House parties is literally just chart music really :lol: Except our house parties or pres which end up with my playlists full of a mixture of chart stuff, K-Pop, BJSC, Eurovision, and whatever else, but I try to avoid the Spotify top few that we'll hear out anyway :drama:

I've just listened to Ed's new album. I don't get the hate. Yes, it's very poppy and made to appeal to the mainstream audience. But at the same time, it's very listenable. I plan to listen more in the coming days.

 

I understand that many chart watchers don't want album tracks to chart on the singles chart, but at this point, every song on the album can be considered a single. And the biggest artists will continue putting their album tracks on the chart.

 

I don't think anyone is disputing the quality of the album, just how mundane the charts have become.

I don't think anyone is disputing the quality of the album, just how mundane the charts have become.

 

Have you read this thread? Half the posters are saying it is boring and people are sheep for listening to it.

K-pop is much more lively, even if judging by the various BJSC K-pop songs and BTS's songs that were in the itunes chart recently, the production often seems to be stuck in the 2010-2012 style EDM pop phase (which is certainly better than tropical house or future bass imo).

 

I haven't been to a house party in a long time but I thought it would be more the sort of stuff played on Radio 1s Dance Anthems show.

Edited March 5, 20178 yr by The Wise Sultan

Ed might dilute the charts but if he's popular he's popular it's how the chart have always been calculated with or without streaming there is the very real prospect of him having at least half his album

And I can say that streaming isn't a reflection of what people are listening to. Not everyone streams. I have been listening to Rag 'n' Bone man's album all week but I bought it physically and listen on the iPod. I don't stream. Most people my age and older don't stream.

 

I'm 55 - I wouldn't know how to stream. :wacko: although at last now I have grasped how it works. I was broughtup in the vinyl/cassette age and learnt about downloading. Now it's changed again. :unsure:

 

The only way I hear "chart" music is via Heart London which I listen to everyday. They do play artists that are high in the charts but normally only after the song has been out for a few weeks. For example they've just started playing Rag 'n' Bone Man Human so that's how I get to hear it. Then I decide if I want to buy it from ITunes.

 

So it means people like me are hearing and enjoying and maybe buying new music weeks after youngsters have been streaming it.

 

 

Think about how brilliant this is for music managers and promoters though - Justin Bieber gets the top 3 singles in a week, Drake's number 1 for fifteen weeks, Clean Bandit Christmas #1, Ed Sheeran ruling half the chart etc - it makes this 'era' of popular music not just feel special, but the biggest ever era in musical history. Adele, Sheeran, Bieber etc are getting headline after headline for breaking chart records that have stood for decades, and people read them thinking they must be genuinely truly massive in a way that every singer or group before them never quite managed. When of course, they're not - they're certainly big stars and up there with pop's current A-list, but they've just been lucky to be around at a time when music consumption's shifting completely from sales to streams. You can't compare Ed Sheeran to The Beatles, Justin Bieber to Elvis or Little Mix to the Spice Girls, even if their chart history and associated hype makes them look closer in equivalent star power than they are.

 

Pick any year you like, and a couple of A-list pop acts fronm the time, and you can guarantee they'd have done exactly the same had streaming been around in their era. A Beatle-filled top 40 in 1964? A Slade top 3 in 1973? Fifteen weeks at #1 for Frankie Goes To Hollywood (twice!) in 1984? 'Barbie Girl' the shock Christmas #1 of 1997? Could all have happened under a different music climate.

DAY 2.

Have you read this thread? Half the posters are saying it is boring and people are sheep for listening to it.

 

Actually you're wrong there. Those claiming Ed is boring haven't listened to the album because they personally find him and his music in general boring so they're not interested in the album. That doesn't mean it's a bad album, just that it's not for them. And people have mentioned a sheep mentality but that doesn't mean that a lot of people don't genuinely like the album.

 

And as for this looking like 'the greats era in music ever'-that's my issue. Ed, Adele, Bieber-they're all producing music that I personally find uninteresting and pretty bland. And yet the perception is that we've never had it so good. I disagree with that and so I don't like the constant headlines of how groundbreaking all these people are because the casual streamer doesn't really care what they're listening to.

Think about how brilliant this is for music managers and promoters though - Justin Bieber gets the top 3 singles in a week, Drake's number 1 for fifteen weeks, Clean Bandit Christmas #1, Ed Sheeran ruling half the chart etc - it makes this 'era' of popular music not just feel special, but the biggest ever era in musical history. Adele, Sheeran, Bieber etc are getting headline after headline for breaking chart records that have stood for decades, and people read them thinking they must be genuinely truly massive in a way that every singer or group before them never quite managed. When of course, they're not - they're certainly big stars and up there with pop's current A-list, but they've just been lucky to be around at a time when music consumption's shifting completely from sales to streams. You can't compare Ed Sheeran to The Beatles, Justin Bieber to Elvis or Little Mix to the Spice Girls, even if their chart history and associated hype makes them look closer in equivalent star power than they are.

 

Pick any year you like, and a couple of A-list pop acts fronm the time, and you can guarantee they'd have done exactly the same had streaming been around in their era. A Beatle-filled top 40 in 1964? A Slade top 3 in 1973? Fifteen weeks at #1 for Frankie Goes To Hollywood (twice!) in 1984? 'Barbie Girl' the shock Christmas #1 of 1997? Could all have happened under a different music climate.

 

I don't think you can include Adele in this, she genuinely is one of the top 4 or 5 artists ever in terms of impact, sales, recognition and everything. When you are shifting 20m albums when even the best of the rest are struggling to hit 3m you are worthy of every accolade. 2 consecutive diamond albums in the US, 21 looking likely to become the biggest selling studio album ever in the UK. These are not 'most streamed song' or 'most downloaded artist' these are achievements that would have put her at the absolute top of any generation.

But that's the point - lots of people, probably most people, aren't particularly interested in music. It's not compulsory.

 

It should be! :lol:

 

re: other comments: 10 million people listen to Radio 2 and passively listen to the music on there. That's no different to people passively listening to Spotify playlists for FREE. At least Radio 2 listeners pay through the TV licence....

 

Neither should qualify towards the chart. If you aren't passionate enough to choose to play a particular track and pay towards it then why should that count towards an ever-blander, never-changing chart of superstars and tropical house midtempo inoffensive dance? When I say the Beatles would have dominated the singles chart absolutely in a streaming-60's world, they would have. That doesn't mean it would have been a good thing. The charts of the time were chock full of loads of other brilliant artists having to accept lower chart positions and they would have been squeezed out and not obtained slots on Radio or Top Of The Pops. The music scene was fast-moving and busy.

 

Just because previous generations of superstars would have been in the same position doesn't mean it would have been desirable in any way. The music scene would have been much poorer for it.

Over 68 million Spotify plays in 1 day :lol:

 

http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ed-s...reams-in-a-day/

Listening to the album for the first time today on Spotify. Very good. So many good songs on it easy to see why it's so popular.

 

That's no different to people passively listening to Spotify playlists for FREE

 

I don't know much about Spotify playlists so I have a question...who creates the big Spotify playlists and decides whether a new song (particularly one from an act that hasn't had a hit before like Martin Jensen with Solo Dance) makes it?

Edited March 6, 20178 yr by The Wise Sultan

I don't know much about Spotify playlists so I have a question...who creates the big Spotify playlists and decides whether a new song (particularly one from an act that hasn't had a hit before like Martin Jensen with Solo Dance) makes it?

 

It will be an internal Spotify decision much like radio station playlists - I'm sure record companies offer incentives to be added to playlists or to feature higher up. So many singles have become 'hits' and certified silver despite poor sales because of Spotify playlists.

It will be an internal Spotify decision much like radio station playlists - I'm sure record companies offer incentives to be added to playlists or to feature higher up.

 

Well it is good that someone who hasn't had a hit before like Martin Jensen can get a hit, when it is usually those who have had hits before like Martin Garrix, The Chainsmokers or Galantis that have had a hit before (even both Jax Jones and RAYE had features on hits prior to You Don't Know Me). Even if Solo Dance is tropical house and isn't to my taste -_- . I assume the main reason Martin Jensen has a hit is because of being included on the Spotify playlists though, rather than popularity through YouTube encouraging people to stream it?

Edited March 6, 20178 yr by The Wise Sultan

Martin Jensen is one big example of record companies pushing for certain songs to be included on big playlists, one would presume payola is occurring behind the scenes...

It should be! :lol:

 

re: other comments: 10 million people listen to Radio 2 and passively listen to the music on there. That's no different to people passively listening to Spotify playlists for FREE. At least Radio 2 listeners pay through the TV licence....

 

Neither should qualify towards the chart. If you aren't passionate enough to choose to play a particular track and pay towards it then why should that count towards an ever-blander, never-changing chart of superstars and tropical house midtempo inoffensive dance? When I say the Beatles would have dominated the singles chart absolutely in a streaming-60's world, they would have. That doesn't mean it would have been a good thing. The charts of the time were chock full of loads of other brilliant artists having to accept lower chart positions and they would have been squeezed out and not obtained slots on Radio or Top Of The Pops. The music scene was fast-moving and busy.

 

Just because previous generations of superstars would have been in the same position doesn't mean it would have been desirable in any way. The music scene would have been much poorer for it.

 

 

HALLELUJAH!!!! Very well put!!!!

Martin Jensen is one big example of record companies pushing for certain songs to be included on big playlists, one would presume payola is occurring behind the scenes...

 

I would like to see that happen with Marshmello , Ookay and Noah Cyrus - Chasing Colors as that is a relevant genre (future bass) but is much more dancey and less poppy and it would be good to see that do well.

 

I suppose the record companies pushing for songs to be on Spotify is like what was discussed on the early 00s chart hits thread, where some record companies reportedly spam phoned up The Box and other request music channels (which were big chart influencers back then) to get their songs on it!

 

 

But there is a reason why Adele and Ed are so popular:

 

People can relate to them