There are no bands who formed this century in the Hit Parade - singles and albums

[MacDaddy]

This week, in the Hit Parade for both albums and singles, there are no bands who were formed in this century 😲

 

https://www.facebook.com/restisentertainment/videos/1248256536344708/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

 

[Mykesbass]

57 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

This week, in the Hit Parade for both albums and singles, there are no bands who were formed in this century 😲

 

https://www.facebook.com/restisentertainment/videos/1248256536344708/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

 

😯

Interesting piece.

[Doctor J]

That's the way it should be, surely? Each generation should have its own music. Were you into music made ten years before you were born when you were 15?

[MacDaddy]

17 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

That's the way it should be, surely? Each generation should have its own music. Were you into music made ten years before you were born when you were 15?

 

I don't think you have understood. The only bands that are in the Hit Parade were formed before the year 2000. So what generation is that?

 

But to answer your question, yes I was.

[Doctor J]

Ah ok, Facebook doesn't let me play ball.

[borntohang]

I don't know what Album charts he's looking at as I don't know when the clip was recorded. but 12-18th July there were either two or three bands formed this century in the top 40 (Maroon 5 were active but not under the current name until 2001) and the previous week there were either one or two (M5 strikes again). 

 

I don't think that's a particularly shocking conclusion for singles either though. Young people don't generally buy albums so the album charts are weighted to the elderly; labels prefer solo artists because they're cheaper to run; nobody can afford to be in a band on the pennies it pays non-songwriters; none of these rules apply to Taylor Swift who dominates the charts so completely they're going to have to create a new one for just her and Ed Sheeran to fight over. 

 

Incidentally I did some math earlier and out of the 184 weeks this decade, 79 had a band at number one in albums and 45 of those were from this century. I do disagree with his reading of 'band' as it includes Take That and Steps, but excludes Springsteen and Paul Weller; if you're prepared to branch out to 'solo artists who primarily work with a live band' you get another 20 or so which just drops you over 50%.

Edited July 18 by borntohang

[diskwave]

14 hours ago, Doctor J said:

That's the way it should be, surely? Each generation should have its own music. Were you into music made ten years before you were born when you were 15?

Ive wrestled with that question for years and Im not sure it holds up very well. My parents were brought up on classical and jazz, plus they were kinda a bit Victorian anyway. When Elvis hit they were appalled....and they remained appalled with "modern noisy pop" for ever. I meanwhile was brought up with 70's pop rock and punk music that was genuinely modern, noisy and dangerous, and yeah I listen to todays stuff and it just sounds flat to me, not dangerous or noisy, just not very musical.. there you go.

Put it this way. yet again Im hearing more and more TV/internet ads aimed at "young people" and  using pop music from the 70's in the soundtrack. Where's the Adeles, Sheerans, latest boy/girl bands in all of this? Im not hearing them.  Ad peeps aren't stupid, theyre using these old tunes cause they are bloody good, simple as that.

Edited July 19 by diskwave

[MacDaddy]

6 minutes ago, diskwave said:

Ad peeps aren't stupid, theyre using these old tunes cause they are bloody good, simple as that.

 

A lot of muso's have sold their music catalogues. The companies who bought the rights will be wanting to exploit and monetize them, so aggressive marketing and 'incentives' may have been used?

[PaulWarning]

not sure how streaming works as regards the charts but very few people bother buying CD's and especially singles these days.

 

I actually bought a CD the other day then realised my new laptop hadn't got a DVD/CD drive on it, had to dig out my old laptop to put it on my new laptop and phone 😕

[Doctor J]

34 minutes ago, diskwave said:

 

Put it this way. yet again Im hearing more and more TV/internet ads aimed at "young people" and  using pop music from the 70's in the soundtrack. Where's the Adeles, Sheerans, latest boy/girl bands in all of this? Im not hearing them.  Ad peeps aren't stupid, theyre using these old tunes cause they are bloody good, simple as that.

Do young people even watch TV, really? Most of the "young" brands and ads targeted at the youth are using contemporary music, from what I've heard, but I don't really watch TV and am a prodigious ad blocker when online. You've mentioned Tesco before, who don't seem to be playing the old hits? The way young people are exposed to music has changed quite dramatically this century, from early file sharing through streaming and now just background noise on a tiktok video or computer game. It's a generalisation, yes, but, it seems like the most recent generations don't define their lives through music like many of us older heads on here used to. They don't purchase it, that's a completely alien concept, and they don't consume it in the same way a lot of us do, so our old way of measuring popularity does not really convey what's going on.

 

 

Edited July 19 by Doctor J

[Baloney Balderdash]

15 hours ago, Doctor J said:

That's the way it should be, surely? Each generation should have its own music. Were you into music made ten years before you were born when you were 15?

Yes, and much more than 10 years too.

 

8 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

Do young people even watch TV, really? Most of the "young" brands and ads targeted at the youth are using contemporary music, from what I've heard, but I don't really watch TV and am a prodigious ad blocker when online. You've mentioned Tesco before, who don't seem to be playing the old hits? The way young people are exposed to music has changed quite dramatically this century, from early file sharing through streaming and now just background noise on a tiktok video or computer game. It's a generalisation, yes, but, it seems like the most recent generations don't define their lives through music like many of us older heads on here used to. They don't purchase it, that's a completely alien concept, and they don't consume it in the same way a lot of us do, so our old way of measuring popularity does not really convey what's going on.

 

 

A lot of the popular series on various popular streaming services utilize older music.

 

That is how Kate Bush's "Running Up That Hill" from 1985 became a huge hit quite recently.

 

And yes, among young people.

 

Edited July 19 by Baloney Balderdash

[Muzz]

Was talking about this the other day with my Lad, who's 19, likes music (tho his taste and mine don't converge much), listens to all sorts of music from 70s disco onwards, and has an 85 hour Spotify playlist. He has, however, never listened to an album, and has no interest in them as an art form. The way music is presented and consumed these days (primarily by the younger generations, tho I have to say it's a good while since I listened to a whole album) has changed dramatically. If he likes a song he likes a song, but there's so much more music available from all sorts of places that he feels no need to delve into that artist's catalogue.

[Doctor J]

13 minutes ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

Yes, and much more than 10 years too.

 

 

 

A lot of the popular series on various popular streaming services utilize older music.

 

That is how Kate Bush's "Running Up That Hill" from 1985 became a huge hit quite recently.

 

And yes, among young people.

 

Television in this sense means traditional scheduled broadcasting with advertising breaks, not on-demand subscription streaming watched on a 52" screen.

[PaulWarning]

14 minutes ago, Muzz said:

Was talking about this the other day with my Lad, who's 19, likes music (tho his taste and mine don't converge much), listens to all sorts of music from 70s disco onwards, and has an 85 hour Spotify playlist. He has, however, never listened to an album, and has no interest in them as an art form. The way music is presented and consumed these days (primarily by the younger generations, tho I have to say it's a good while since I listened to a whole album) has changed dramatically. If he likes a song he likes a song, but there's so much more music available from all sorts of places that he feels no need to delve into that artist's catalogue.

 tbf I can't remember the last time I put an Album on and listened to it, I usually listen though my phone which in on shuffle, didn't realise how up to date I was 😂 

Edited July 19 by PaulWarning

[Muzz]

It takes years off you, y'know... 🙂

[Baloney Balderdash]

19 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

Television in this sense means traditional scheduled broadcasting with advertising breaks, not on-demand subscription streaming watched on a 52" screen.

I was not really commenting on whether young people watch TV or not, which I honestly can't really see why is even relevant in this discussion, but whether they get exposed to other than contemporary music.

 

Some computer games use older music as well.

 

Also when measuring popularity such things as streaming music, from for example YouTube or Spotify, is usually included (unless of course it is sales charges in specific, but here sales of MP3s from for example iTunes or Amazon is included as well).

 

Edited July 19 by Baloney Balderdash

[Doctor J]

I was, as you may have skipped over, engaging specifically with Diskwave's post so kept it relevant to that. No harm done 🫠

[diskwave]

54 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

You've mentioned Tesco before, who don't seem to be playing the old hits?

