Why is only one type of music charting?

[Earl Purple]

Every new entry in the chart seems to be the same style, i.e. rap / R&B / dance style.

We used to have lots of different genres of music charting and now only that and those horrible Glee covers.

[o]

I guess because most people are buying that style of music? Occasionally a song pops up that is different like Noah and the Whale, but maybe indie is just selling less these days? I dont know why though It is a shame, as the charts being eclectic was what made it interesting, you lose that, and music lovers might lose interest, but what can be done, that type of music sells the most at the end of the day.

[borneoman]

yes it's true the singles charts is the URBAN charts and that's no good. Even in the US they have more variety really cannot see why, guess that's what kids like but lately there's very little room for dance music or even pop, it's all urban...

and what's worrysome is that indie has kinda stop selling albums too... cos last year for instance indie was doing bad in singles but ok in albums, but lately not even in albums... Glasvegas arriving at #10 with 10k sales is not a good sign...

[deasy55]

I'ts because people buy what they hear. All the songs on radio/tv (eg Radio 1 and X Factor/Glee) are all the same. TV needs more shows like Jools Holland that plays all types of music.

[Mart!n]

Its a good talking point, on reflection, there is hardly any Indie albums charting at the moment, especially big names such as Coldplay have an album out later in the year, love to see how they fare. Another point Indie artists are not releasing any single material they are just depending on their albums doing better. Unfortunately I can see Indie acts not releasing hardly any single material in the near future.

[TheThorne]

Also most Indie fans prefer physical product without it they dont really want to 'own' a mp3,they are quite happy with streaming services such as Spotify,WE7 & Napster or downloads from elsewhere. You get every song you like and only pay about a £10 a month unfortunately it means the music you like gets less exposure as it doesnt count towards the charts,so it sells less albums, Supermarkets dont stock them so they chart lower and the circle continues.

Also some of the most successful recent indie albums are led by free single downloads that again dont count for the chart.

[evansabove]

As someone who likes the style of music you mention, i tend to find indie music rather depressing to listen to. given the recession and general downturn in the uk maybe there are more people like me that like to listen to something more lively and uplifting than traditional indie fare?

[TheThorne]

But its not just indie theres no soft rock, singer songwriters (exc Adele),rock,pure dance,country, metal even cheesy pop and novelty tunes.

Its like you are only allowed 1 song per year per genre like Train or Lady Antebellum.

But its not just that other genres are selling less that rap hiphop,urban etc It is that they are selling so much more. A 1000 copy 7" cant not break the top 40 anymore like it did 5 years ago now they are lucky to make top 75. Alternative genres can not compete at the moment

but you have to remember that songs hang around much much longer now ie Cage The Elephant - Shake Me Down has been in the Itunes top 100 for 10 weeks whereas as 5 years ago it would have been a 2 week stayer in the top 75,in at #30ish and gone plummet the next week.

[-Big Dan-]

Well, if Ke$ha can get to #1 then frankly I'm grateful that most of the music I like doesn't make it into the charts.

[evansabove]

Apr 11, 2011 13:47:35 GMT 1 TheThorne said:

But its not just indie theres no soft rock, singer songwriters (exc Adele),rock,pure dance,country, metal even cheesy pop and novelty tunes.

Its like you are only allowed 1 song per year per genre like Train or Lady Antebellum.

But its not just that other genres are selling less that rap hiphop,urban etc It is that they are selling so much more. A 1000 copy 7" cant not break the top 40 anymore like it did 5 years ago now they are lucky to make top 75. Alternative genres can not compete at the moment



but you have to remember that songs hang around much much longer now ie Cage The Elephant - Shake Me Down has been in the Itunes top 100 for 10 weeks whereas as 5 years ago it would have been a 2 week stayer in the top 75,in at #30ish and gone plummet the next week.

But that means in the past records used to chart in the Top 40 based on a small and enthusiastic fanbase for one week only rather than having any mainstream appeal

[TheThorne]

yeh exactly 20 years ago it was a major event if one of 'our' bands made the charts,it should be something special not run of the mill like it was at the height of indie mainstream domination with The Kooks,Hoosiers etc etc.

[TheThorne]

Apr 11, 2011 14:03:16 GMT 1 @evansabove said:

Apr 11, 2011 13:47:35 GMT 1 TheThorne said:

But its not just indie theres no soft rock, singer songwriters (exc Adele),rock,pure dance,country, metal even cheesy pop and novelty tunes.

