Things ain't what they used to be...

[fleetfootmike]

When I was a teenager, singles went into the charts, up the charts, then down them again over a matter of a couple of months or more, a new release was actually 'new' when it came out, and to go straight in at number one was a major achievement.

These days, to take an example, Lucie Silvas' (an artist I can highly recommend, BTW) new single (and title track off her album) "Breathe In" was released on Jan 17th. It hit the charts at number 6, and has dropped every week since. There is exactly ONE climber in the charts this week (Elvis' "One Night") and the top THREE are all new entries. And this is not uncommon.

But... Lucie's single, like all the others, pretty much, has been getting heavy radio and video play since mid-December - that's a whole month of promotion: her first and only appearance on Top Of The Pops (UK TV national 'chart' show) was TEN DAYS before it was actually available in the shops. And she was one of only two artists that week of whom I would be prepared to swear to the fact that she and her backing vocalist were singing live, even if her backing musicians were miming. The other? the winner of X-Factor, Yet Another Talent Show with a record deal at the end of it. Guess what? He went straight in at, you guessed it, number 1.

The demographic, and the sales targets, for the singles charts have changed massively. The sales you need to get a number 1 are pathetically small, and most singles are bought by kids under 16.

And the album chart's not much better, although there is some interesting behaviour to note. Four of the top ten are new entries, the remaining six are (unsurprisingly) falling. Lucie's album's still at number 11, which is an achievement given it was released in October: the overlap between the album and singles charts is around about 30% tops, which seems to be very low compared to what I remember.

Scary, isn't it.

Comments

[stevieannie.livejournal.com]

The whole format of the music industry is changing, despite it's attempts to stay the same. No. 1 means pretty much nothing these days - I remember crowding around a smuggled radio during afternoon registration at school (when the charts were announced at 2pm on Wednesdays), wild with excitement. It doesn't mean the same these days. However, the independent record industry is *booming* - indy used to be way out, hippy music, but now it is a sensible way to get your music out there. Success and failure is now marked by how you perform as a live act on the circuit, and I personally find that reassuring. There is no longer one measure of success (ie. the charts), but we have a really strong live circuit and habit of going to see *minor* interest bands and performers, which I think is really healthy.

BTW: I heard the Pop Idol winner on the radio. He sounds just like Minstrel! Only without the original material! What a swizz! Give us the real Minstrel! He's much better!

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

Success and failure is now marked by how you perform as a live act on the circuit.

I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. Success and failure in whose eyes? Certainly not the mass media and the average teenager, *most* of whom think the pinnacle of musical achievement is Britney Spears, Girls Aloud and whatever current NameOfDJ feat. NameOfFemaleSinger is getting the most airplay and gossip column inches this week. And most pub gigs are cover bands, and a sizeable percentage of the smaller prestige venues (I'm talking places like the Half Moon in Putney, the Standard, etc) are ddicating lots of time to tribute bands (not complaining from a personal point of view here, mind :)

There were a LOT of teenagers at our first gig who'd probably never seen a band with a real rhythm section before.

[stevieannie.livejournal.com]

True, but I don't think the teenagers pay that much attention any more either, hence the plummeting sales figures needed for a platinum album these days.

Certainly around here, we have a small indy circuit which puts on new original bands, and they can build a following. You don't want to be looking at the pub-sized venues, but the arts centres and so forth - the people who book on grounds of popularity, not vanity booking.

It isn't a one way ticket to stardom anymore, but that means that there is more money spread over a larger group of people.

At the end of the day, it is much easier to put out your music these days than it used to be 20 years back. Of course, a meteoric rise to success is not guaranteed, but there are very few people to whom that ever applied.

When my brother was going to live gigs, 10/15 years before me, he was almost certainly going to go to a huge arena to see someone like Dire Straits, or FM etc. etc. But now, I am more likely to go to an arts centre gig, or just say, "I wonder what is on in town tonight?". A good 25% of my CD collection is probably independent labels, and I think that's healthy.

The glass is half full, too ;-)

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about "scary", but it does mean the weekly chart is now useless as a measure of relative popularity of songs. A more useful measure would be a monthly chart, or better still a rolling weekly chart of "out of all the records that completed 4 weeks on sale this week, how many did each record sell in it's first 28 days?" That would give the slower boilers a chance to register in amongst all the massively pre-hyped stuff that everyone has pre-ordered, or rushes out to grab on day one.

Or you can just wait and see what the annual chart looks like.

Or you could just note care - like me. =:o}

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Are Net sales included in charts? Or are we measuring how many physical objects change hands? Even when I was in high school (say, 1976) the singles charts were largely for the 16-and-down crowd, and becoming more so. Online sales should move the singles charts back toward adult control -- if they're counted.

And if the charts aren't being jobbed. IIRC, the charts were routinely manipulated pretty much since their inception; along with payola, we have two wonderful examples of what sterling citizens the labels were, and why we should listen to everything they say about honesty. :-)

I'm sure I needn't mention the effects of market expansion and fragmentation, as well. So I won't. But they matter, in this context, too.

