by CK » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:51 pm
by Mr Beefy » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:21 am
CK wrote:The news that the cast of "Glee" have recently passed the Beatles for most entries on the Billboard Hot 100 singles charts, to now sit at number TWO on the ALL-TIME list of Hot 100 singles entries, triggered this thread. The cast of "Glee" have been recording for a total of one year and seven months, and, with another four charting songs, will pass Elvis Presley as the ALL-TIME leader of Hot 100 entries in American music history, with 106 individual chart entries.
Does the current system of including downloads and other digital recordings, mean that the charts are becoming virtually irrelevant when judging music quality and output? I find it staggering and frankly, rather disturbing, that a group like this will now be recognised, in offical circles, as the best chart act of all time, when compared with the likes of Elvis, James Brown (the previous number two on the list) and the Beatles. This becomes particularly relevant when considering that all but 14 of these 106 entries spent only ONE week in the chart.
Throughout much of the time of chart history, the relative price of a single - compared on a percentage of weekly wage - was a lot higher than it is now, and had far less mediums for sale, primarily being vinyl. Now, for 99 cents or so, a song can be downloaded and recognising toward calculations for charts. It can mean that, as seen in the United Kingdom in 2009, an influential group can start a campaign to manipulate the chart to a degree (with Rage Against The Machine scoring the coveted Christmas number one spot with "Killing In The Name Of", a song released originally in 1993), and can render previous chart records meaningless.
How relevant, therefore, are charts nowadays? When I was a kid, I often used to get up at 5.30am to watch the Rage Top 50 all the way through, working out what number one would be. Reaching number one (or indeed, number 50) used to be a real achievement for an act then. It seems much less now
by zipzap » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:24 am
by Leaping Lindner » Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:07 am
by dedja » Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:14 am
by Leaping Lindner » Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:23 am
dedja wrote:I agree about being dodgy for years ... you just have to know where the 'surveys' are done and let's say, do some creative buying, and magically you rocket up the charts.
Has been known to happen in booksales as well.
by CK » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:25 pm
Leaping Lindner wrote:Charts have been dodgy for years. Look at the payola scandals of the past. And, despite denials by record companys, that continued for years. I know for a FACT that Darryl Braithwaite's comeback as a solo artist in the early 90's was shall we say "overstated" .
by mickey » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:53 pm
zipzap wrote:It's no different to all the Idols rocketing to the top of the charts and crashing out just as quickly. The sales aren't there anymore - can you even buy CD singles in most stores any more? The days of Celine Dion or Bryan Adams being No.1 for 16 weeks straight are over sadly
Somewhere I read about how few records you need to sell to actually get to No.1 these days but I could only find this:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainmen ... 5940547739
by fish » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:31 pm
mickey wrote:zipzap wrote:It's no different to all the Idols rocketing to the top of the charts and crashing out just as quickly. The sales aren't there anymore - can you even buy CD singles in most stores any more? The days of Celine Dion or Bryan Adams being No.1 for 16 weeks straight are over sadly
Somewhere I read about how few records you need to sell to actually get to No.1 these days but I could only find this:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainmen ... 5940547739
And what is wrong with Bryan Adams topping the charts.....
by Rik E Boy » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:59 pm
Leaping Lindner wrote:Charts have been dodgy for years. Look at the payola scandals of the past. And, despite denials by record companys, that continued for years. I know for a FACT that Darryl Braithwaite's comeback as a solo artist in the early 90's was shall we say "overstated" .
by CK » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:19 am
by Leaping Lindner » Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:57 am
by Dirko » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:04 am
by CK » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:05 pm
by Leaping Lindner » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:30 pm
CK wrote:Agreed on both counts. I was truly amazed to read both of these lists. I'm a fan of P!nk, but for an album released over two years ago to still be in the top 50 of the year is astonishing on its own. Some of the other stuff in the album list is ordinary, to say the least.
The singles list defies description for many parts. Out of interest, for many of the regular posters here in the Music Forum - how many of those do people own?
by Barto » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:58 pm
Leaping Lindner wrote:Charts have been dodgy for years. Look at the payola scandals of the past. And, despite denials by record companys, that continued for years. I know for a FACT that Darryl Braithwaite's comeback as a solo artist in the early 90's was shall we say "overstated" .
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |