I agree with you. We still have unpredictable weeks every now and then (although I don't think the example you gave was the best, maybe it was just me, but I was still very confident Animals would be #1 that week).

 

Yeah I know what you mean, there are better weeks to pick from and Animals had a good run on pre orders but that was the first one that came to my mind :lol:

More exciting certainly thanks to dynamism and unpredictability.

 

I beg to differ. 2000 was one of the most predictable years chart wise because the entire year was basically mapped out and 9 times out of 10 you knew who would be no.1 weeks in advance regardless of the quantity of no.1s. The only upsets to this delicate system being bob beating Westlife and Spiller beating posh. Back then it was more interesting to see tracks hang around.

Oh yes, unforgettable!!!

I miss those days when there were so many songs charting high and quickly making room for other tracks.

Now with gift cards and other download-related mess we're exposed to nearly a year-old hugely overplayed crap in the current chart which is why I practically stopped listening to it on the radio. I hope 2014 will have a bigger turnover at #1 with big subsequent falls, the chart needs to get more exciting and unpredictable again. I remember those times when everyone was predicting which number a certain song would enter, the whole anticipation of whether it would smash or flop, wonderful. Obviously in 95% of the cases that would be its peak so a pre-release tension was immense.

 

And now we're launching the new year with this god-awful Pitbull dance/country song that everyone knows will be big.

Even though I hate Pharrell's "Happy" as well, I hope it will prevent "Timber" from grabbing the top spot. It will stay forever in the chart anyway… :(

 

 

I always thought 2000 was boring you knew what would enter highest due to the airplay etc and it meant that artists could hype their songs much easier and get undeserved high chart entries!

 

The current chart is better because the best song rises to the top because the song is good although I do understand there has always been a marketing influence!

I always thought 2000 was boring you knew what would enter highest due to the airplay etc and it meant that artists could hype their songs much easier and get undeserved high chart entries!

 

The current chart is better because the best song rises to the top because the song is good although I do understand there has always been a marketing influence!

The best song almost never rises to the top. It's just the song that people are willing to waste spend hard earned money on more that gets there.

 

Some of 2013's number 1's were just pure ear rape and the year's top selling song was definately not the best song of 2013.

Edited January 2, 201412 yr by Fareek 2K14

The best song almost never rises to the top. It's just the song that people are willing to waste spend hard earned money on more that gets there.

 

Some of 2013's number 1's were just pure ear rape and the year's top selling song was definately not the best song of 2013.

Surely that's just a matter of opinion? :unsure:

Surely that's just a matter of opinion? :unsure:

 

True - but the comment was generic enough to apply to any year. :lol:

I always thought 2000 was boring you knew what would enter highest due to the airplay etc and it meant that artists could hype their songs much easier and get undeserved high chart entries!

 

The current chart is better because the best song rises to the top because the song is good although I do understand there has always been a marketing influence!

 

It doesn't rise to the top on the basis of being good enough, it's almost always which tracks have the most exposure or hype.

Nothing has ever risen to the top of the chart for 'being good enough' because that's a subjective quality. The only 'objective' measure of quality is critical reception and that's clearly not infallible (Kanye West always rates extremely highly with critics yet a LOT of people hate his music, for example). Some songs appeal more to more groups of people but that doesn't mean they're 'better' than other songs because there will always be people who think they're not. It's useless to factor quality into discussions about the charts, because it all comes down to exposure and target audience in the end.

Why does more number 1s make a better year?

 

I wouldn't say it was necessarily a "better" year, certainly not in terms of how good on the whole the number 1's were, but in that songs didn't get undeserved lengthy stays at the top spot.

I beg to differ. 2000 was one of the most predictable years chart wise because the entire year was basically mapped out and 9 times out of 10 you knew who would be no.1 weeks in advance regardless of the quantity of no.1s. The only upsets to this delicate system being bob beating Westlife and Spiller beating posh. Back then it was more interesting to see tracks hang around.

 

I remember the utter excitement when Madonna's Music knocked Groovejet off Number One when the previous day CD:UK had Music at No 2!

Sorry my comment above wasnt very well explained - i meant it prevents songs jumping in at no1 after a period of build up & then a fast fall which doesnt make for a good chart imo. I'm talking about Mcfly here as a good example.

 

Of course songs will always rise to the top because of exposure as well but i like a chart like this where all songs are released when they are first played and then they can rise or fall after that!

Edited January 2, 201412 yr by steve201

I remember the utter excitement when Madonna's Music knocked Groovejet off Number One when the previous day CD:UK had Music at No 2!

 

Yes but still that was an incredibly dull and boring chart. Having heard it for weeks, I knew Music would get to no.1 and to make the chart more stale the entire top 10 from the previous week ALL moved down one place only. No climbers or non movers probably because the tracks had all peaked in the first week sales wise because they were all so held back.

Really want Beyonce to get the Number 1 Album fingers crossed !

is there no update again this week?

is there no update again this week?

Nothing so far, MAYBE tomorrow since Christmas/New Year is over but don't be too hopeful.

is there no update again this week?

 

It does say on the opening post normal services will resume next week, maybe tomorrow, but I wouldn't count any chickens.

 

is there no update again this week?

I've been in touch with Music Week and have had a reply back from the deputy editor who has informed me that MW will be publishing a midweek update tomorrow.

 

I've been in touch with Music Week and have had a reply back from the deputy editor who has informed me that MW will be publishing a midweek update tomorrow.

 

 

Thanks for that, should make things easy for my prep work for Sunday's chart.

I beg to differ. 2000 was one of the most predictable years chart wise because the entire year was basically mapped out and 9 times out of 10 you knew who would be no.1 weeks in advance regardless of the quantity of no.1s. The only upsets to this delicate system being bob beating Westlife and Spiller beating posh. Back then it was more interesting to see tracks hang around.

How would you know the future chart-toppers? I remember media going on about chart battles virtually each week in that period.

If a number ones had been such a given, only established acts would have been getting them. 2000 saw a lot of newcomers making it all the way, not only Spiller but also Oxide & Neutrino, Sonique, Black Legend, Fragma, Madison Avenue or Modjo. Even though some of them might have been predictable due to their prior success abroad, I would have never consider Bound 4 Da Reload or You See The Trouble With Me as number one contenders. A year later Kylie Minogue's career hit competed with Victoria Beckham's flop single for the top spot, the battle was all over the media with many outlets placing bets on the Posh Spice. We all remember the outcome, I suppose. Now the excitement around weekly number ones faded completely as long runners can take almost months to get there and by the time they do, one cannot stand the song because it's so overplayed. Moreover, with a number one tag on its belt (nowadays a bit more luxurious feat than before), it will carry on sticking around on downloads for ages while other, often new or established indie acts keep struggling to enter the Top 200. It's sad and frustrating that slow charts prioritise mainstream. Thank God that some dance tracks do still have slightly 2000-esque chart runs with front loaded sales pushing them high upon release to quickly make room for other club bangers.

Edited January 2, 201412 yr by marcin

It seems to me we're never happy. I recall back in 1999-2004 people complaining about the high turnover and records never having a chance to cross over and get into people's heads because they were in and out of the charts so quickly. Now the opposite is true and we have people complaining of the opposite.

 

For my money the way records charted in the 80s is still ideal. Climb to peak then drop quite briskly- in and out in 10 weeks!