![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Things ain't what they used to be...
Feb. 12th, 2005 09:24 amWhen 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.
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.
