Are music charts relevant anymore?

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 01-05-2012, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

As I said it was less segmented, more listened to the same music. That's the difference in the chart music.

How did you come up with that? And what is segmented when it's at home?

Were you around during the 50s and 60s?

starrynight · 01-05-2012, 09:39 PM

Well the sales would suggest that. Anyway, believe what you want. I'm leaving it at that.

Black Francis · 01-06-2012, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boyobarker

If you look at any "what song are you listening to" thread or viral video - none of the songs mentioned are in the current charts? So... are the charts relevant anymore since they are based only on sales??

Were they ever relevant?

i liked what i liked if it was popular great, if it was un-popular even better.

i really don't care about the Charts "Top ten" or wthv.. >_>

starrynight · 01-06-2012, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Francis

if it was un-popular even better.

I don't get that. I've never minded liking something if it was popular or not.

I do think there is probably more of a disconnect now between what the media hype is for something and what the general interest is. Lady Gaga for example is probably better known for her image than for her music.

**Janszoon** · 01-06-2012, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

As I said it was less segmented, more listened to the same music. That's the difference in the chart music.

I don't know that that's necessarily true. I'd be willing to bet that back in the 1950s and 1960s it was a much narrower age demographic purchasing music.

Ben Butler · 01-06-2012, 08:14 AM

I think they are a measure of sales, it doesn't demonstrate who the popular or talented artists is for me.

**Goofle** · 01-06-2012, 08:28 AM

I think it does measure popularity, but not talent, of course. As has always been the case.

And of course they are relevant, and have always been, but not to everyone.

starrynight · 01-06-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I don't know that that's necessarily true. I'd be willing to bet that back in the 1950s and 1960s it was a much narrower age demographic purchasing music.

It was probably less segmented even in the 50s, there were fewer genres. Disco in the 70s is probably a good example of a genre reaching across age groups, even some old 60s stars did disco songs for their fans. And in the 60s a group like The Beatles, while not liked by everyone, were covered by artists from various genres and age groups.

**Janszoon** · 01-06-2012, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

It was probably less segmented even in the 50s, there were fewer genres. Disco in the 70s is probably a good example of a genre reaching across age groups, even some old 60s stars did disco songs for their fans. And in the 60s a group like The Beatles, while not liked by everyone, were covered by artists from various genres and age groups.

I really doubt that many people born before, say, 1935 were fans of the Beatles.

Anyway, my point was simply this: People who were middle-aged and older during the 50s and 60s did not typically buy many records because, unlike their children, it's not something they grew up with. That's not to say those people didn't like music, it's just that they didn't consume it in the same way the younger generation of that time did. As a result of this, the music that made the charts during those decades tended to be skewed toward the listenening habits of the youth which, obviously, doesn't give you the whole picture.

starrynight · 01-06-2012, 11:07 AM

Even if in that earlier period of the 50s and 60s they didn't actually buy music maybe many of the middle-aged people at least heard the music on the radio or TV and had more awareness of chart music than most people probably do now. And my point about music of some periods being remade for other audiences wasn't made flippantly. See The Hollyridge Strings and the success they had.

The Hollyridge Strings | AllMusic

01-05-2012, 09:39 PM	#22 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	Well the sales would suggest that. Anyway, believe what you want. I'm leaving it at that. __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

01-06-2012, 11:07 AM	#30 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	Even if in that earlier period of the 50s and 60s they didn't actually buy music maybe many of the middle-aged people at least heard the music on the radio or TV and had more awareness of chart music than most people probably do now. And my point about music of some periods being remade for other audiences wasn't made flippantly. See The Hollyridge Strings and the success they had. The Hollyridge Strings \| AllMusic __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

01-06-2012, 08:14 AM	#26 (permalink)
Ben Butler Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Rudheath Posts: 393	I think they are a measure of sales, it doesn't demonstrate who the popular or talented artists is for me.