superbossanova

I'm pretty sure all of those could scrape the bottom of the Hot 100 at least with a huge promo push. Obviously some of them would probably struggle to get too high though, but I don't think the bottom reaches are as elitist as you seem to think. Surely the success of Yolanda Be Cool and Mumford & Sons disproves that. And don't forget Kylie has had several Hot 100 "hits", with the last one being as recent as early 2004 (Slow)... so your theory that GOMW would flop just because it's Kylie is blatant bull$h!t. And Love At First Sight and Can't Get You Out Of My Head were top 30 hits there (with the latter being top 10!)

Doubt it - back when the chart started in the 1950s the music industry in general was quite male-dominated (and even through the 60s and 70s this was still somewhat the case), so I'm sure there's been more than an all-male top 10 before. Don't have any specific instances in mind though, just that I'd be surprised if it didn't happen! Maybe a "modern" record, though... although remember there are still females there on #6, #7, #8 and #9 :P

I would say it should be split like so: Blues and Jazz Folk (includes folk rock, indie folk, neofolk) Dance (includes trance, house, techno, eurodance, rave) UK-based dance & urban (includes grime, drum and bass, dubstep, UK garage) Pop music (includes electropop, dance-pop, country-specific pop, J-pop, disco, teen pop) Adult pop (includes country pop, soft rock, MoR, pop/rock) Electronic music (includes synthpop, new wave, trip hop, downtempo, ambient) Latin-influenced music (includes latin pop, samba, salsa, mambo, tango) Caribbean-influenced music (includes ska, dancehall, reggae) Alternative & indie (includes alternative rock, britpop, shoegaze, indie rock, lo-fi, neo-psychadelica) Rock (includes grunge, punk, hard rock, gothic rock, prog-rock, garage-rock) Metal (includes heavy metal, nu metal, rap metal, symphonic metal, death metal, thrash metal) R&B and Urban (includes rhythm & blues, soul, funk) Hip hop (includes West Coast, East Coast, alternative hip hop, country-specific varities, gangsta rap) Art music (includes classical, opera) I can't think of any more that is really needed, unless I forgot something important :unsure:

Looks like guessing to me - surely if you only needed a few copies a day to get top 100 on iTunes like this site claims, you'd see some way more random entries lower down there for no reason at all?

Perhaps instead of grouping by genres we can group by destination? For example, reggae, ska and dancehall all developed in the Caribbean, so we can call that category "Caribbean-influenced music" Then other genres developed in more latin countries such as salsa, latin pop, samba :lol: so we can have another category of "Latin-influenced music" Then dance can be split up with trance, techno, house, eurodance etc under the "dance" umbrella, with drum & bass, UK garage, grime, dubstep under their own umbrella as they all basically moved into each other and all originated in the United Kingdom. And then obviously you have the other genres like metal, alternative/indie, pop, R&B, hip hop which don't really need grouping, and are more universal.

I don't think anybody knows weekly sales for Sweden, but Gold is 10,000 while Platinum is 20,000 for singles as I said, so based on that I'd be surprised if they got much over five figure weekly sales, and even that's probably rare, so all in all the ratio is probably fairly similar to that of the UK's. For albums it's 20,000 for Gold and 40,000 for Platinum, according to this: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Certif...CTOBER%2007.pdf

Really good? Try incredible. Platinum certification in Sweden is only 20,000, so to sell more than that in one week must be basically unheard of... :lol:

Indeed, but it's easier to just collaborate with people from your label then get into complicated politics with others, so it's understandable :lol: I wouldn't mind so much if I actually enjoyed that group of rappers/singers, but frankly they tend to bore me regardless.

