Which do you prefer?

 

[i dare say the chart era you grew up with, might have a significant influence on your answers] :)

Edited June 24, 201213 yr by vidcapper

Slow and domination for me.

 

I grew up in the mid 90's and still to this day hate the fast weekly turnover that happened back then. I love seeing long, twisty, interesting chart runs.

I prefer a fast turnover, but that doesn't mean from NE's at #1 - #5 and then everything moving down by 5 places (as it seems to be thesedays), but 10-20% of the chart new entries between 21-40 and fast climbers.

 

21-5-{3}-5-9-18-27-40 is a lot faster than..

 

{3}-3-4-5-7-9-13-15-18-22-27-34-38-39 for instance.

I prefer slow charts but what I really mean by that is tracks that climb up the chart over a period of several weeks, with hardly anything debuting at no.1 and even relatively few going straight in the top 10, as in the 80s. The descent down the chart today is *much* slower than in the 80s of course.

 

For example, this is 'Come on Eileen', one of the biggest selling tracks of the 80s, well over a million copies sold and it's all done and dusted in 17 weeks, which was quite a long chart run back then, even for a no.1 single.

 

63-41-31-9-2-{1}-1-1-1-2-3-9-14-20-36-52-63

 

I suspect a TOTP appearance on week 3 :)

 

 

Slow and domination, I just like to see #1s sticking around a far longer for example at least 3 to 5 weeks at #1, not the forever weekly new #1. Only 4 tracks this year stayed longer than a week at #1 (Domino, Call Me Maybe, RIP and Somebody That I Used To Know).

Oh fast without a doubt. The other week I remember posting in the chart thread that the first 17/18 songs had spent an average of over 4 months in the top 40, I don't get how anyone can enjoy that. Long runners are fine, but when it's every other song it really isn't, there's no sense in achievement at spending an age in the top 40 now as songs that do that are ten a penny.

I would say that the charts of the 80s got it just right, climb to a peak then a descent and out kept it fresh

I would say that the charts of the 80s got it just right, climb to a peak then a descent and out kept it fresh

 

I agree. Looking at some of the chart runs back then, even the biggest hits seemed to only spend like 3 months in the top 40. Whilst now we've got only medium-sized hits like Take Care spending longer than that in the top 40.

 

I prefer fast-moving charts. I follow the US charts aswell, recently they had the same top 5 for 3 weeks in a row! And another instance recently they had the same top 9 twice in a row, and there have been a few times where they've had exactly the same top 10, just with the songs shuffled around a bit. Everybody seems to find it very boring. And of course there was that famous incident in 2009 where the Black Eyed Peas were #1 for 26 weeks. Sorry, but how can anybody find that entertaining?

 

The charts have sped up recently though. I noted in the chart thread last week when we were about half way through that we had only come across 2 (I think) songs that had spent 10+ weeks in the top 40, which is a massive improvement from a few months ago!

 

If I really like the song, I don't really mind if it spends ages in the chart. Like Somebody That I Used to Know, I love that song so much, that it was great that it spend 18 weeks in the top 10. But in general, I'd rather songs didn't do that.

Edited June 24, 201213 yr by Eric_Blob

Fast! 2008 for me was dreadful chartwise due to it pretty much being the same chart every week with single sonly changing one position or so. Plus in slow moving charts, most long chart runs are by default.

Fast! 2008 for me was dreadful chartwise due to it pretty much being the same chart every week with single sonly changing one position or so. Plus in slow moving charts, most long chart runs are by default.

 

I agree, it's why I gave up writing the chart commentary around that time, it just became SO dull that there was nothing to comment on.

 

If only it could be fast but with high sales a la 1998/9, where the only long runners were the absolutely MEGA smashes, or the odd song that clung on mid-table for a while. That said, I do like songs climbing to their peaks instead of entering there so I guess the 80s were the most interesting example.

A mixture - genuinely popular songs having long runs both at #1 and in the top 40, but with a lot of activity lower down and the odd massive flash in the pan.

I like a happy medium. A healthy chart would have 8-10 new entries in the top 40 a week, with some entering at their peak, some climbing. A #1 would last about 10 weeks on the top 40.

I much prefer slower and dominating charts, and 2012 has had quite alot of songs with long, dominating chart runs, especially in the beginning of the year. I hate songs debuting at number one for one week and quickly leave - Part of Me, Turn Up the Music, Young, and Twilight.

Fast, I find it incredibly boring hearing the same songs down the bottom of the charts every week, I like lots of new entries down the bottom of the chart and even the odd classic re-entry.

 

As for number 1s, I don't just like dominating number 1s as it gets dull, but I don't like songs which debut there and then proceed to fall out of the top 40 within a few weeks, as that quite frankly takes the mickey and is an an undeserved number 1. I do like one weekers but only if they end up selling decently, so I guess its a misture on that front

I like a bit of both to be honest. Genuinely popular singles deserve to have decent chart runs reflecting their popularity. The chart run for 'Somebody That I Used To Know' is a perfect examplwe. However, I hate no. 1 singles that clearly only got there thanks to a dedicated fanbase who are not there in week two so songs going 01-07-09-16-25-38-OUT is a big "no thanks" to me. If a song goes to no. 1, I'd expect to see it sticking around for some time to prove its worth. Same with some big UK #2 singles although preferably kept off the no. 1 spot by the more popular song, rather than kept off the top by multiple non no. 1s (see 'Moves Like Jagger').

 

So for me, the top 5 would be slightly slower paced as these would feature the genuinely popular hits then everything from around #6 downwards moves faster.

Quite an even split, then.

I would like faster moving charts where perhaps lower charting singles spend only a few weeks Top 40, but the more enduring hits spend 10-15 weeks Top 40 after a few weeks at #1 or #2. I guess, like others have said, the 80's charts were pretty much spot on! (Of course ALL songs should be On Air/On Sale so that those usual climbs to #1 are emulated. :P)

 

That way, it makes it easier for me to pinpoint songs I haven't heard as weel, If a song only goes say Top 75 for example, it's very unlikely I'll hear it on the chart show. :P

Fast/Fast

 

I get easily bored with songs spending months and months in the chart.

Hmmm,

for the Uk I prefer a little slower charts. The No.1-Songs are often changing too fast, e.g. 10 No.1's in 10 weeks (summer of '11).

But the German charts should be a little faster. A 10-week-No.1 is so boring (Michel Teló in '12).