Its like you are only allowed 1 song per year per genre like Train or Lady Antebellum.

But its not just that other genres are selling less that rap hiphop,urban etc It is that they are selling so much more. A 1000 copy 7" cant not break the top 40 anymore like it did 5 years ago now they are lucky to make top 75. Alternative genres can not compete at the moment



but you have to remember that songs hang around much much longer now ie Cage The Elephant - Shake Me Down has been in the Itunes top 100 for 10 weeks whereas as 5 years ago it would have been a 2 week stayer in the top 75,in at #30ish and gone plummet the next week.

But that means in the past records used to chart in the Top 40 based on a small and enthusiastic fanbase for one week only rather than having any mainstream appeal

Yes precisely at first but that attention in the top 40 would incraese their profile,they would sell more albums, more tours etc etc and when theyere next album came,they would have an even bigger profile, now the reverse is happening.

Oasis started with a #31 1 week wonder!!

[evansabove]

I think these things go in cycles as well. I am sure that auto-tuned r&b style songs will start to lose appeal in the long-run and then people will look to another musical style to get into. A lot of people just follow trends.

[evansabove]

Apr 11, 2011 14:08:16 GMT 1 TheThorne said:

Yes precisely at first but that attention in the top 40 would incraese their profile,they would sell more albums, more tours etc etc and when theyere next album came,they would have an even bigger profile, now the reverse is happening.

Oasis started with a #31 1 week wonder!!

Funnily enough I used to love Oasis and all the Britpop back then but I got bored of everyone sounding the same and gradually drifted onto more rhythmic based music. I do agree though that more variety is needed in the charts. I think that is why Adele has done so well as she is like a breath of fresh air musically

[vastar iner]

It's because the average age of the downloader is about eight. Mental age, if not physical.

[Earl Purple]

There have always been cycles and there has always been a dominant music type but it never felt quite as dominant as it does now, not even the reggae wave of 1993.

Since "britpop" almost any music that is by artists who write their own songs and play their instruments is almost labelled "indie" whereas I think some is fairly "alternative" in nature whilst other is far more just "pop". I did enjoy the mini-wave of the mid-2000s too.

The only Kesha song I actually really know is "My First Kiss" and that didn't get to #1. I don't normally even listen to much of what's high in the charts now.

[TheThorne]

I hear all the pop stuff through my son who is 7,irony hehe. I make him playlists of chart stuff but sneak stuff in. And although he prefers the rap stuff, he likes Vaccines,Noah & The Whale and Neon Trees. And when he hears other stuff like that he goes thats one of your songs. Parents just need to subvert their kids more hehe

[Earl Purple]

I think it works the other way though, kids want to hear what's in the chart or what's going to be in the chart, not necessarily the best music. And something being in the chart in a sense makes it worth listening when you're that age.

For example when I was a young teenager Bob Marley's songs got into the chart, so I had an interest in him. But had he been just some musician doing an alternative style called "reggae" that was not generally popular because it wasn't punk or disco, I probably would not have been that interested in listening to him either.

Only at a much older age did I start to get an interest in music outside of the chart (although I did also follow the US chart for a while, particularly as I liked bands like Styx who were far more successful in it), even then not really until nearly the end of britpop, because prior to that there was enough music in the chart to keep me interested and when I wasn't listening to top 40 hits I was listening to whole albums.

In order to succeed, the personalities behind the music must come out. Then they might win some fans too.

[Earl Purple]

evansabove: this is certainly not "depressing indie":

[raliverpool]

... Because the music industry is dying.

And "the kids" are less bothered about music since before the 1950s, as they have much greater competition for their interest and for them to spend their money on than ever before, hence music is generating less income in real terms since the early 1960s due to cheaper CDs; illegal downloads; streaming sites; iTunes creaming a sizeable cut of MP3s sold etc for Record Companies to reinvest.

It costs much more to promote a band from scratch who makes "real" music with musical instruments and write their own material, as opposed to a pretty faced "manufactured" popstars who can use increasingly cheap computer sound programmes to make music with songs written to them by four people in Sweden or three people in LA.

Lastly to quote music genius Brian Eno at a industry music seminar a couple of years ago "If Lennon & McCartney were youngsters today they'd probably become acclaimed Computer Games inventors instead of aspiring musicians. The same would apply to lower middle class university graduates like Genesis; Pink Floyd & Radiohead who would choose to enter another profession other than the music industry because their chances of getting a successful return are slimmer than they have been for the best part of four or five decades".