Finally, I'd regret the lack of usefulness of the charts as a means of finding good music to listen to, if there weren't several very good alternate methods now available (e.g., alt/indy/college/net radio, and good music blogs).

[wolfette]

Is it a sign that I've become "middle aged" when I say I don't pay any attention to the charts anymore? I do still watch "Top of the Pops", when it's on and I'm in and there's nothing I'd rather be watching elsewhere, but more than half of it seems to be covers these days.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the charts have ever meant very much in real terms, to a large extent they have always been self-fulfilling (record sells enough to get into the charts, DJs only played records going up in the charts so record gets played and sells more until it starts to fall, etc.). I have never 'followed' the charts, and haven't even seen one for many many years, but from your observations it seems to me that the charts are just as unrepresentative as they ever were, just work in a different way (things enter at the top and go down, mostly). This may make them less useful to the extent they ever were useful, I've always preferred listening to music recommebnded by friends anyway, it's more likely to be something I'll enjoy...

Yes .. and no

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

we both know someone that used to promote records (and do deals with the other labels about who was going to be in the charts/number 1 on certain weeks) though I'm not going to name him here (you can talk to him in a couple of weeks time!)

A *lot* of records that were sold (and it's probably still true) are sold by Woolworths, Tescos etc. where basically all they have is the top 30/40/100. So if a record isn't already in the top 40, you can't actually buy it there. So getting a record into those shops is like getting your paperback into W.H.Smith, a sure way of selling a lot more copies.

Of course a lot of albums used to get copied onto cassette (I have boxes and boxes of them!) and nowadays it's MP3s and CD-Rs, and so no way of telling what is *actually* popular.

The modern charts do include a download element to them (and there are "download only" charts around as well) but that is still more an indication of good marketing than of a good record, unless the artist can sustain those sales over many weeks and over several releases.

[rickbooth.livejournal.com]

The singles charts have been about what children were buying since I was a child myself, so trying to draw any conclusions from them is a little dubious - of course children are going to have immature and transitory tastes, they're children!

As to other areas, rock (in the sense Q uses the word, rather than the sense I usually would) is very much in vogue - lots of teenagers and young adults are listening to guitar-bass-drum based music with melodies and riffs. It may not be rock that I want to listen to, but then nobody would really expect that. And live ticket sales are up quite dramatically (or so I've heard on the radio).

I'm not sure in what sense any of this, even if your initial analysis were spot on, is scary?

[orikes13.livejournal.com]

I know that when I was a tween and a teen in the early 80's, the music charts - at least on the pop stations - were fairly indicative of what was popular, what was selling, and what people wanted to listen to. Back then, in some ways, I think it was easier to pigeon hole listening tastes since it all depended on what radio station you regularly listened to. Did you listen to pop? Hard rock? Country? Easy listening?

In the last decade and a half, though, radio stations (at least in the US) have turned into corporate beasts that really don't represent any sort of realistic listening preference of the country. I listen to the radio when I'm in the car, but at home now I simply play my own CDs. Now, when I want to hear something new, I use the internet. I'm more likely to find an internet station that reflects my tastes and thereby actually find new artists that I want to support.

Someone earlier said the music industry is still clinging to an old model of business, and I think that's fairly correct. Because music is generally in demand no matter what, they can cling to their delusions for a while longer, but when it comes down to it, since the advent of the internet, the way we find new music is quite a bit different than it used to be.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

Does the sound matter any more?

How much of the selling is done by the video, on the TV channels?

Why di I still remember the rabbit capering on the top of a 101FC Land Rover, and can't recall a thing about the music.

How much of the music industry is still about music?

[qb-fox.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree with you more. (Except about the Lucie Silvas recommendation, but we'll get back to that.)

But what you have to consider is that most record sales are about Albums, not about Singles, and that Singles are at best a promotional aid for Album sales.

Lucie Silvas is a new name, and the purpose of the single is simply to promote the album through radio air play and appearances like TOTP.

Who, these days, buys singles? Children mostly, and the sales figures are so low, that anyone can bust in at number one with sales that previously wouldn't have got you into the Top 20.

Its odd even that we still use it as a measure of anything, but we are by nature conservative (with a small c), and it takes us a long while to let go.

Now, back to Ms. Silvas. I bought the album on the back of an LJ recommendation (although I think not yours). Either way, I'm not overly impressed. Its OK, and she has quite a good voice, and some of the tracks are worth an occasional listen. But generally, I'm uninspired. Sorry.

And its not like I don't like female singer/songwriters. In fact, I love 'em. But much better buys over the last twelve months or so : Thea Gilmore, Avalanche, and much more recently KT Tunstall, Eye to the Telescope.

If you don't own the KT album go buy it now, right now.

Are you still here? Off you go!

On the upside, when I occasionally tune in to you, doing the old friend of friend thing, you seem to make sense, so I'm adding you to my friend's list, if thats OK.

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

stevieanne has also recommended KT: I shall hearken and obey, just as soon as I next Get Paid.

Re the adorable Lucie - to each their own, I think :) I like, but I am also a Judie Tzuke fan, who had considerable input into the songs on the album.

Friending reciprocated :)