http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/music/feat...umentid=7185174

 

Anyone agree with this?, I agree with him totally!!.

I somewhat agree with him - especially the bit about Chasing Cars. (I downloaded that in June 2006, and can't believe there are people who are only just noticing it, easily 18 months later.)

 

PS - Radio 1 also have a role in this as well: if they had someone decent doing the chart, more people would listen to it. I know I'd start listening to it again.

Edited January 13, 200817 yr by DitzyNizzy

I somewhat agree with him - especially the bit about Chasing Cars. (I downloaded that in June 2006, and can't believe there are people who are only just noticing it, easily 18 months later.)

 

PS - Radio 1 also have a role in this as well: if they had someone decent doing the chart, more people would listen to it. I know I'd start listening to it again.

 

yeah same here!!! totally. so boring!!! yawn yawn yawn. think i might even give up copying the chart down now as im getting to the point where i just cant be bothered.

....WHO CARES if some snobs think the chart 'doesn't matter anymore'!! people have been saying that for decades, mainly because they've lost touch & getting old and bitter!!, as long as music is selling (which it always will) there will be a chart of the best selling records! get over it!! :angry:

Music artists have become more diverse, the charts aren't the main thing like it used to be. Artists have become 'celebrities' as well, doing a number of things, and when put together shows their true popularity, not solely based on where they are in the charts. An artist can sell out the 02 Arena for 17 nights, but not get in the top10 singles chart or sell masses of albums nowadays, just look at Prince and the Spice Girls. The charts don't mean the world anymore.

And this must have contributed to our nation's chart apathy – we just don't feel like we took part.

 

There was some hope, amongst the industry, that the inclusion of downloads to the chart might stir things up. And presumably the same is hoped from the new ruling that almost any novelty format may now qualify (USB stick, memory card, monkey trained to play the chorus on a banjo...)

 

Yet the only noticeable change has been that popular songs now hang around even longer, as new iPod owners stock up on tracks they surely don't ever need to hear again (how is it there are still people in the country who've only just realised they like Snow Patrol's 'Chasing Cars' enough to own it?)

 

So as music becomes just another commodity, the chart becomes no more interesting than a compilation of the nation's shopping lists: "In at number three, a welcome return for the re-released Wispa bar, while at number two, holding long and strong is Andrex. But this week's all important number one, for the 456th week, it's Baked Beans. Will anything ever shift them?"

 

This is a terrible state of affairs. By allowing our charts to become an atrophied irrelevance, we deny future generations the opportunity to define their time by a shared soundtrack.

....WHO CARES if some snobs think the chart 'doesn't matter anymore'!!

 

i dont think its about whether it is something credible or viable alternative to form of high art...think its more to do with it being so staid and boring...its like my dad and freeview...where once it might be wow - gotta record/watch Cornonation st - now theres so many episodes / not much happening / will be repeated over and over again - that its like whatever - cant be that bothered - the rot has set in -

 

the chart is becoming so boring. yawn yawn yawn - why bother looking at it every week when its gonna be almost the same in 42 weeks time - McFly's 100 best pop groups (featuring Green Day, Madness and Outkast!!!) starting to be a better idea than watching the top 40 rundown - and even in McFly's rundown the hits played Roxette's Joyride for the 92nd time this week!!!

 

i agree with the comitization of the art form - tho shopping lists of choccy bars might make better tv for bbc three now :lol:

I agree and i disagree. I think its funny how he mentioned the Spice Girls as an event to listen to, when at the time everyone was like - "Oh its so predictable"

 

I think if anything, (apart from the X Factor's winners single) the charts are becoming more unpredictable. Who would have thought that Katie Melua and Eva Cassidy would get #1 last year near chistmas? Everyone was saying how they didn't expect that coming! Who would have thought the Spice Girls would fail to get in the top 10 and Girls Aloud's "Call the Shots" being their longest top 10 since they started!

 

In my view i think it is starting to become more of a respect for the top 40. Its certainly harder to get into the top 10 now when popular songs are staying in the charts for longer. This can be good and it can be bad, but in the last 3 weeks, 2 of those weeks have had the largest selling weeks of singles so the counting of records began. This shows a healthy market, which was far on the decline a few years ago.

 

I still prefer buying a cd rather than downloading, but i think it was right putting downloads into the chart. If they hadn't then a #1 single would only need to sell 5,000 copies this time of year. I also think it was a right decision to take away the 52 week rule. The chart would be biast if a single selling enough to make the top 40 didn't make the chart on the basis that its been out over a year. If the public still want it, then the chart should reflect, no matter how its getting on my nerves that Umbrella is still in the chart!

 

Oh and for the record, i guessed that the 1000th #1 was Elvis (though i couldn't remember which one) so i did pretty well there!

