there's rock and indie fans that like Beyonce and Lady Gaga, there's lots of Beyonce and Lady Gaga fans that like rock music.

 

Also, imagine these two people. Who would you say has the most varied musical taste?

 

Person A, who listens to pop, electronica, hip hop, dance and RnB music.

Person B, who listens to rock and pop music.

As T Boy said, there're very thin lines between the genres Person A supposedly ONLY listens to. So I believe this question's answer would be the same as to:

 

Who has the most varied musical taste

 

Person A, who listens to house and electronia

Person B, who listens to rock.

 

I.e. SAME SHIT.

I'm fine with 4 songs in a row sounding different to each other. But I'd say you can accomplish that with, say, Empire State of Mind, Part II, followed by Boom Boom Pow, followed by What's My Name?, followed by Airplanes. And this isn't even venturing out of US urban music. Although those songs might sound the same to you, I guess, but they sound completely different to me.

 

But yes, I'd like 4 songs to sound different to each other. If you look in the Sunday Chart Show thread for last week, you'll see me complaining that they played like 8 songs in a row that sounded exactly the same. :lol:

Firstly, new music =/ to variety. That is a fallacy.

 

Secondly, I'm not very good at explaining this sort of thing, but I'll try to explain how some could argue Capital plays more new music. I guess there's 3 ways you could argue it, and combine them:

 

Firstly, Capital plays MORE music. I listen to the Chirs Moyles show on the way to work sometimes, and it seems to me you get like 1 song played every 10 minutes. As a music fan, this isn't good enough for me, and Capital plays, perhaps, 3 songs every 10 minutes. Now, say Radio 1 plays 50% new music, and Capital plays 25% new music. So on Radio 1, in 40 minutes, you'll hear on average 2 new songs, and on Capital, in 40 minutes, you'd hear on average 3 new songs. And it's funny, because on Chris Moyles's show, I heard a joke made about there "now being 10% more music". Try 200%...

 

Secondly, Capital plays less OLD music. For example, let's consider Example (no pun intended). Capital are probably still playing Kickstarts more than Radio 1. However, let's look at Example's single before that, Won't Go Quietly. I hear that much more on Radio 1 than I do on Capital. I listen to, I think it's Greg James, during my lunch breaks sometimes, and I'm still hearing Won't Go Quietly on his show quite regularly tbh. I still hear Shake It by Metro Station and Hollywood by Marina and the Diamonds on there a lot. I can't remember the last time I heard those on Capital.

 

And thirdly, Capital gets songs into constant rotation much faster than Radio 1. A good example of this is Blind Faith by Chase and Status. Now, that song got its radio premiere on Radio 1. However, a couple of weeks afterward, Capital started playing it (this was still before the song was released, mind). Radio 1 seem to premiere a song, and then sometimes not play it again for weeks. Or sometimes only very occasionally. Capital, probably within a week or so of playing Blind Faith for the first time, I was hearing it on there every few hours, and this was still before the song was released (and it annoyed me when people was surprised it went top 10, when Capital had been playing it constantly the past few weeks). So, in that, and other cases, Capital played a new song MORE than Radio 1, even though it only played the song for the first time a few weeks after Radio 1 premiered it.

 

I hope I've made sense. It's just that I listen to both stations a lot, and these are things I've noticed.

 

 

there is so much wrong with these statements. you have to understand what each show on radio 1 represents...chris moyles and scottmills are drive time shows so play generally less music and less NEW music on their shows.You are more likely to hear a top 10 hit on chris moyles or scott mills as they want to promote the hits on the shows with the biggest audience and you are also most likely to hear a single which is released that particular week on their show too because they have the biggest audience...so you cant judge radio 1 juist from listening to one show especially the drivetime shows.jo wiley/fearn cottons shows clearly play more 'NEW' and indie acts on their shows whereas the drivetime shows are the most pop orientated shows although daytime shows all stick to the general daytime playlist.look at the various djs records of the week to see a good example scott mills record of the week will generally be from a massive 'pop' act like britney spears or lady gaga whereas greg james will be from an indie act and i dont think moyles even has a record of the week.

 

on the question of whether capital or radio 1 plays more new music radio 1 definately does. capital rarely take risks with new music like radio 1...they generally follow whats in the top 10 whereas radio 1 will promote a new act that no-ones ever heard of.capital do play songs before they enter the chart but only from established artists.just look at the airplay charts - songs like ed sheeran haven't done very well and mainly it takes radio plays to move it up the airplay chart whereas the acts at the top of this chart are the acts that national and commercial radio put their support behind!!