Well, the main reason is that rappers tend not to be able to sing, so they need someone to sing the hook. This acts as a way to give the song more mainstream appeal, helps it to get played on the radio, or simply helps to break the song up. Another big reason is that, frankly, listening to the same person rap throughout the whole song or album would get a little boring for some people, so bringing in another rapper with a different style helps to keep things interesting. This mostly refers to stuff that doesn't have the hook sung, as that naturally breaks it up, anyway. So yeah, the main reason is simply to break things up musically. That isn't necessarily needed in pop music because the verses are always subordinate to the chorus, which sells the song, so it doesn't really matter if the same person sings everything. Although some pop and R&B acts have taken to adding rappers into their songs nowadays to add a bit of variety and try to attract a different audience, but a lot of pop fans don't seem to appreciate that, in my experience. And certain rappers move in similar circles, so are good friends, or maybe label mates, or come from the same local music scene. This is why there are certain rap collaborations that seem to happen often, like Dr. Dre and Eminem often collaborate because he was Eminem's mentor, and actually signed him to his label back in the day. And the Young Money crew collaborate with each other because they're label mates, and by the same extension, friends. It's simply fun for them to contribute a verse on their friend's track, and gets them a little bit of money, too. Plus, it obviously helps to open them up to different people, as someone who isn't necessarily a fan or knows of x rapper might listen to the song if their favourite rapper z is on it, whereas they may have ignored or missed it otherwise. Coming on to a similar point, it also helps to break through new acts, as those who don't know that particular rapper on the track may become a fan of his/her style, and thus they've gained a new audience. This is why someone like Nicki Minaj featured on SO many songs before she even released her debut album. Not just rappers either - some singers broke in like that, on rap songs or otherwise. Then there's also the fact that it's simply easier for rappers to collaborate, as their only instrument is their voice. So they can just go in, put their verse down, and that's it. Compared to, say, two bands who would have to worry about instruments, lead vocals and all, and frankly it gets a little messy. And even two singers have to split the song up, and then you have the idea of how much their voices go together, whether one of them outsings the other (which is never a good idea), and little stuff like that. Most bands don't need to collaborate because they already have everything they need in their own set up. In rap music none of that is an issue, and they have to find certain people to do certain things that they're unable to do.

Really? You mean proper ambient or just stuff that dabbles in it but can be better fitted somewhere else? :P I forgot to target easy listening on my previous post, too - another largely irrelevant genre these days. Most stuff that might get tagged as that now is merely more jazzy or bluesy stuff like Norah Jones, so it doesn't need to be a category at all really.

Is there really any point in putting some of the genres listed here on a CHART forum? Stuff like ambient, classical, country has no footing in the charts at all in this country, so I'd find it hard to believe there are any fans of it here. Maybe very very casual fans of it, at best. Anyway, this is a very ambitious idea, especially since so many genres have taken influences from a variety of different ones, so you're never going to be able to group them perfectly without anyone raising any objections. For example, grime somewhat evolved from garage, which evolved from house music, but then it also takes influences from hip hop. So where would you put it? Is it really notable enough to have its own category?

Cascada!!! :puke2: Poor Nizlopi, by the way. Y'all are heartless :lol:

I would guess the number started rising in the mid-1990s as hip hop became more and more mainstream with Puff Daddy, The Notorious B.I.G., 2Pac, Warren G, Coolio etc. And then more R&B artists like Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, Brandy etc. were also regularly using featured artists/rappers on their singles by that point (and even some pop acts like Texas were already getting on board!) And then of course dance acts like Sash!, N-Trance etc. were also using lots of featured vocalists but that had been going on before the mid-90s anyway, so nothing really changed there. But it's definitely reached a new high in the last few years. I would imagine there was another hike around 2003 when hip hop/urban became more and more prevalent in the upper reaches of the charts, too. And then going back even further there was probably a rise in the late 1980s/early 1990s when dance as we know it became more mainstream, plus hip hop was starting to infiltrate into the charts too in very small quantities. By the way, this is just purely guessing on my part, of course, based on my knowledge of standard UK chart history, though I might work on some stats to back it up if I can be arsed and see if that's accurate :lol:

Well that's pretty common for dance tracks :P Sharon Woolf sung everything on Shanks & Bigfoot - Sweet Like Chocolate, for example, but wasn't credited. It was the same for their follow-up Sing-A-Long, except this time Terri Walker remained uncredited. But yeah, some dance songs do credit the featured vocalist and others don't. I'm not sure really why - maybe they didn't want to be credited? I know that Justin Timberlake/his label didn't want to be credited on Where Is The Love (Black Eyed Peas) for example, so clearly they have some choice. Although it's understandable in JT's case, but why would an up-and-coming/unestablished artist not want to be credited? Who knows. And I'm getting tired of saying the word "credited" quite frankly. I'm just going to blame record labels and their silly money-grabbing politics and be done with this shizz.

That's because Heart picked up on it a few weeks after it hit #1, plus didn't they do a few TV appearances to hold it up on a couple of weeks? Chipmunk won't get support from Heart (obviously), but he might get bummed to death over the next few weeks on Capital instead :lol:

I sorta disagree. Sometimes it's REALLY obvious when a song will be a non-#1. Green Light and Beautiful Monster were very obvious as soon as they hit #1 on iTunes, and low and behold both turned out to be correct. Plus, Chipmunk has previous for non-#1s, as Oopsy Daisy also dropped pretty quickly. This one is *slightly* less throaway but I still don't see it attracting a hoard of casual fans to his music.

+7 Ellie Goulding - Your Song +5 Willow - Whip My Hair +3 Olly Murs - Thinking Of Me +2 Enrique Iglesias - Tonight (I'm Lovin' You) +1 Rihanna - S&M -1 Wretch 32 feat. L - Traktor

+5 Adele · 'Rolling In The Deep' +4 Chase & Status ft. Liam Bailey · 'Blind Faith' +3 Ke$ha · 'We R Who We R' +2 Jessie J ft. B.o.B · 'Price Tag' +1 Diddy - Dirty Money ft. Skylar Grey · 'Coming Home' -1 Taio Cruz ft. Kylie Minogue/Travie McCloy · 'Higher' -2 Bruno Mars · 'Grenade' -3 Jessie J · 'Do It Like A Dude' -4 Chris Brown · 'Yeah 3x' -5 Enrique Iglesias ft. Ludacris & DJ Frank E · 'Tonight (I'm F***in' You)' Pretty appalling.

Is this an admission that you have bad taste in music? :ph34r: But seriously, what's the point in that?!

:lol: There's no need to apologise! It's just the second time I've had a reply like that to one of my comments in, like, the last couple of days, so I'm kind of getting a tad annoyed about it understandably. Contrary to this belief I don't change my opinions based on the songs, singer or anything else. And yeah, that's the plus side, but I'd rather see Price Tag at #1 still (and I don't even like the song!)... you just know it'll still be top 5 while Champion is heading out of the top 20. I just like to see songs having good runs at #1 these days, as like I said I don't have the same emotional connection to the charts like I used to (which I'm quite happy about, really).

No, I wouldn't, and I wish people would stop saying crap like this. And quite frankly I haven't been happy a song got to #1 since about 2004. I grew out of that kind of thing, even for songs I like.

I'll go with this, too, as I really can't be bothered to be the only person to vote Unfaithful for the next 30 rounds. Surprised people don't remember Nizlopi. It was a massive hit at the time and it's not the type of song you forget easily due to its unique subject for a chart hit.

*yawn* Champion is only going to number one because it was released under the traditional build-up method rather than an early release. Hopefully this is the last instance of this crap happening as it's been ruining the charts for TOO long now.

He said last week on Twitter it was going to be out "in a week" - but it's Saturday and it's still not here :( I'm annoyed really, this could have been a massive smash. Now it'll be lucky to go top 40... ehh.

To be honest, I've never listened to a Maroon 5 album in my life and don't intend to, I was just judging by the singles which don't exactly show much progression at all. You're right they did change their style a little bit in It Won't Be Soon Before Long's era (and still maintained success as a result), but Misery sounded like a worse version of their 2004 songs to me, which is probably why it flopped I would guess.