Now that `streamed` music of the web figures are to be counted in the charts then surely classics and one hit wonders which must outstrip poor sales/streams of modern crap will dominate the charts once again?..i.e are the Beatles etc and Chesney Hawkes etc once again going to dominate the charts once again or am i missing something?
Doubt it, whilst there's a trickle of coffin dodgers who might listen to old ****e like the Beatles, there's far more young hard of hearing who will spend their entire waking day listening to tincy spider, n dubs, pitbull, etc. etc. Rubbish will always prevail I'm afraid, because rubbish is played at nandos and anything to do with nandos should be worshipped and revered.
Yeah sadly i suppose your right...but surely classics are being streamed more once all the n dubz,pitbull hard of hearing fans are safely (for us) tucked up in bed at 7pm?..giving chance for the classics and drunken guilty pleasures to catch up?
You'd be surprised that the amount of adults who listen to chart music. None of my friends listen to what I call proper music. I now refused to go ti any parties .I can't stand the music played.
Under the theory that kids spend all evening in their rooms downloading music, and retired folk spend all day indoors doing the same, we could see a race to number one between elvis presley and little mix! It would make a nice change on a Sunday evening during the charts show!
Traditional chart music will remain the same because its the same people streaming as would be buying numbers wise. "Old people" still bought and listened to "old music" before, but never in enough numbers to affect a chart position. Other way to think about it is, if say 1D release a track, tens of thousands of fans will download/buy/stream it, whereas those older tunes are only accessed by a small minority partly because they're less concentrated. So there might be more older people listening (via whichever delivery system) to more older music, but it's more diluted than a newly released track from a current pop artist.
I wouldn't slag off the whole of the youth of Britain on this subject, considering the 70s & 80s saw some of the worst number 1s reach the Top of the charts. Joe Dolce- Shuddap ya face Just an example. It's hardly an new occurrence.
Thank you, good answer..just statistically i would have thought more people streaming Beatles kinda stuff than lil mix any given night but i do get it now....Jeez think how long Gangnam stlye would have been no1 if this was the format of charts when that came out!
Difference being that the 70s and 80s also saw some of the best number 1s. I don't think anything that has been near the top of the charts for the past 10 years has been any good.
There's always some good music out there, its just being drowned out by the ****e we constantly get shoved in our ears as well. The 70/80/90s will probably seem better as we're able to pick and choose which songs we actually remember, whereas we're forced to listen to this ****e without actually having to buy it. Also, theres much more marketability in musicians themselves nowadays rather than the music itself. The one direction band is much more popular with 16 year old girls than the one direction music.
Let's just remember that One Direction are appealing to the same audience that brought The Beatles success (i.e. the best music fans), teenage girls. Also, 'What Makes You Beautiful' is a better song than any The Beatles had at this stage.
You only have to look at the spotify play counts to see that the streaming of modern music dominates. For example, the top 5 Katy Perry tracks have 421 million plays between them, the top 5 Rolling Stones tracks have 93 million.
Their songs aren't often anywhere near the top of the charts. The albums might be, but that's a different story.
Gauge, **** me mate,what you on today. Firstly tell me which members of the One Direction " band" actually play instruments? and write songs. O sorry I'm off don't get me started.
