Home / News /
The Weekly DiScussion: The Charts, or why we're obsessed with numbers
Posted: 28 Feb '07, 15:16
Every week, the kind folk of DrownedinSound.com (hi, that’s us) offer up a comprehensive overview of the latest pop charts. Hopefully you find it useful. Sometimes, though, I detect that, behind the bile, hate, sarcasm and ennui displayed by a certain M Diver, there’s not a lot of love for the top 40.
So why does DiS write about it? And equally, why is it one of the most avidly read and commented-upon articles every week? Hell if we actually know, but I suggest that, like Radiohead, we believe everything needs to be in its right place. Or, as shown by the popularity of magazines like Q, we just love lists.
As residents of a world in thrall to the twin fires of competition and hierarchy, it’s only natural to see how our favourite bands are doing; whether they’ve sold more than that band you really hate or just if someone’s stopped Mika from topping the charts. But given the top 40 and, indeed, top 75 largely only represents the ‘big’ indie bands and all matter of pop fodder, it seems completely irrelevant to our world.
So the questions are: why are we still obsessed with them, and all the other charts we look at? What’s a true judge of popularity these days?
last.fm charts seem to be viewed with great regularity and are a well-quoted source for discovering new artists, especially given the whole ‘similar tastes’ business. Hype Machine is a website that has grown exponentially over the past 12 months, but its users seem to remain static in their love of Arcade Fire, The Shins, Modest Mouse and Radiohead. Oh, and any combination of the Broken Social Scene family.
But perhaps this is relevant? Maybe in the underbelly of the music industry these are the bands that light our fire? Interestingly, though, many of the aforementioned are chart botherers in their own right (to varying degrees). Equally, take a look at the top five most listened to tunes on last.fm: they are Fall Out Boy ('...Arms Race'), Snow Patrol ('Chasing Cars'), Muse ('Starlight'), Bloc Party ('The Prayer) and The Postal Service ('Such Great Heights'; the ultimate blog band). Tracks that almost unanimously bothered the top ten in the UK. Do the charts market the records, then?
If the charts are such a massive boost to a band, then wherefore the indie charts? Currently the only place you can see them is on Radio 1’s website, whereas previously they were all over the music press and beyond.
Naturally, what qualifies as an independent release these days is mired in conjecture, and you probably don’t want to see shit dance covers of ‘80s AOR classics at the top of your precious lists, knocking Los Campesinos! off the top.
Perhaps a demographically-inclined focus chart? What that actually means, my non-bullshit marketing reading friends, is an independent record store chart: the top seven-inches being sold in Rough Trade, Puregroove, Jumbo et al. But then again, who cares about whether your favourite band is in the charts or not?
DiScuss: Do you care about the charts? Do ‘our bands’ need a chart of their own? What charts or lists do you look at?
-
I've never really paid any attention
to the top 40 since I was about 10 & started buying my own records. I don't really care what's sold the most etc, just if I like it or not. I wouldn't purposely go and seek out a band because it's number 1 or something because in this day of age, it doesn't mean it's good doesn't it?
-
Surely
If an artist you had never heard of was at number one, you'd be interested who they were, no?
-
Fair point
but then again, you might be totally apathetic to the charts. For example, my Dad has never heard of Mika and despite reading good things in the press about him and word of mouth, he doesn't care as the thought of a man with a piano singing about a person calls Grace Kelly doesn't interest him.
Mmm. I think...
-
-
-
3-4 years ago
I used to look at the charts religiously. In fact, going back to the Britpop years it was something to look forward to - seeing that one of "our bands" had made it into the mainstream alongside the Take Thats and Spice Girls of this world.
Now though it's just a pointless list that several large companies exploit for their own ends, and ultimately, pockets.
I think the charts started to lose any credibility (for me anyway) when all the Elvis re-issues kept popping out and hitting number one every week.-
Do 'our bands' need a chart of their own?
I know that the BBC do an independant chart which caters for bands (supposidly) released on independant labels. I'm not sure what the rules for it are, but it seems pretty solid
-
Yon 6 Music chart
http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/chart/chart_page.shtml
...but I pay more attention to their playlist. 'Cos, y'know, once a song's been released it's *so* several weeks ago.
-
-
I use to that
I never forget when the offspring got to number 1 and I was like, get in!
Same with Arctic Monkeys too.
-
-
i find the top 40 charts very interesting
like them or not (and believe me, i hate them week in week out), they are an accurate representation of what a certain section of society are listening to a certain week. and as music/pop culture enthusiasts (which i guess many people here are), shouldn't this interest us?
the section of society it represents is probably one far away from many of DiS's readers, but they tend to be what make up the majority of society. these are the people who listen to commercial radio/radio 1, download things from iTunes, go to mainstream clubs etc. and though you might not be part of that, why shouldnt you be interested to know what is going on?
the charts not only show what songs people like, but who is getting most airplay and who is getting most aggressively hyped and advertised, and are an interesting reflection on the state of music. if you don't care then fair play, but i personally find it quite fascinating
-
Well said.
I agree.
-
-
The other night I was arguing with a friend,
he said that any song that reaches the Number One Spot is defineatly a good song, i.e. it's quality is an inarguable fact.
-
Any song that reaches number one
is definitely a good song?
I bet you gave your mate a roasting there then!
Crazy Frog
Mr Blobby
Tony Christie
Mikato name but four recent(ish) number ones that most definitely weren't good!
-
I mentioned all the above,
but my mate's really stuborn, and wouldn't back down. We just went around in circles for ages until one of our mates came up to us and told both to shut up as we're never going to reach an agreement on music
-
-
-
the thing about the charts that bug me
...is that they have such power and sway in the minds of the media, who in turn, are the people who help create the hits. Once things like TOTP would take a risk and stick a rising band with a great song on tv Friday night and their sales would rocket them into the charts and into the nations, then the worlds conciousness.
What's slightly at odds, is that the charts are increasingly ruled by a slightly older audience on iTunes, who once would have bought a Coldpatrol, James Blurrison album who now just get the single. The act of buying something, kind of as a vote, is less and less likely to happen with things being free or albums being so much better value, meaning 'out acts' don't have the profile to move up a step, to gain more profile, to move up a step.
For me any chart is about getting a reading of what other people like, as a guide but for me sales don't really equate to quality, which is why things like this chart give me a better idea of poking my nose in the right direction http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2007.shtml
-
whoops i meant 'our acts'
-
-
Why the charts posts are so popular here
I would imagine also is to do with how detached from the usual contents of this site the charts are. It becomes relatively low risk to post how about how much you hate someone with a high chart position. You can get a sense of inclusion that perhaps you wouldn't get posting the following:
Post: I love Neutral Milk Hotel
Reply: I used to love them, but now I have grown out of them. Note how my love for them was chronologically first. Evidently, my superiority is greater. The chances are, my post has bruised you ego, but fear not, mine is now larger. Lol.There seems to be no accepted limit here on how many times you can say "I think Preston from The Ordinary Boys should be hit by a bus. To put my money where my mouth is, I am now a trainee driver at Stagecoach." without it losing it's sheen, and that culture is one of the great appeals of the website.
It's an us vs. them (over and over again) mentality where commenters fear so backlash if they attack someone generally loved, or go against the unwritten conventions of the culture that the contents of the charts (also something people probably once upon a time used as a source for new music, chronologically first) make a perfect punchbag and icebreaker.
-
spot on
-
-
to me...
charts are just a way of trying to get you to buy more pointless albums you don't want, but lots of other people have bought. i dunno, it seems people don't buy albums because they're interested in that artist anymore, they do it because they're in the charts.
i don't take any notice of the charts, if i buy an album i either put research and sample tracks by the artist beforehand or i buy it because i like that artists previous work.
-
Look at it in reverse
Okay, a lot of the time, people rightfully point out that complete and utter shite reaches No 1. This is true.
What I often wonder is whether music that no-one likes can rightfully be regarded as good music. Sure, any artist can say "Look, I'm doing this for myself, not the audience" and hope that this justifies putting out a remix of their radio alarm clock over the lyrics of "Robert De Niro's Waiting" using a bass line from a remix of Sandstorm. However, if few people like it and it doesn't chart, surely it has to be complete, self indulgent shite.
And it is.
Step forward Babyshambles...
-
Comments
- Post a new comment on this article