What a miserable grouch that guy sounds like. If he hates the chart so much these days, he should ignore it rather than writing a stupid, tedious article no-one cares about. I reckon the new one with downloads reflects the technological age we live in, and the old records that crop up every now and then on it make in infinitely more interesting than the static countdowns of years gone by. What, does he think we should axe it altogether just because HE says they're outdated? I'm sure there's others who feel differently (like me) so why try and spoil it for everyone else? Delusions of grandeur, much? I wouldn't worry, the top 40 in here to stay, and no amount of internet grumbling from no-marks is going to change that...

....WHO CARES if some snobs think the chart 'doesn't matter anymore'!! people have been saying that for decades, mainly because they've lost touch & getting old and bitter!!, as long as music is selling (which it always will) there will be a chart of the best selling records! get over it!! :angry:

 

Sorry to be tactless, but this is complete and utter bollocks. People of my age (I'm 24) and those of an older age were listening to the charts in the 1970s and 80s purely because they were so much more reflective of tastes and the movement was unpreditable and, at times, even nail biting. Can the same thrill really be reflected over the 94th week of Umbrella being on the charts? Can someone really justify the same buzz that was found from the charts pre 1995 can still be shared in 2008?

Edited January 13, 200817 yr by ScottyEm

Oh and for the record, i guessed that the 1000th #1 was Elvis (though i couldn't remember which one) so i did pretty well there!

Me too, I remember it was around January 2005, around when Steve Brookstein was #1.

 

As for the charts not mattering. I tend to agree. People don't seem to know/care what the #1 is unless it's Christmas or there's a chart battle splashed around in the tabloids. I think this is higlighted by the fact that the highest #1 sales for an individual week was the Christmas #1 and Leona when it was Leona vs Take That in the papers.

 

I'm not sure if anyone who doesn't listen to the charts would know "Chasing Cars" and "Umbrella" were still in the top 75. I do get the point that there can't be that many people who haven't noticed songs like "Chasing Cars" or "Rehab" until now and download it.

Sorry to be tactless, but this is complete and utter bollocks. People of my age (I'm 24) and those of an older age were listening to the charts in the 1970s and 80s purely because they were so much more reflective of tastes and the movement was unpreditable and, at times, even nail biting. Can the same thrill really be reflected over the 94th week of Umbrella being on the charts? Can someone really justify the same buzz that was found from the charts pre 1995 can still be shared in 2008?

 

This just isn't true. The singles chart was reflective of what the record companies decided to release as singles and how long they were available for. Now a popular tune can continue to be bought until everyone who wants that tune has bought it. That is much more "reflective of tastes". I think the chart is more interesting now. Look at the way tunes used on TV can re-chart without the record companies choosing to re-release them as a single. The public decide to chart it by buying it - not the record company by deigning to release it.

 

Remember the chart isn't a game - it's a marketing tool for the record companies. I think people forget that on these boards. The record companies (who pay to have the chart compiled) are not concerned about how "interesting" it is. They want to know what's selling; what the public are interested in. As chart watchers we should be too. Why be interested in a popularity contest if you're not interested in what's popular?

 

But the upside is that, as many have already said, the charts aren't going to disappear so long as the record companies are prepared to pay to have them compiled. I think it's a possibility that the BBC will stop doing the chart show one day (like they did TOTP) - but that doesn't mean the chart will stop being made. It's not compiled for Radio 1; it's compiled for the record companies; Radio 1 just chose to use it - but they're not obliged to.

I agree and i disagree. I think its funny how he mentioned the Spice Girls as an event to listen to, when at the time everyone was like - "Oh its so predictable"

 

I think if anything, (apart from the X Factor's winners single) the charts are becoming more unpredictable. Who would have thought that Katie Melua and Eva Cassidy would get #1 last year near chistmas? Everyone was saying how they didn't expect that coming! Who would have thought the Spice Girls would fail to get in the top 10 and Girls Aloud's "Call the Shots" being their longest top 10 since they started!

 

In my view i think it is starting to become more of a respect for the top 40. Its certainly harder to get into the top 10 now when popular songs are staying in the charts for longer. This can be good and it can be bad, but in the last 3 weeks, 2 of those weeks have had the largest selling weeks of singles so the counting of records began. This shows a healthy market, which was far on the decline a few years ago.

 

I still prefer buying a cd rather than downloading, but i think it was right putting downloads into the chart. If they hadn't then a #1 single would only need to sell 5,000 copies this time of year. I also think it was a right decision to take away the 52 week rule. The chart would be biast if a single selling enough to make the top 40 didn't make the chart on the basis that its been out over a year. If the public still want it, then the chart should reflect, no matter how its getting on my nerves that Umbrella is still in the chart!

 

Oh and for the record, i guessed that the 1000th #1 was Elvis (though i couldn't remember which one) so i did pretty well there!

I agree with this post. The chart still does pull up some surprises. Did you think that Nickelback would get to #4, especially when it rose to a lowly #20 or whatever it was when it was physically released? Did you expect Leona to fall 3-12 this week, or for Katie & Eva to smash into #1 and then fall as quickly as they came? Most people were expecting Sugababes to be the biggest X-Factor contender for Xmas number one, but they stalled in at #13. These are just some recent examples. The charts are not predictable, they're still unpredictable and exciting at least to me.

 

Agreed with all your other points to. I also knew what the 1000th #1 was: I even knew the whole top 3 on that week, with Manic Street Preachers coming in at #2 and The Killers at #3 (and yes, that was without looking it up), but I'm just a chart buff I guess. :lol:

 

You could argue that the singles charts are becoming more prestigious now anyway, but I don't think they matter as much so in some ways I agree with the article. They're not the be all and end all of an artists career, and the albums chart and tours are far more important these days. Things have just changed, that's all.

Sorry to be tactless, but this is complete and utter bollocks. People of my age (I'm 24) and those of an older age were listening to the charts in the 1970s and 80s purely because they were so much more reflective of tastes and the movement was unpreditable and, at times, even nail biting. Can the same thrill really be reflected over the 94th week of Umbrella being on the charts? Can someone really justify the same buzz that was found from the charts pre 1995 can still be shared in 2008?

 

IMO the chart has become *less* predictable since the full inclusion of downloads.

 

When I first started following the charts in the late 70's/early 80's, records debuting low then climbing was the norm. If your favourite song wasn't top 10 first week, there was always another chance. I hated how the charts became a one-chance gamble from the mid-90's onwards.

 

Nowadays though, thanks to downloads, the interest isn't all over in 7 days. :)

 

great point. songs can earn their positions now rather than relying on front-loaded marketing campaigns for chart placings

And according to the Music Week report nearly 2 million singles were sold last week. Usually its around the 1.4 million this time of year.

 

If you look at the way the singles chart is playing each week - it looks alot like a 1970's or 80's chart - all in the space of 2 years has this turnaround happened

I will always take an interest in the charts. However I don't like a few things atm.

 

Radio - Not just Radio 1 but commercial radio as well. They only play the 'safe' artists and hype certain acts up until you're sick of hearing them and most of them are $h!t. Most people just buy what they're told to buy. If reviewers and brain dead Radio 1 DJs arserape Adele/Kate Nash/Scouting For Girls - the public just go out and buy their records in droves.

 

Media - I hate the media. They've turned the music business into a sham with their constant harrassing of popstars and giving us unlimited coverage on every celebrity from Madonna to flippin Rik Waller. It just seems the more you're in the papers the more records you sell.

Maybe I'm way off but it's as if some people buy music because the artist is a druggie or they think they're 'hot' or always in the news for everything other than the music.

And I think tbh people are quick to judge the radio and media but we should take some blame to.

We're still downloading 'Chasing Cars' 2 years down the line. We big up an artist and think they're wonderful and then dump them in a flash to move onto the next big thing we're all told to love. It looks like nowadays most artists are gonna have one huge hit that stays around the charts for eons and the rest of the album's releases will flop. :/

Edited January 14, 200817 yr by Grami

I stand corrected on this one! The chart is effectively the same week in, week out, it's just the singles will be in a slightly different order but with a small handful of new entries.

 

I completely agree the way the charts were between 95ish - 06 were just wrong and were completely manipulated by sheer hype. The charts fundamental purpose is to reflect popular music taste, which I understand it's doing, but I also think the chart is a high-profile marketing tool, and if the chart show loses out on listeners in time due to the teadiously slow speed and songs that have been so overly exposed, then what?

 

I think the OCC need to go back to the drawing board with the rules.

Its kind of off topic, but why at first everyone agrees with the first poster and as soon as someone is brave enough to speak against it everyone turns round and follows them? Not having a moan or anything ;)

I'm not sure if anyone who doesn't listen to the charts would know "Chasing Cars" and "Umbrella" were still in the top 75. I do get the point that there can't be that many people who haven't noticed songs like "Chasing Cars" or "Rehab" until now and download it.

 

I was thinking about this earlier (in a quiet part of the day). It was then that I don't expect the average music fan to know or even care whether Chasing Cars or Rehab are in the chart still.

 

(And also, I guess that, because I'm downloading songs that I remember but either never had the song on CD or have lost it, then I've only just noticed it. And this really applied when I first got my iPod, because I was downloading songs from the 80s and/or 90s - and still am, thinking of it.)

 

And also, to ScottyEm - what would you like the OCC to do with the rules? I think they're fine as they are now.

Its kind of off topic, but why at first everyone agrees with the first poster and as soon as someone is brave enough to speak against it everyone turns round and follows them? Not having a moan or anything ;)

Yeah, I've noticed that too :lol: I do believe you're the first person to ever say it though :lol: