Eric_Blob

I confess. But can we appreciate that ChatGPT knows what the Buzzjack Song Contest is. Congrats to all the people who run it and take part each year! Also I like how it thinks we're all Lewis Capaldi fans lol.

In the sprawling digital landscape of pop music fandoms, BuzzJack stands out as a peculiar microcosm—part fan forum, part critical think tank, part pop culture battleground. Known for its elaborate chart discussions, Eurovision obsession, and intense debates over musical artistry, BuzzJack reveals a fascinating tension at the heart of contemporary pop discourse: a pronounced bias toward female pop stars and, in parallel, a thinly veiled dismissiveness toward certain male artists who don't fit the forum's aesthetic or emotional expectations. One of the most glaring recent examples of this bias is the forum’s treatment of Alex Warren’s heartfelt ballad, Ordinary, which was met not with thoughtful engagement, but with disinterest, mockery, and even outright disdain. To understand this phenomenon, one must first unpack BuzzJack’s identity. Founded in 2003, BuzzJack initially grew around UK Singles Chart predictions but gradually evolved into a wider community for pop culture lovers, particularly those with a taste for mainstream and electronic pop. Over time, its user base developed an archetype of the “ideal pop artist”—a figure often female, emotionally vulnerable yet visually glamorous, sexually autonomous yet polished, flamboyant yet emotionally grounded. The resulting environment is one that elevates figures like Lady Gaga, Dua Lipa, Charli XCX, Ava Max, and especially Britney Spears and Kylie Minogue to near-mythic status. There’s a pattern in the type of female artist BuzzJack prefers. She is often perceived as either camp or cathartic—an emblem of emotional release, queer empowerment, and theatricality. This “diva worship” culture is deeply rooted in LGBTQ+ pop fandoms, which dominate BuzzJack’s demographic. The aesthetic is loud, synthetic, high-stakes. Melodrama is a virtue. Sincerity is tolerated only when it’s dramatic. Subtlety, especially from a male artist, is seen as a risk—and often not a welcomed one. Enter Alex Warren and his 2023 single Ordinary. A slow-burning piano ballad about romantic insecurity, Ordinary is rooted in lyrical vulnerability and minimalistic production. The song tells a story many can relate to—the quiet dread of feeling forgettable in the eyes of someone we love. Warren’s delivery is raw, unfiltered, and unpretentious. There’s no beat drop, no synth climax, no auto-tuned belt. It’s not designed for TikTok virality, nor does it come packaged in glitter or queer-coded camp. It is, in essence, the anti-BuzzJack song. Yet what’s striking is not just that Ordinary was disliked. It’s that it was not permitted into the emotional space of the forum. It didn’t receive the luxury of being critiqued on musical terms. Instead, it was preemptively dismissed—called “bland,” “whiny,” or “basic”—without meaningful engagement. That reaction speaks volumes not just about Ordinary itself, but about the implicit expectations BuzzJack has of its music, and of the artists who make it. Part of this rejection is gendered. BuzzJack’s community, in its quest for the theatrical and extraordinary, often relegates male emotional expression to a narrow bandwidth. Male singers must either be genre-bending enigmas like Troye Sivan or The Weeknd—embraced for their sensuality, queerness, or edge—or they must possess the vocal gravitas and legacy appeal of Sam Smith or Lewis Capaldi. Otherwise, they’re seen as filler, chart clutter, or worse, straight mediocrity. Alex Warren—a straight, white, TikTok-native male artist without the camp flair or subversive edge—falls squarely into the category BuzzJack finds unworthy of serious attention. This bias isn’t necessarily conscious. Rather, it’s systemic, shaped by years of forum culture where certain sounds and personas were rewarded and others quietly pushed aside. It’s reinforced by the “New Music Friday” threads where members rush to crown their queens of the week, and by the relentless ranking and re-ranking of female discographies in sprawling rate threads. Even the annual BuzzJack Song Contest—ostensibly a meritocratic celebration of taste—tends to skew female-heavy in its winners and finalists. Songs by male artists are often treated as novelty entries or guilty pleasures rather than contenders for genuine emotional resonance. In this landscape, Ordinary feels like a sacrificial lamb. Its very title almost invites critique. Ordinary? BuzzJack does not want ordinary. BuzzJack wants era-defining. BuzzJack wants iconic. BuzzJack wants ferocity, not fragility. And yet, Ordinary offers something that few BuzzJack anthems do: intimacy. It strips away the gloss and lets discomfort take center stage. Its power lies in its restraint. But that very restraint—its refusal to shout, to sparkle, to flex—renders it invisible on a platform that equates sonic volume with emotional impact. It’s also worth exploring the influence of artist origin. Alex Warren, a figure birthed in the algorithmic chaos of TikTok, carries the stigma of being “not a real musician” in the eyes of certain music purists. BuzzJack, despite its love for pop, holds tightly to standards of authenticity—just not in the traditional rockist sense. Authenticity on BuzzJack means emotional commitment, fan-service, reinvention, and a narrative arc that feels earned. A TikTok star crossing over into music must prove themselves far more than a pop girl launching a debut single with an eye-catching cover and a thumping chorus. The forum’s reaction to Ordinary also reveals an intriguing discomfort with minimalism. In a world of maximalist production—where even ballads come drenched in cinematic strings or sweeping choruses—Warren’s choice to hold back, to linger in silence, feels alien. It defies the expected structure of BuzzJack-approved ballads, like Adele’s Someone Like You or Beyoncé’s Sandcastles, both of which explode with catharsis. Ordinary, in contrast, sits with the ache. And BuzzJack doesn’t sit still well. It scrolls. It ranks. It craves the next hit of pop adrenaline. The tragedy here is not simply that Ordinary was dismissed. It’s that BuzzJack, a forum ostensibly created to dissect and celebrate music, failed to practice its core value: listening. True listening requires one to silence personal bias, genre expectations, and aesthetic preferences long enough to let the music speak on its own terms. In the case of Ordinary, that didn’t happen. But there is a deeper irony. In its own quiet way, Ordinary is a protest song. Not a political one, but an artistic protest against the idea that music must perform for us. It doesn’t beg for a replay. It doesn’t pander to algorithms or dance floors. It simply exists, like a diary entry never meant to go viral. And perhaps, one day, BuzzJack might be ready to receive it not with an eye-roll but with curiosity. Perhaps when the glitter fades and the BPMs drop, the forum will realize that there is courage in vulnerability—and power in being, well, ordinary. Until then, Ordinary will remain a song out of sync with its cultural gatekeepers, a reminder that taste-making spaces, even democratic ones like forums, are not free from prejudice. They are mirrors of their own mythology, curators of a canon that excludes as much as it celebrates. And in that exclusion lies the most telling truth of all.

That wouldve been pretty fun having such a close race for year-end #1!

There are ways to do it. I've tested one method with about 6 months worth of the UK singles chart, which I think works very well. It definitely resembles the charts of the past with more #1s, loads more top 40 debuts each week, songs rarely lasting more than 15 weeks in the top 10, etc. It resembles public consumption patterns a bit, in the same way that the charts in the physical and download era resembled public consumption patterns to a degree even if they couldn't count every time someone who bought a song listened to it.

That's pretty surprising. I would've thought it'd be a shoe-in for top 100.

You guys think our charts are bad, Heat Waves was #1 in March/April in 2021 AND 2022 in Australia. Absolutely unbelievable.

I know it's a bit of a tangent, but I can think of a gazillion songs about rain (or using rain as a metaphor, etc), but comparatively a lot less about other weather conditions. I don't know why that is, maybe it's a psychological thing, or maybe because so much of our pop music is from artists living in the UK.

I just find the concept of Sabrina Carpenter having stans hilarious. Even though I disagreed with how nasty Beyoncé (and Lady Gaga, etc.) fans were back in the day, I could at least understand it. But Sabrina Carpenter, she flopped endlessly for years, and now she suddenly has a load of fans who are going to extreme lengths to abuse her competition? I went on the Twitter link someone posted a couple of pages ago and after a few clicks I came across a Sabrina fan who tried to accuse Alex Warren of being a rapist (which was debunked in the replies). That's just the absolute low, and for a pop star who would have been mocked as a flop a few years ago probably by the same person...

I feel like Country does better than rap in the charts, at least the past couple of years. Even some of the pop hits recently like Please Please Please sound like Country songs with extra synths.

That's bizarre and doesn't make any sense. Do you have any idea what causes that? Even if it was a seasonal/weather thing it would happen more gradually, and at slightly different times in different countries and in different years.

How exactly are they ranking the many, many songs which are tied in spins on the TV airplay chart?

We should all move to a tiny country like Malta or something, then we might be able to influence the streaming charts. Honestly, a streaming service could allow for people to make groups and then have charts for just those groups. I'm surprised I hasn't been done already. It might be good for subcultures or people into obscure genres (or Buzzjack members) and things like that.

