Nope.

People stopped giving a sh*t about the UK music charts here about 10-15 years ago. As soon as they started counting airplay, downloads, etc in it the writing was on the wall.

DaveT said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Nope. It's the same with albums. A non-pop artist could score a #1 album on the Billboard 200 and regardless of whether or not they release a single, there is no sign of said album's songs on pop radio which should be about playing whatever is "popular", not just "pop" music. I miss the days when a cut off an album didn't have to be officially released as a single yet could still receive tons of airplay and become a staple of its genre's radio stations.

Thats what happened with Redbone by Childish Gambino and Harlem Shake its still happenening. Songs can hit the charts just due to video plays on youtube these days.

Yeah both are really useless at the point because it really is a BS system, streams get you X amount and clicks get you this and sales are this etc...this is why Lumping in Cardi B having some kind of "record" comparing it to what the Beatles is fucking BS, 90% of the planet has no clue what a Cardi B is what she does, and at the time of the Beatles records and things being set most of the population knew who they were. Also going to a store and buying a record waiting on line to pay for it etc...to me is far different than clicking a button or watching a youtube video or stream sorry thats how I feel, its not about new and old times its about you cant compare one to the other

paisleypark4 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Gunsnhalen said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Nope. It's the same with albums. A non-pop artist could score a #1 album on the Billboard 200 and regardless of whether or not they release a single, there is no sign of said album's songs on pop radio which should be about playing whatever is "popular", not just "pop" music. I miss the days when a cut off an album didn't have to be officially released as a single yet could still receive tons of airplay and become a staple of its genre's radio stations.

Yeah I remember when my rock station would play non singles and they would become huge. Good examples of this are songs like isn’t she lovely bus tebie wonder or desperado by the eagles. Never released as singles but now are classics of their genres. Even the individual rock, pop, R&B stations. Have become all singles and all filler

Yeah radio is not allowed to do that now, I can think of tons of artists that were broke because a DJ happened to like a song and played it and the phones lit up. I mean STYX in 1975 these guys were about to be dropped by their label, a DJ decides he is going to play "LADY" which was from the previous because HE thought it should have been a hit, played it every day on his show till it charted and caught fire. Suddenly a song that was #92 was top 10. Rick Springfield "Jessies Girl" was not planned to even be a single, the label went with "I've Done everything for you" which was the only cover Rick did, it was a HAgar song. So someone started playing "Jessies Girl" and the phones lit up, again you cannot do that now.

It is a great list of corporate offerings and trends

paisleypark4 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Nope. It's the same with albums. A non-pop artist could score a #1 album on the Billboard 200 and regardless of whether or not they release a single, there is no sign of said album's songs on pop radio which should be about playing whatever is "popular", not just "pop" music. I miss the days when a cut off an album didn't have to be officially released as a single yet could still receive tons of airplay and become a staple of its genre's radio stations.

Thats what happened with Redbone by Childish Gambino and Harlem Shake its still happenening. Songs can hit the charts just due to video plays on youtube these days.

Good point although I had no idea 'Redbone" wasn't an official single.

It's morbidly funny how today we as listeners have more power than ever to decide what becomes a hit when you factor in YouTube views and streams yet we hear less variety than ever on the radio.

lastdecember said:

Yeah both are really useless at the point because it really is a BS system, streams get you X amount and clicks get you this and sales are this etc...this is why Lumping in Cardi B having some kind of "record" comparing it to what the Beatles is fucking BS, 90% of the planet has no clue what a Cardi B is what she does, and at the time of the Beatles records and things being set most of the population knew who they were. Also going to a store and buying a record waiting on line to pay for it etc...to me is far different than clicking a button or watching a youtube video or stream sorry thats how I feel, its not about new and old times its about you cant compare one to the other

Totally this! ... it took effort to save up your money, catch the bus in to town, and head to the record shop to purchase your music. You had to earn it, and so did the artist. All it takes these days is the movement of one finger. There's no comparison.

And there's also no accounting for the people who make a YouTube 'click' who then think "this is a load of sh*t".

DaveT said:

Sales of singles matter more now than album sales.

But chart position matters less.

For many of us, and I'd dare say many in this forum, the artists we have followed for years are NOT mainstream artists, so we don't care.

namepeace said:

Sales of singles matter more now than album sales.

But chart position matters less.

For many of us, and I'd dare say many in this forum, the artists we have followed for years are NOT mainstream artists, so we don't care.

Bingo

namepeace said:

Sales of singles matter more now than album sales.

But chart position matters less.

For many of us, and I'd dare say many in this forum, the artists we have followed for years are NOT mainstream artists, so we don't care.

Got that right.

For the most part, the average joe doesn't give a rat's behind about music anymore, period. they would rather binge-watch Netflix.

namepeace said:

MotownSubdivision said:

namepeace said:

Sales of singles matter more now than album sales.

But chart position matters less.

For many of us, and I'd dare say many in this forum, the artists we have followed for years are NOT mainstream artists, so we don't care.

Even so, the current system is a convoluted mess. [Edited 1/19/18 12:57pm]

Can't disagree there, my friend. Since Napster and iTunes hit the scene at the beginning of the century, the industry hasn't figured out a coherent model to fit the times.

namepeace said: