SA Footy

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

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

Music quality? Since when have charts been used to judge quality - it is a popularity contest driven by record companies and commercial radio stations (and now other media).

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

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" .

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.

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.

Back when 5KA and 5AD had seperate charts "Bite your Bum" by Peter Plus was number one on 5AD's chart (where Bazz and Pilko worked at the time) and it didn't even make 5KA's top 40. The truth probably lay somewhere in between.

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" .

I'm stunned at this one, LL. Do tell.

I didn't use the correct terminology in my opening post, when describing music quality being relative to chart success, wrong phrasing. Should probably have said "recognition".

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.....

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.....

Or Celine Dion for that matter?

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" .

So it was all a load of Horses then?






















....sorry!

regards,

REB

Interesting to see the 2010 ARIA Top 100 singles and albums sales list. Despite being released in 2008, Pink's "Funhouse" album is at number 34, with her Greatest Hits package the number one album after only seven weeks of release.

The cast of "Glee" had four entries in the top 40 albums. A high number of greatest hits packages, including Guns 'N' Roses (51), Michael Jackson (63), Cat Stevens (72) and Bruce Springsteen (98).

Nothing particularly remarkable about the singles list, apart from the appallingly low number of Australian acts

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertain ... 5983221947

Train wreck seems like such an understatement.

Struth ! Most of the top 100 is just pure shit....

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?

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?

I don't own any. In fact I don't own ANYTHING by ANY of the artists featured. I know that will shock you

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" .

You weren't the Music Mole in Safran's Musc Jamboree by any chance?*

*Rumour had it that it was actually Mark Holden.