I think most of what I wanted to say has been said about the radio stations. I hate Radio 1. Don't get me started on them -_-

 

But I think the static charts is due to the dwindling sales at the top of the chart. Songs aren't being bought in hugeb ulk in their week of physical release anymore. The radio/TV play keeps songs in the public eye and you could start out [i know I have] hating a song at first but it might grow on you six months later hence you downloading it.

The average Joe Bloggs listens to commercial radio which predominantly plays well-established singles that have already proved themselves, chartwise. The only difference now, unlike many years ago, the consumer has automatic access to these 'old' tracks and therefore seem to hang around the lower end of the charts like a dead weight. This also puts a new barrier on breakthrough artists (dance music seems to have been most effected, as per bloody usual) on obtaining decent chart placings.

 

I tried to address this issue a few days ago, with my analysis of which old songs had reached the top 40/75 on downloads.

 

Outside of the Elvis re-issues, and the Xmas songs, only 6 old songs reached the top 40 on downloads, with only Phil Collins & the Proclaimers staying for any length of time.

 

IMO, having the most accurate chart ever of what people are buying *now*, is worth the downside of certain songs hanging around longer than some people would prefer.

Downloads are the work of the devil, they screwed the chart up since the Jan 2007 rule change.

 

The singles charts have been sh*t more than ever, they mean nothing to me now, and people who think they are the be all or end all of of an artists carrer are thick.

 

I agree with the idea of the chart representing what people are buying, and not what people are buying that is allowed to chart, but it's getting just stupid that all these old tracks bounce back, or 2 year old songs such as "Chasing Overplay" refusing to bud off is just not needed.

 

They should call it the tracks chart now.

 

I agree totally with this post.

 

I saw that comment on teletext...the internet has prevented the top 40 from dying out...if it wasn't for downloads, the chart would be completely meaningless

 

if there is public demand for a track and its selling 10,000 copies a week (Phil Collins for example) then why shouldn't it be in the chart...

Does the chart matter - really?

There's an entire world if not universe of songs in reach out there, old and new.

To me it just smacks of a lack of imagination just focusing on the chart music.

As for the comments earlier about should it be BBC Radio 1 who broadcast the new top 40 and also not enough time to play the chart in full coz of competitions etc. Well, I don't listen to commercial radio because I don't want to hear commercials, surely adverts eat into the time in which to play a top 40 chart.

IMO, having the most accurate chart ever of what people are buying *now*, is worth the downside of certain songs hanging around longer than some people would prefer.

I almost totally agree. But I wouldn't call songs hanging around longer a downside.

I stopped listening to the chart in the late 90's when I got fed up to the back teeth of yet another New Entry at number one and a climber was almost unheard of. Maybe people forget that when complaining, as I remember when people were saying that having a number one wasn't as prestigious any more.

I no longer like Radio 1. Such a shame as it had been part of my life for ages. That's the reason I don't listen - not lack of interest in the chart.

I gave up on R1 5 years ago.

Reason was that at that time regardless of the charts they seemed to be more or less a one genre station. That genre being US urban which personally I can't stand.

I'm not racist because I used to like US black music from the days of Motown and Soul as they were then singers. I just don't like Hip Hop (rap) as it's just talking to a beat and today's R&B is all sung on about 3 notes.

 

Gone are the days with great urban acts Toni Braxton, End Of The Road, Shai, Hi-Five and even the good stuff from back in the 60s & 70s.

 

Many singles in the Top 5 didn't get any R1 airplay except on the chart rundown. Acts like Shakira, Scooter, Nickleback and many more from good genres.

They are reluctant to play anything remotely European, or in a foreign language (take Jennifer Lopez's Que Hiciste for example - a worldwide hit except in the UK).

 

If anything it R1 that's bias and racist. They just suck up to the US record companies. Different countries have the best music at different times.

UK & US was 60s & 80s The best music for me for the 90s and 00s is from Europe. They had the best dance music in the 90s and some of the best rock & pop at present.

 

I agree with Sound-bite, the one good thing about the charts since downloads were accepted is they are again interesting as singles don't enter in their peak positions and they climb and not drop out 2 weeks later.

The charts from mid 1995 to 2006 were a real bore. A new entry at #1 every week. Singles entering at their peak positions. So predicatable and boring.

Edited January 12, 200817 yr by Euro Music

I almost totally agree. But I wouldn't call songs hanging around longer a downside.

I stopped listening to the chart in the late 90's when I got fed up to the back teeth of yet another New Entry at number one and a climber was almost unheard of. Maybe people forget that when complaining, as I remember when people were saying that having a number one wasn't as prestigious any more.

 

That is entirely my viewpoint.

 

The charts became a complete mockery prior to the advent of downloads, as Radio stations were playing tracks up to 6 weeks in advance of release, then certain Record Companies & acts would suddenly put back or put forward the release of a single to maximise their chances of grabbing the UK#1 spot. A certain Irish boyband became notorious for doing this (changing their release date for 4 or 5 of their singles :angry:).

 

Any chart that has 40+ #1 hit singles in a year is a joke IMHO. That helped massively to send the UK charts into decline as they lacked credibility. That is certainly what the UK charts became between 1998 - 2002.

 

The UK #1 hit single should be the most popular song/track representing music tastes today. You may knock the make up of the Top40, but surely no one can deny they are the most representative of current music tastes thanks to digital downloads since the mid 1980s.

Does the chart matter - really?

There's an entire world if not universe of songs in reach out there, old and new.

To me it just smacks of a lack of imagination just focusing on the chart music.

 

I fully agree with you here. But maybe if this vast amount of music got equally as much airplay they too would probably chart.

It seems - no airplay - it's bound to flop.

 

I agree totally with this post.

:D, read the article on MSN from yesterday, the guy says the same sort of things :).

Only the people that listen or buy the trash, in the first place are to blame. Radio one returned to be the top chart show in 2004, not because it was the best one..but because various radio groups, started their own shows..the Smash Hits Chart ran on Emap stations, the A list turned up elswhere, and Hit40uk launched. Airplay, is to blame for a lot, biased stations Radio One, Capital etc...ageist stations (the lot of them)..won`t play Status Quo, Cliff, or whoever! Every song in the top 200, should be on all stations playlists, then the biased c**p, that appears week after week, would not happen, at all! The chart would reflect a vast amount of age groups different tastes...there`s the problem! If Radio one`s audience fell to an all time low, something might be done!

 

 

There is a plus side. I wont listen to radio stations which try and decide who I should listen to. This means that I hear far less music. The result is that I buy far less records. I've saved an awful lot of money in the last couple of years. It's the first time since I was 8yrs old that I haven't been buying much. The minus side is that I'm sure I'm missing some good stuff. If it ever goes back to a wide range of music that I can chose from, I'll be back to having the radio on all day - as it is, I'll just accept that I may be missing something worthwhile.

 

However it's presented, I would rather have a chart buil on sales rather than radio station playing preferences.

I guess i can be blamed partly for a slow chart :lol:

 

On the last week of last year i downloaded:

 

DJ Sammy- Heaven (2002)

Houzecrushers- Touch Me (March 2007)

Alice Deejay- Better Off Alone (1999)

Darube- Sandstorm (2000)

:lol:

Edited January 12, 200817 yr by Harve

i too have stopped listening to the countdown, i get the chart rundown from buzzjack plus here there are knowledgeable people that know the facts/stats like chart runs etc, why listen to radio 1 with people that don't know what they are talking about? they are always getting their facts wrong, you just get fed up with it.

 

the chart is slow moving and its the same songs played again and again. radio1 and others should put a limit on how many times they play a song in the top40 countdown. if a song has been on the chart for say 10 weeks and is descending down the charts then they should stop playing it even if it is top40. make it a rule.

 

i think people are listening less to radio 1. if people want to hear a song, they don't want to wait to hear it on the radio with interuptions and ads they want it now and just go to youtube to maybe preview and then buy off itunes. also youtube has visuals it may have live versions of the track you like and remixes.

 

i think the only reason to listen to radio is for the djs not for the music. if you want to check on the new songs you can see the new additions on radio 1's playlist and if i haven't heard a track you can get or hear it online you don't need radio 1 to hear the track.

 

another factor why the chart is slow moving is the new ipod owners, every week more and more people are getting them and starting to download older tracks along with the new stuff thats why you have old releases like "chasing cars" & "back to black" still charting. new ipod owners want their fave tracks from the past year. you really saw the older songs boost after xmas cause so many had new ipods. i think this trend will continue it may slow down even more it seems to be going that way now when you look at the top20 on itunes not much movement. it's no longer a big deal for songs to have long chart runs.

well i hardly ever listen to radio anymore probably once or twice a month....my Itunes is more then enough

Oh yes they can if they keep these songs on their playlist, and play them on their chart show, yet do not play in ull some new entry, because it does not match the criteria of "their audience demographic".

 

Example Radio 1 still play Pigeon Detectives I Found Out which was released in November 2007, and never reached the UK Top40, yet they still play that track regularly.

 

Entirely Radio's doing, especially Radio 1.

 

...all downhill since the 'Playlist'

Think about it, the playlist means the Radio plays what they wants and stifles new talent and public choice.

 

The Top40 has become a Playlist biased chart show.

There is a plus side. I wont listen to radio stations which try and decide who I should listen to. This means that I hear far less music. The result is that I buy far less records.

 

megham, What radio stations do you listen to?

 

Without the internet, an amazing band like Foals would not have done as well, so I doubt it's destroying it at all.

 

tho i think with bands like these it not just about finding randomly a great band is the important its the traditional factor of the 'music press' saying they are great that helps and makes people go buy them (whether that music press is physical or an online on) - whether its foals, whether its the twang, whether its Menswe@r or Kula Shaker :lol:

i

i think the only reason to listen to radio is for the djs not for the music.

 

That's ironic - it is the brain-dead DJ's with their inane between-song drivel the stops me listening to anything but the chart show.

 

Even then, I time-shift it by about 15 minutes, so I can FF straight to the next song...

 

before radio1 had a playlist in the 1980s for example they still played a limited set of songs surely??

The chart and Radio 1 are two entirely removed things. The chart isn't Radio 1 and Radio 1 not the chart. People seem to be making them one thing here for some reason.

 

Everyone here seems to look at the chart from the perspective of a chart nut and seems blind to any other opinion. In the grand scheme of things what percentage of people are really going to care whether "Foundations" got to #02 #03 or #2344? Yes they make mistakes but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make the chart rubbish. It's not what's killing the chart. The chart as I said already is MORE than Radio 1 and how it's presented and I wish people would appreciate that.

 

As for playlisting, I think it's poor but not for the reason people suggest. People need to remember that the station isn't aimed at all ranges of people. It's aimed toward a young audience generally, so typically students, young professionals etc. Just because they don't playlist what YOU want to here doesn't mean that it's a $h!t playlist. Radio 1's listenership is hardly in decline now is it? I believe it's still growing is it not? So it must be doing something write and attracting an audience. As for the whole Pigeon Detectives 2 month playlist flop thing; there's more of a gauge on how things do than the chart! Yes it may have missed the top 40 but it's shown success for them in other forms. It's led to a rise in album sales and they're an IMMENSELY popular live band now with pretty much all their shoes selling out quickly. Surely shows that they are popular to their target market no?

 

The reason I believe the playlist is poor is because it's produced in a manner entirely biased and sexist as by a group of people who make up the playlist committee. They're entirely male biased, refusing for example to playlist New Young Pony Club because they're "too similar" (when all they have in common is a female frontwoman). They also playlist the same acts too much for too long. If your lead single goes to the A-List then all of them will pretty much. It's incredibly stagnant and should be changed with more variety. Less awful dance tunes which don't sell and don't appeal to anyone and less music which the playlister's personally like (The head of Radio 1 and the man in charge of the playlist is a bigggg Pigeon Detectives fan I believe...). More championing of genuinely new talent, not what others have fostered such as Kate Nash and then jumping on the bandwagon. Also more originality is required. They playlist off the back of what the music press hypes, Adele A-Listed, Duffy soon to follow and undoubtedly Foals will be A-Listed with "Cassius". I'd love to see them back someone new/fresh that hasn't got the hype, Los Campesinos! say or even Paula DeAnda in terms of RnB, something out of the cycle of monotony...

 

But as for the chart and its slow movement that isn't because of radio playlists but because we now have the general availability of music to us at all times, to download as we please. We here all love music and are always on new music as soon as it hits, most people, we need to appreciate take time finding new songs. I have friends who are musically a few months behind me. Not everyone is so passionate as we are, rather being more casual fans. Downloads work in casual fans' favors, they are able to buy the song when they hear it now, rather than learn it was out a few months back but couldn't buy it as physicals had gone and it passed them by. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest people download the same song once a week, who would do that? What difference would it make to them? Honestly, people need to look out of a chart-obsessed mindset.

 

This non-chart obsessed mindset applies to the format of the show, not everyone wants the full top 40, I agree they should play all new entries but gosh the chart is the way it is. Radio 1 aren't making it rubbish. As for the playlist just because it doesn't playlist what YOU like doesn't mean it is therefore rubbish. There is more to it then that. This site has biased music taste, very female-orientated very pop/rnb orientated, society isn't necessarily like that. Acts like Soulja Boy ARE popular, I know so many people who love that song and see why it's doing well, we need to accept it and see why Radio 1 playlisted it. It appeals to their target demographic.

 

Plus the chart isn't the be all and end all (as I know has already been said) there's amazing music which misses the top 75 all together. Don't be driven by the corporate machine because that's all that the chart symbolises...

 

And anyone who complains it's Radio 1 that's killing the chart then when it comes to the chart tomorrow don't complain about the songs being "old" "boring" "which this would go away" etc, because it's only Radio 1 that's making it rubbish no other factors :/

 

Just think people seriously...