|
|
Posted: Nov 5th, 2009 at 08:53 pm
|
|
|
If you go to the website billboard.com on the Hot 100, you will find Taylor Swift has 8 entries in the top forty including a new enrtry ,first week, at number 10. In fact three songs debuted in the topp 10 this week including the number one entry. This is not due to playo or billboard's generosity. it happens because downloads count towards chart points. A song doesn't even have to be officially released to chart. It can get on by downloads by itself. In fact, i think the whole slate of songs from the glee TV soundtrack Lp(longplayer) has had its songs on the hot 100 in the last four weeks.
I think the Hot 100 should be dropped and just have radio airplay and downloads and singles chart sales. I don't even believe music means as much to people anymore. Songs are just a commidity or feels like it. i agree that people should buy the songs they like only but it does mess up the means of songs reaching the public.
On a side note, maybe the grammies should change the record of the year category to the track of the year. That would open up a whole mess of worms wouldn't. I'm not even sure songs are being released asrecords like in the past. maybe i'm wrong.
What do you guys think/
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
|
|
|
|
It is really unfortunate that the concept of an album has been lost. With ipods and buying single songs on line, people are just fixated with individual tracks, whereas an album was something that was more holistic. Artists used to spend a fair bit of time even considering the order of the songs so that there would be some sort of flow to the album. Alas, that seems to be gone, for the most part. There are exceptions, such as Radiohead, but over-all, it has really become a singles market.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
|
|
|
|
I see it entirely differently than you guys. I understand your POV though. Well, some of it. I think the differences come in the paradigms we're using...the way we define the mediums and distribution.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 7th, 2009 at 09:59 pm
|
|
|
Mark, I hope you expand on your message, because I don't understand it.
To me, an album was a work of art, and now we're just taking pieces of it. Pinball Wizard by itself would be a fairly successful hit single, but in the context of Tommy, it is so much more powerful.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
|
|
|
Yeh I understand that. Listening to music in a literary manner. Like the songs are chapters.
Hm. I think as technologies come and go the way people use music has changed a lot. With today's technologies, individuals create their own albums...or mix file collections. In some ways I think it's a lot better that way. The consumer doesn't have to waste money or time to get the one or two songs and get stuck with filler stuff or just because some record company has a contract for X amount of material to publish by a certain date. And most artists have no say over what goes on the collections that the publishers release any way. It's got to the point now where artists tell their fans NOT to buy something that companies put out. That's its not "artist approved" for publication.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
|
|
|
I understand your logic, Mark, and can't deny it, just personally, the album thing is what I grew up with, and because of the album, I discovered fantastic songs that I wouldn't have otherwise heard. In many cases, my favorite songs by my favorite artists aren't the hits, but the "deep album cuts".
Ya, it's great that we can put together our own anthologies, (that's not new, we had cassette recorders where we did the same thing, and put together a collection of our 45s) but we will never know what we're missing out on if we only stick to the charts.
« Last Edited by
Chevrier
Nov 8th, 2009 at 10:29 pm »
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 9th, 2009 at 09:52 am
|
|
|
I like being able to download songs I like no matter how obscure or what country and being able to hear them before I buy them. That wasn't possible before the internet and digital devices. I think the internet has blown away the restrictions and limitations of control and given back to consumers and the artists. I've smiled when i look at album sales on Billboard's charts. Albums reach #1 with just over a thousand copies moving in a week. One week, sales of my "Tinglegroove" album would have been in the Top 20 on Billboard. I've had over a thousand downloads in one day of some of my tracks. And what about Youtube and other streaming plays? Billboard doesn't acknowledge those as public performances, but they include corporate owned radio stations like Disney and Clear Channel who have a monopoly in the US market. Why wouldnt the Disney and Dreamworks artists have dozens of songs in their charts? So I don't consider any of the charts as authoratative of what consumers are really listening to.
I don't see why if a track has been downloaded, no matter to what device...why it shouldn't be counted. A sale is a sale. A public performance is a public performance. Unfortunately, Billboard doesn't include music unless it's distributed by one of the Big 7 and retail sources. But, that's not what Billboard's out to do. They're not a polling publication of facts, Billboard is a promotional tool for the labels.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 9th, 2009 at 03:20 pm
|
|
|
Agsin, there are pros and cons to this argument. I never would have downloaded Paul Simon's "Tenderness" because initially I didn't like the song, but it sure grew on me over the years, and now is one of my favorite songs. Great music, like great literature, requires work on the part of the participant. We seem to live in an instant gratification society.
As for your Billboard arguments, you are right on. It is, and always has been, a promotional tool for the majors.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 9th, 2009 at 04:55 pm
|
|
|
Yeh, both have their advantages and disadvantages. I guess since you already had it, you wouldnt have any reason to go looking for it in the first place. Where as today, with a few taps in a search engine, you can pull up any song, and hear it.
I don't know if the great music requires work idea is relevant for me. Hm. I can think of instances where it is and where it isn't.
I do remember though, losing interest in groups who refused to do anything beyond their reputation...or who stuck with a format way past its usefulness...like the concept album for concept album sake...Styx comes to mind...and ELO...or when labels force people into a genre ...like when Chicago became David Foster's personal reach-around group or when Genesis started sounding like Phil Collins solo stuff in the '80s. On the other hand, I bought so many albums that i listened to for a week or two and never listened to again because the album was nothing like the lead off single.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Nov 9th, 2009 at 07:51 pm
|
|
|
Kind of reminds me of Ram Jam. Black Betty was awesome, but I can't name you one other song off the album, even though I have it.
I like all of your examples of bands that you use to prove generic mediocrity. I lost interest in these bands shortly after their first couple of albums.
While i follow your argument and agree with most of what you are saying, my point is if I never would have bought Paul Simon's album, I never would have probably even heard Tenderness, never mind shutting it off after 30 seconds of sampling, but now it is one of my favorite songs.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
�2000-2008 Mark Chadbourne Online. All Rights Reserved. No parts of this website may be reproduced or redistributed without expressed written consent.
Billboard.com this week: a Billboard thought - (Read 45 Times)