I'm gutted. I was going to make that joke then I scrolled down and saw your post. :lol:

I've heard a few people complain about Sabrina Carpenter too. She has Scientologist relatives which guarantees her family have huge connections in the entertainment business that I'm sure they made use of.

Not consecutive but I was wondering how long Azizam and The A Team would have identical chart runs lol.

To be fair Love Story and You Belong With Me were notorious in the US at the time for having insane longevity. It was over 15 years ago though, loads has changed since then.

I think Keri Hilson - Turn My Swag On would've probably done quite well but wasn't available for download iirc.

To be completely honest, I can see why Ordinary is doing so well. I was talking with my friends about pop music and they were saying they don't make songs like they used to and how they don't know what's in the charts anymore now there's no Top of The Pops. So I played Ordinary on the Jukebox and everybody stood up and clapped. It really resonates with people. I think it will be year-end #1.

How do you know this isn't her peak though? There are a plethora of artists who peak with their breakthrough era that makes them household names and then decline after that, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, 50 Cent, Lady Gaga, Alanis Morisette, Olivia Rodrigo, Duffy, James Blunt, Ke$ha, etc. I think Dido is another example, maybe. Arguably only a very slight decline on her 2nd album but it didn't follow the logic of "my breakthrough era made me a huge star so my next one will be bigger". I'm not sure if last year was Chappell's 1st album (and i think technically it wasnt Alanis Morisette's 1st album, etc), but she broke through in the mainstream and became a household name and it's functionally hardly any different to what happened with these other artists, and why I specifically chose "breakthrough era" instead of "1st album" in the previous paragraph.

They seem to hardly ever truly snub any hit song, hits that aren't on the playlist usually seem to still manage 1 or 2 (non-chart show) spins a week at their peaks. Whether they are played in special genre shows, listener requests, a particular DJ wants to play the song, etc. Padam Padam was getting played every week on one of their dance shows before it was on the playlist, for example.

I'm gutted Give It 2 U isn't there. 2 Chainz, Robin Thicke, Dr. Luke and will.i.am made magic with that song.

I think there were two different things. There used to be a trend of putting music videos or live performances as adverts on YouTube, and those used to count to the Hot 100, which led to Soko, Lady Gaga getting some strange top 10 hits and some others lower down too. I think they stopped that mid-10s. I believe fan-made videos counted until shortly after Old Town Road was a hit. I think Kendricks Superbowl performance would still be able to count even today if it's uploaded to his own channel as it would essentially just be a "Live version", which normally are combined. If it's uploaded on a Superbowl channel I think it won't count. Not 100% sure though.

Do you know for sure it's being done manually? I don't know how happy I am with humans being able to edit Spotify streaming figures manually. Maybe it needs to be done to remove fraud, and computers doing it has its own flaws and exploits as we have all witnessed countless times, like with the suspicious behaviour of the song in question, but humans have flaws too. If one of the Spotify staff members hates manufactured pop music, for example, how can we trust they won't be biased, or even worse, just adjust their streams more to their liking? It's sad to say, but I think I'd rather a computer just count streams and a human not tamper with the numbers tbh. Sure, humans can program it to try and get the computer to ignore things like obvious spamming of a song 24/7 and things like that. But a human Spotify staff member just being able to add/subtract millions of streams to a song's figures, it doesn't sit well with me. Computers don't have emotions, beliefs, likes, dislikes, etc, so they are less biased and count the numbers.

2014 is my favorite from the list but I think that's just because of my age. I thought the pop music in 2016 was great (if you ignore all the Lean On clones), but I agree the charts were super boring to follow.

I'm honestly sure it came back in the mid/late 00's after downloads started counting for the chart. For context I found some website years ago that had PDFs of the year-end top 200 (250 for some years) and they looked like it was officially from the OCC. From the late 90s onwards. My old laptop I downloaded the PDFs on is destroyed but I used to read those charts occasionally so I have vague memories of them. So my vague memories could obviously be wrong, but I think it had a 3rd year in the top 200/250 later on. Sorry to be a pain lol. It would be cool if it makes it this year, its such a classic. And I really wish the OCC would publish longer year-end charts to the public. I understand their reasoning that they want it to be the same size as the weekly charts, but also, who really cares? A year is a pretty long time. I'd like them to go back to top 200 for year-end, if not more.