2014 has seen a surge in previously unknown artists (or DJs) achieving numbers 1s with their debut single/first big scale single. In particular, DJs and dance-artists seem to be absolutely unstoppable at the moment.

 

Do you like this new trend or would you rather some of our more longtime popstars got a little bit more recognition?

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Ariels

This is like 1999/2000 again.

To be honest I think you could pretty much look at every year for the last couple of decades and say it's full of debut/previously unknown artists. We're a long way away from Whigfield becoming the first artist to enter at #1 in their first ever chart week. DJs and dance artists are dominating because that synth-heavy club sound has basically become pop, just as indie prevailed in the mid-noughties and there were loads of guitar acts around - not all of them the most credible but it was the dominant sound at the time.

 

As with every other chart craze - rock & roll, Merseybeat, glam, punk, New Wave, New Romantic, Stock/Aitken/Waterman, rave, Britpop, manufactured group pop, indie etc, it gets oversaturated, people get bored and move onto something different. A rock revival seems incredibly overdue now, still think pop will move towards it as we get further into the middle of the 10s though.

As with every other chart craze - rock & roll, Merseybeat, glam, punk, New Wave, New Romantic, Stock/Aitken/Waterman, rave, Britpop, manufactured group pop, indie etc, it gets oversaturated, people get bored and move onto something different.

 

Or every chart craze except rap, at least? :teresa:

 

I personally am not a fan and like my popstars at no1. Still, it's better now than when we had the indie craze.

I very much like the fact that new and unknown artists are scoring #1s. It's good to see that today a song gets popular because of the song and not the artist behind it, even really popular artists like One Direction and Katy Perry are having under performing singles because their songs aren't connecting with people, so yeah, I much prefer the chart where people make an effort to make a good song instead of expecting it to sell because they're popular or 'fit' (thank god Elyar Fox doesn't sell much outside of his small fanbase just because girls find him attractive for example)

I like it when people get "bored" of indie and move on. It might mean less coverage of guitar music but, if you know where to go (decent blogs etc) then you'll still find the good bands who are coming through during a comparative lull.

I prefer more stability when songs stay a bit longer at no1. How many of these new acts are likely to stick around and have follow up hits? I don't think there will be loads and most will probably be one hit wonders.

It doesn't bother me at all.

 

To be honest, ever since 2012 when Gotye, fun. PSY, etc. were having htis, I've seen people complaining about the fact that these artists come out of nowhere and have a massive hit, then not much else, and people complain that there's no pop stars that get long strings of hits anymore, but why is that important? Why does that matter? Why do people want there to be a massive pop star who gets hit after hit? I don't get it. It shouldn't matter as long as the songs are good.

Also Rihanna is pretty sucessful hit after hit!

Or every chart craze except rap, at least? :teresa:

 

 

Do you mean rap wont go away?

Do you mean rap wont go away?

 

I don't think rap will ever go away from the charts tbh. But even that evolves and changes over time. For example, the popular hip hop music of today is very different to 10 years ago. In the mid-00s were was loads of crunk music, today it's mainly trap music, or the Rack City-sounding stuff.

To be honest, ever since 2012 when Gotye, fun. PSY, etc. were having htis, I've seen people complaining about the fact that these artists come out of nowhere and have a massive hit, then not much else, and people complain that there's no pop stars that get long strings of hits anymore, but why is that important? Why does that matter? Why do people want there to be a massive pop star who gets hit after hit? I don't get it. It shouldn't matter as long as the songs are good.

 

People like to see consistent quality and chart success. When a successful artist can go away for a few years and return with material that maintains their relevance, it's impressive. Not that hard to understand really :P.

 

I do agree with your sentiment of quality sometimes being overlooked though. There's often a bit too much emphasis on a single being the follow-up to x by major label artist y, taken off the album that has sold z, from which chart expectations are formed without much consideration for the song's individual merit.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't bother me at all.

 

To be honest, ever since 2012 when Gotye, fun. PSY, etc. were having htis, I've seen people complaining about the fact that these artists come out of nowhere and have a massive hit, then not much else, and people complain that there's no pop stars that get long strings of hits anymore, but why is that important? Why does that matter? Why do people want there to be a massive pop star who gets hit after hit? I don't get it. It shouldn't matter as long as the songs are good.

 

Completely agree.

 

I can't get my head around some member's complaints when a song will achieve No.1 by an unknown artist, as if the title isn't worthy enough for an unknown name... :wacko:

 

As long as I like the song then I'm not fussed by the popularity status of the name(s) behind it.

 

Being a huge fan of the genre I'm more than happy at the charts at the moment and hope it continues. :wub:

Unknowns arent a bad thing if they can sustain a reasonably lengthy career, the trouble with dance / dj acts is they are notorious for being one or two hit wonders, espcially DJ's as they tend to concentrate more on remixes and production etc. (Calvin Harris probably one of the few exceptions)

 

The fast turnover of no.1's I find annoying, this is like 2000 again when there was a bout 34 no.1s :wacko:

Edited May 9, 201411 yr by fiesta

Unknowns arent a bad thing if they can sustain a reasonably lengthy career, the trouble with dance / dj acts is they are notorious for being one or two hit wonders, espcially DJ's as they tend to concentrate more on remixes and production etc. (Calvin Harris probably one of the few exceptions)

 

The fast turnover of no.1's I find annoying, this is like 2000 again when there was a bout 34 no.1s :wacko:

 

But why would they need to sustain a lengthy career? And why would it mater if they were a one or two hit wonder? :unsure:

 

As long as the songs reaching No.1 are good material then I don't see a problem if the artists have a lengthy career or not...

 

I think people loon way too much over artists nowadays, regardless of them releasing good material or not.

 

People need to remember the No.1 is the most bought single that week, not the most popular artist. :huh:

 

And I can see what people mean regarding the fast turnover, but again, if it's all good material then why does it really matter?

Calvin Harris can pretty much get to #1 with anything at the moment though regardless of what he releases, that's one example.

It's nice to invest in an artist. If you really enjoy their single(s) or their album, you're going to want to hear more. If you like their certain style and their talent, you do want to hear what else they can produce. Yes you can say they don't need to be successful to continue producing music, but the more successful they are, the more money they have to produce the music that they actually want to produce.

I don't really care as long as I like the songs they're making.

Calvin Harris can pretty much get to #1 with anything at the moment though regardless of what he releases, that's one example.

 

Just because he has recently had two consecutive releases get to No.1, I'd hardly say he can get to No.1 with "anything". :unsure:

 

I'd say he's been unlucky quite a few times actually, and has narrowly missed the top spot four times has he not?