Posted December 25, 200618 yr this year there will be about 200 less top 75 chart hits than there were last year (i would say about 675 - 700 this year to over 900 in the whole of 2005). previous year there were loads with some years going over the 1000s!!! do you think this trend is a good one. and with the new rules coming into effect how do you think it will effect the chart in relation to new hits charting in the 75. how many new hits will there be in the whole of 07, more or less than the 680 or so this year?
December 25, 200618 yr this trend is very bad! It gives artists that have no support, especially dance songs, from failing to chart inside the top75!
December 25, 200618 yr Author this trend is very bad! It gives artists that have no support, especially dance songs, from failing to chart inside the top75! yeah it was good when you get all these independent labels with acts like Adam F, Dillinja and roni size coming in at the bottom. 26 weeks of the feeling (or other AC radio recurrents) is a bit boring in comparison
December 25, 200618 yr I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing that fewer songs chart, or that songs hang around for longer. But it was kind of inevitable. Thanks to the online music stores, people can buy songs months after the single was released. You're no longer limited to what the stores have in stock - nothing sells out. You also only have to pay 80p for that song rather than up to £5 for ex-chart items. That's a good thing.
December 26, 200618 yr yeah it was good when you get all these independent labels with acts like Adam F, Dillinja and roni size coming in at the bottom. 26 weeks of the feeling (or other AC radio recurrents) is a bit boring in comparison Well, we've had a number of big dance/tranace hits this year, that have had minimal radio support - Cascada for example, so I don't see what would be different under the new chart rules. What limited radio play *does* do for dance though, is prolong chart runs, because it doesn't front-load a track's sales.
December 26, 200618 yr Personally, I think it will make that charts much better, with less new entries, the charts will go back to their best days (mid-1960s to mid-1980s). I still shudder when thinking back to the dark days of the late-1990s/early-2000s where virtually every week there was a new entry at #1, which I felt totally devalued the charts. For example are the number one hits by Westlife 14 #1s, B*Witched 4 #1's or 5ive's 3 #1s going to be remembered longer than classics by Duran Duran only 2 #1s, The Kinks only 3 #1s or The Who's no #1s? I don't think so, because the charts were a joke in the late 1990s/early 2000s and the introduction of legal downloads has been an absolute godsend in making the charts interesting and less predictable to marketing hype.
December 26, 200618 yr Every year I compile all the new entries into a monthly graphical chart, for this year the top 40 had 387 new hits When compared to 2003-623 hits 2004-565 hits 2005-606 hits and now for this year 2006 -387
December 27, 200618 yr Author Personally, I think it will make that charts much better, with less new entries, the charts will go back to their best days (mid-1960s to mid-1980s). I still shudder when thinking back to the dark days of the late-1990s/early-2000s where virtually every week there was a new entry at #1, which I felt totally devalued the charts. For example are the number one hits by Westlife 14 #1s, B*Witched 4 #1's or 5ive's 3 #1s going to be remembered longer than classics by Duran Duran only 2 #1s, The Kinks only 3 #1s or The Who's no #1s? well in this case i suppose it depends on what records the hits are gonna play in ten years time. (and they were playing that odd madonna holiday 'video' again last night when i flixed over)
Create an account or sign in to comment