I feel like they're not really dealt a fair card when they release anything though, for the most part radio decides who is relevant and who isn't.

I feel like they're not really dealt a fair card when they release anything though, for the most part radio decides who is relevant and who isn't.

 

Perhaps, but for the most part I often think radio get it right. It's a generation thing, the same can be said for Robbie Williams. I'd love to know the figures for who downloads music, but I'd guess it would fall somewhere between 16-30 as the biggest market. I couldn't ever imagine my little sister being a big Kylie/Madonna/Britney fan these days, I just don't think they're relevant to the public eye anymore. Other artists have taken their place that are cooler and fresher, and more appealing to youth.

I feel like they're not really dealt a fair card when they release anything though, for the most part radio decides who is relevant and who isn't.

 

How important is radio these days?

 

10 years ago i would have said life or death but with You Tube now just about everyone i know of all ages listens to music on You Tube and not the radio

 

Plus i would have thought social networks are the main way of selling/promoting an artist these days too, several bands such as Arctic Monkeys became famous purely through social networking

Edited November 19, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

How important is radio these days?

 

10 years ago i would have said life or death but with You Tube now just about everyone i know of all ages listens to music on You Tube and not the radio

 

Plus i would have thought social networks are the main way of selling/promoting an artist these days too, several bands such as Arctic Monkeys became famous purely through social networking

 

It's still absolutely massive. Loads of people still listen to the radio. It's constantly played in workplaces and in the car. It would be interesting to know over the past 10 years, how many #1 hits there have been that have not been supported by Radio 1 or Capital. I can't imagine there being many.

It's still absolutely massive. Loads of people still listen to the radio. It's constantly played in workplaces and in the car. It would be interesting to know over the past 10 years, how many #1 hits there have been that have not been supported by Radio 1 or Capital. I can't imagine there being many.

 

Re the last bit

 

Could it not be said though that the radio stations are playing them because they are charting? as opposed to the radio being the reason they chart in the first place

 

Robbie Williams and Dizzee Rascal have been blocked by R1 but Dizzee Rascal is still popular as is Robbie given Robbie has just been on X Factor etc

It's still absolutely massive. Loads of people still listen to the radio. It's constantly played in workplaces and in the car. It would be interesting to know over the past 10 years, how many #1 hits there have been that have not been supported by Radio 1 or Capital. I can't imagine there being many.

 

 

Re the last bit

 

Could it not be said though that the radio stations are playing them because they are charting? as opposed to the radio being the reason they chart in the first place

 

Robbie Williams and Dizzee Rascal have been blocked by R1 but Dizzee Rascal is still popular as is Robbie given Robbie has just been on X Factor etc

 

Yeah, exactly. There's been loads of songs in recent years that have gone right to the top of the charts before they got any big airplay -- 'Let Her Go', 'Counting Stars', 'Get Lucky' to name just 3 recent ones -- the massive airplay for those songs only started AFTER they became big hits. Most local radio stations openly admit they base their playlists on what's near the top of the iTunes chart these days. And similarly, I'd argue that the likes of Britney get snubbed by radio BECAUSE people have no interest in her songs and don't push them to the top of the charts, it's not radio snubbing them that causes them to flop.

Edited November 19, 201311 yr by Danny

Re the last bit

 

Could it not be said though that the radio stations are playing them because they are charting? as opposed to the radio being the reason they chart in the first place

 

Robbie Williams and Dizzee Rascal have been blocked by R1 but Dizzee Rascal is still popular as is Robbie given Robbie has just been on X Factor etc

i mean, no to all of this.

 

since when was dizzee rascal still popular?

i mean, no to all of this.

 

since when was dizzee rascal still popular?

 

He is one of the support acts to Gaga on the Jingle Bell Ball along with Jessie J, Little Mix, Lawson etc etc so he must still be 'current', Capital could have chosen from so many acts

dizzee rascal used to be so good :(

Yeah but Dizzee Rascal is still losing popularity at a rapid rate though. He must be desperate if he's releasing shit like Something Really Bad!

Hits that are successful before airplay kicks in are always the ones that sell very well in the long run etc Let Her Go, Get Lucky. An artist can't release one of those 'big' songs that will do well no matter what all the time, it's had to write one song like that, let alone with every single release. I'm sure radio will abandon OneRepublic again after Counting Stars and they'll go back to minimal success.

 

Also, Capital are only still supporting Dizzee because he made such a big deal out of one single being snubbed by Radio 1.

Hits that are successful before airplay kicks in are always the ones that sell very well in the long run etc Let Her Go, Get Lucky. An artist can't release one of those 'big' songs that will do well no matter what all the time, it's had to write one song like that, let alone with every single release. I'm sure radio will abandon OneRepublic again after Counting Stars and they'll go back to minimal success.

 

Yeah, if the songs go back to their usual mediocre standard. But the fact 'Counting Stars' did what it did still shows that, if the song is good enough, it can break through even with little support.

Yeah, if the songs go back to their usual mediocre standard. But the fact 'Counting Stars' did what it did still shows that, if the song is good enough, it can break through even with little support.

But it's hard to write songs with such a wide crossover appeal every single time, it's hard to cater for such a wide audience with every song that you write.

Artists that last tend to grow up with their young fanbase or else have an older fanbase who are much more loyal over the long run. Pop history traditionally has a 4 year rule because 4 years is a long time for teens and they dominate the ever-changing and fickle pop market. If you want to last you mature as an artist and make great records cos young fans move on and new teens won't buy last year's thing.

the biggest band in history had a 7 year career it's the body of work that matters in the end. 1d won't be around in 5 years solo success always becomes the first issue and first to jump ship tend to get the solo career and they won't be so cute to their fans. Those that last write their own songs

Edited November 19, 201311 yr by popchartfreak

Would you all say that Tinie Tempah is losing popularity just because his record sales aren't as great as last time round or would you all say he's still doing fine? Because the latter is the impression I get when I'm not seeing his record sales.

He's losing popularity but not to a damaging extent. He's still very successful, just not as successful.

I think its about musical progression. People don't just want the same thing and the same sound over and over again. Artists like Adele and Ellie Goulding have shown progression, their music has become more mature and interesting between their first and second albums. Jessie J or Pixie Lott for instance, have not progressed. Coming back with songs like 'It's My Party' and 'All About Tonight' is not going to keep the public interested, or persuade people to buy an album by the artist.

To me it's mainly down to song and promotion. Lily Allen had a very Christmassy song so it was bound to do well, same with Ellie Goulding. So it made its way to the top of the chats. But Hard out here didnt get a lot of promo or airplay so that slipped. That's something most artists do after their slump. It's hard to pick up again an d the only act to do this have been the sats who aren't exactly having a dream career anymore

Yeah, if the songs go back to their usual mediocre standard. But the fact 'Counting Stars' did what it did still shows that, if the song is good enough, it can break through even with little support.

Apologies for lateness (you probably won't even see this) but I feel like you're over-simplifying to a huge degree here. I've never liked "it all depends on the quality of the song" as an explanation for something as variable as the world's music charts - of course, a lot of songs will never sell well no matter how much exposure they get (well, you know how 'Unconditionally' is doing) but to suggest that songs that do badly (or even "pretty alright") without any support would do no better with it is... not overly well-thought-out.