Oh dear - BBC selective history again?

[Jazzneck]

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/22318627"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/22318627[/url]

cf: Please Please Me by The Beatles - 76 weeks in the charts Total, 30 consecutive weeks at No 1 in the chart, 0.5M sales in the UK, >2.0M Worldwide - all when the cost of a vinyl album was iro 10% of the average 20 year olds wage in 1963 and no downloads available - or am I not thinking straight?

Edited April 28, 2013 by Jazzneck

[Musky]

What's the problem?

A record for the number of consecutive weeks in the albums chart is based on... the number of consecutive weeks an album is in the chart.

It's not like it's a value judgement on the merits of those recordings.

[wateroftyne]

I don't understand [quote name='Musky' timestamp='1367183901' post='2062404']
What's the problem?

A record for the number of consecutive weeks in the albums chart is based on... the number of consecutive weeks an album is in the chart.

It's not like it's a value judgement on the merits of those recordings.
[/quote]

This. Not sure what the OP's point is.

[discreet]

Is it because the Beatles stats were based on sales of records only, and cost more to buy in real terms at that time, and Whatsername's tally includes downloads from iTunes et al which are cheaper by comparison..? [size=4]If so, both represent a certain level of popularity, do they not? Or more likely I've missed something ...again? [/size]

Edited April 28, 2013 by discreet

[skankdelvar]

The thing that strikes me about all this brouhaha is that Ms. Sande appears to have reached such a notable milepost without the daily news stories, hysterical fans and sober questions about her relative popularity compared to Jesus which attended upon the four lovable mop-tops at this similarly early stage in their career.

It must be admitted that I have not listened to 'chart' music since 1982, but I would have thought that at least a faint sussurus of her burgeoning popularity would have reached my ears. But no; in my firmament she appears to have risen without trace. To paraphrase the old Ultravox ditty - 'She means nothing to me - [i]Ohhhh[/i] - Emelie Sande.'

Such is my bewilderment, I am rather reminded of the eminent barrister who, when confronted with a well-known and highly popular household cleaning product, observed: 'What we do with all that Vim? I can never understand. Do we [i]eat [/i]Vim?'

[lurksalot]

I believe she was Olympic in proportion to some others, and maybe , the whole world got the chance to appreciatte and download a few tasters, that may, or may not have had influence on the numbers game, but at some point the music seems kind of judged by the numbers ,

[Jazzneck]

Morning all - no problems musically, personally, etc. other than it seems to me that Auntie, yet again, selects and reports to its target audience a tale with limited information and not the full story.
That's all........

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Jazzneck' timestamp='1367219212' post='2062568']
Morning all - no problems musically, personally, etc. other than it seems to me that Auntie, yet again, selects and reports to its target audience a tale with limited information and not the full story.
That's all........
[/quote]

I think you're over-analysing it. It's just a daft news story.

[steve-bbb]

music industry, like nature, abhors a vaccuum

i fear that if we were to suddenly export Ms Sande to Uranus her place would swiftly be filled by some third-rate Nicki Minaj wannabee fresh from the casting couch of some ubiqitous lothario

[BigRedX]

As usual some chart music is rubbish and some is great depending upon your personal tastes.

Personally I haven't paid any attention to "The Charts" since TotP was taken off and radio DJs spent too much time talking and not enough time playing records.

Also I can't help but think that the OP is getting worked up because they can't accept that these days The Beatles are no longer held in the esteem which he thinks they deserve.

[Jazzneck]

I'm not worked up and it is a daft news story - I'm just pointing out how a "news" story can appear to be manipulated.
I don't care who's being compared, it's just that the comparisons are made and reported as "fact" without everything being taken into consideration (and using my licence fee to do so ).

Edited April 29, 2013 by Jazzneck

[Fat Rich]

[quote name='Jazzneck' timestamp='1367219212' post='2062568']
Morning all - no problems musically, personally, etc. other than it seems to me that Auntie, yet again, selects and reports to its target audience a tale with limited information and not the full story.
That's all........
[/quote]

Well, it's a Newsbeat story aimed at kids and teens I think.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Jazzneck' timestamp='1367220777' post='2062598']
... without everything being taken into consideration (and using my licence fee to do so ).
[/quote]
If you really want everything taken into consideration then your licence fee will need to increase.

[Jazzneck]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1367222303' post='2062610']
If you really want everything taken into consideration then your licence fee will need to increase.
[/quote]
Or the Beeb stops reporting on daft subjects?

[BigRedX]

It's all a question of how you interpret the statistics. Sure she hasn't sold as many copies of her album as The Beatles did. Pop music is no longer as important in the general scheme of things. However when you consider the sheer number of new albums being released every week these days and the number of artists that she is having to compete with, then here achievement could be considered even more remarkable.

Doing what The Beatles did when you're a fairly big fish in a small pond is much easier IMO.

[discreet]

[quote name='steve-bbb' timestamp='1367219440' post='2062574']
...I fear that if we were to suddenly export Ms Sande to Uranus her place would swiftly be filled by some third-rate Nicki Minaj wannabee fresh from the casting couch of some ubiqitous lothario...
[/quote]

Isn't that exactly what Ms Sande is anyway..?

Having said that, you can export her to my anus any day of the week.

[timmo]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1367224200' post='2062634']
It's all a question of how you interpret the statistics. Sure she hasn't sold as many copies of her album as The Beatles did. Pop music is no longer as important in the general scheme of things. However when you consider the sheer number of new albums being released every week these days and the number of artists that she is having to compete with, then here achievement could be considered even more remarkable.

Doing what The Beatles did when you're a fairly big fish in a small pond is much easier IMO.
[/quote]

The only difference, which of course is based on my opinion, The Beatles had to compete with higher calibre of opposition.On the otherside though, artists of 50 years ago had a better chance of being totally original, as there was not so much music about.

[discreet]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1367224200' post='2062634']
Doing what The Beatles did when you're a fairly big fish in a small pond is much easier IMO.
[/quote]

Of course! That's why so many others did what the Beatles did at the time...

[JTUK]

2 mins of my life I wont get back

[MoonBassAlpha]

[quote name='timmo' timestamp='1367233892' post='2062814']
The only difference, which of course is based on my opinion, The Beatles had to compete with higher calibre of opposition.On the otherside though, artists of 50 years ago had a better chance of being totally original, as there was not so much music about.
[/quote]
One of the reasons the Beatles did so well was the pop music of the time was mostly dull and awful, and by comparison, they were a bit good.

[waynepunkdude]

[discreet]

[quote name='MoonBassAlpha' timestamp='1367234657' post='2062835']One of the reasons the Beatles did so well was the pop music of the time was mostly dull and awful, and by comparison, they were a bit good.[/quote]

It wasn't [i]all [/i]crap. And I think the Beatles were more than 'a bit good' by [i]any [/i]standards... but let's not start all that again!

Edited April 29, 2013 by discreet

[discreet]

[quote name='waynepunkdude' timestamp='1367234920' post='2062840']

[/quote]

Best post so far.

[waynepunkdude]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1367235091' post='2062848']
It wasn't [i]all [/i]crap. And I think the Beatles were more than 'a bit good' by [i]any [/i]standards... but let's not start all that again!
[/quote]

The Beatles were awesome, you'd have to be an idiot to dismiss them.

[Norris]

[quote name='Jazzneck' timestamp='1367223453' post='2062624']
Or the Beeb stops reporting on daft subjects?
[/quote]
One person's daft subject is another's essential news...

And while we're talking about the BBC & license fees: I can't stand reality shows, 'talent' shows, period drama and soaps. Unfortunately it doesn't stop them being popular with the ovisites, meaning my telly is full of cr*p most of the time. But hey, big shrug, there's still BBC4, the Internet, my album collection, and Real Life[sup]TM[/sup]