I was listening to Nick at night last night, and he brought up the issue that the 'Crazy frog' single was outselling the coldplay one 3 to 1. Nick was saying how he quite liked this as coldplay are boring and it was a good thing that the crazy frog was outselling it. the question is, is how much does the chart actually mean anymore? i mean who buys singles anymore? surely anyone with any common sence would buy albums, or am i just being ignorant to the world i live in? i would have thought that the only reason the crazy frog was outselling coldplay is that only small children buy singles these days and coldplays 'older' audience would rather buy and album.
Tell me what you think.

cheers. Jools

I lost interest in the Singles Chart in 1990 when Ice, Ice, Baby came in at number one, the first time a song I had never heard before had done so. What made it worse is that it was a total rip-off (call sampling what you like) of Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie. It immediately cheapened the importance of the Singles Chart.

Then all of a sudden, it was 'straight in at number one' nearly every other week, with songs that weren't only IMO rubbish, but were made with very little musical interest (ie, product selling on image) and that after one week at number one, disappeared - usually lasting 4 or 5 weeks on the chart in total - only to be replaced with something worse (and less memorable: I hardly know any number one hits this side of 1990; I could name nearly every one the other side, way back into the 1960s).

Today, it takes about 5 copies of a record to get to number one. As I said, the package of image and different mixes, now along with ringtones and websites has, in my humble opinion made the once revered 45 (or CD single if you must) irrelevant. (By this I mean the importance of the song that was printed into these little vinyl delights and what they represented.)

The singles chart used to represent the times and the fashions and obviously the buying influences of the public. The chart WAS important. No, it was absolutely vital. The Specials' Ghost Town WAS the theme tune to the summer of race riots and other social discontent in 1981. The two are synonymous! For me, FGTH coming in at number one with Two Tribes (and staying there nine whole weeks - read that you suckers!) will always be SUMMER 1984.

We had Duran Duran versus Spandau Ballet. Whilst I wish not to delve into the merits or otherwise of those groups, to me the Blur versus Oasis trade-off simply wasn't the same. (We knew that both would probably have a week each at number one anyway almost as if it keep everyone happy.)

And when I look through the Guinness Book of Hit Singles I feel hurt that due to marketing and whatever else, Elvis, who used to rub shoulders with the Beatles on 17 number ones, now ratches up around 4 more number one hits 28 years after his death (purely through marketing) and that nobodies like Westlife have had - apparently - 10 number ones and I couldn't name you any.

I grew up with one ear firmly on the Top 40. Before ringtones, websites and ipods. A batch of scratchy old 45s but more importantly, songs you can still play which take you back, not to one week, but to a whole summer of a particular year.

Written whilst Wuthering Heights plays on Radio 2 - there, I'm in the mobile at Nethergreen Middle school, March 1978!!

I'm not entirely convinced it's based on singles any more either. It's probably to do with random number generation and too much alcohol.

/cynical

Originally posted by Ousetunes
What made it worse is that it was a total rip-off (call sampling what you like) of Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie. It immediately cheapened the importance of the Singles Chart.


It's even worse now... most new dance songs in the charts are rip-offs of old classics, normally just the easy to sing-a-long chorus speeded up with a beat. And people don't even realise they are listening to a new version of an old song. People don't even have the patience to listen to a complete song anymore!:help:

Its a joke now, the low sales figures means anyone can have a number one. Its virtually meaningless.

Ps, Ousetunes, the chart was going downhill 2 or 3 years before Vanilla Ice - its the brith of the manufactured pop that lkilled the chart - plus chavs and teenage girls buying crap.

I bought 'Speed of Sound' today cos Coldplay are one of my favourite bands, and it's always nice to get a new b-side or two. :D Otherwise, I only buy singles when I can't be bothered to buy the whole album.

Oh yeah, and I hate the crazy frog with a passion. Death to ringtone adverts! I know it's useless but today, when I was at HMV, I put the single of an indie band in front of the Crazy Frog singles just cos it's so annoying. So yeah, that was my subversive act of the day. :P

I see all the points, but was it not teenage girls buying the Beatles etc all those years ago when music was “good”. Music evolves and changes all the time, my mum and dad hate the stuff I listen to and im sure I will hate my kids taste in music when/if I have them.

Ps I hate most stuff in the charts, so don’t think im sticking up for it.

The singles chart is officially dead!! it died the day boybands like 'Take That' began to rule the world.

It is now just a gimmick that excites teeny bopping girls who spend their pocket money on the sh**e that has spread into the weekly charts. To hear their favourite bands name on the radio and wet themselves screaming.

It's all internet downloading now dudes.:thumbsup:

I think my last post has been justified this weekend by checking the charts to see who the number 1 is this week!:gag:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/lestatt209/hangweb.jpg

Originally posted by Lestat
I think my last post has been justified this weekend by checking the charts to see who the number 1 is this week!:gag:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/lestatt209/hangweb.jpg i feel suicidal thanks lestat

>The Music Chart: how important is it these days?

Not very.