Yep that was me...haha. I dont know what they use but they do play a lot of old tunes too, and as Ive said before its really noticeable. Anyway yes Im an old winge bag stuck in the 60's/70's but then so is Rick Beato and he literally has millions of peeps agreeing with him...and that includes young people too.

[Dad3353]

I think that the original video being discussed here was rather making a point, not about the music on offer, but that the music is no longer made by groups (or bands...), but by solo artists, in whatever genre. These 'charts' are now full of singer/songwriters; any 'group' stuff was made before the turn of this century. No new groups are emerging. Is this right or not, I wouldn't know, but I think that that was the thrust of the video. 

[PaulWarning]

6 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

I think that the original video being discussed here was rather making a point, not about the music on offer, but that the music is no longer made by groups (or bands...), but by solo artists, in whatever genre. These 'charts' are now full of singer/songwriters; any 'group' stuff was made before the turn of this century. No new groups are emerging. Is this right or not, I wouldn't know, but I think that that was the thrust of the video. 

I'm only guessing here but in the old days, lads and lasses use to get together to make music, as you couldn't play all the instruments at the same time, now they sit in their bedrooms in front of a computer and do it all themselves

[Baloney Balderdash]

23 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

I think that the original video being discussed here was rather making a point, not about the music on offer, but that the music is no longer made by groups (or bands...), but by solo artists, in whatever genre. These 'charts' are now full of singer/songwriters; any 'group' stuff was made before the turn of this century. No new groups are emerging. Is this right or not, I wouldn't know, but I think that that was the thrust of the video. 

Top 40 sure, mainly, but not entirely.

 

Outside of that, alternative/indie scene/labels, lots of groups/bands.

 

Including some relatively successful and popular, if not exactly Top 40, ones.

 

But you are right, definitely fewer commercial groups/bands and more solo artists (and duos for that matter to a certain extend as well), than in the previous decades. 

 

 

Edited July 19 by Baloney Balderdash

[tegs07]

7 minutes ago, PaulWarning said:

I'm only guessing here but in the old days, lads and lasses use to get together to make music, as you couldn't play all the instruments at the same time, now they sit in their bedrooms in front of a computer and do it all themselves

The only musicians I know who make a reasonable living are solo/occasionally duo. There is not enough money to be made through digital sales and touring is significantly cheaper when the profits are not split 3+ ways. That’s if there are any profits after the costs of multiple rooms and meals are paid for in various expensive western cities.

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

A lot of the popular series on various popular streaming services utilize older music.

 

That is how Kate Bush's "Running Up That Hill" from 1985 became a huge hit quite recently.

 

Running Up That Hill was featured on a TV show that was set in the 80s, so the music is contemporary to that period. It would have been more noteworthy if it had been used and become popular due to being featured in a programme set in the current day.

[Baloney Balderdash]

36 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

 

Running Up That Hill was featured on a TV show that was set in the 80s, so the music is contemporary to that period. It would have been more noteworthy if it had been used and become popular due to being featured in a programme set in the current day.

As I said, lots of popular TV series sound tracks include older music.

 

My point was that young people are exposed to a fair share of older music.

 

And yes, I don't think the fact that the TV series was set in the 80's have much significant to young people liking the song, that is is a very popular TV series I think it is safe to say has though, or at least explains how they got exposed to it, and why it could become a hit.

 

There's a reason why it was that song and not any other used in the same show, and it is not that it is from the 80's, as most of the other songs used in that series is as well.

 

But who knows...

 

 

Edited July 19 by Baloney Balderdash

[Muzz]

I think the question is what is commercial, and does the Hit Parade (blimey) actually cover that? You can get a Number One single in the UK with very few sales (compared to previous decades), whereas what I've found is a lot of very good bands who are around today (and by 'around', I'm meaning 'making new music and touring it, rather than touring their decades-old back catalogue') who have nevertheless got an awful lot of YouTube plays and streams. One example is Robert John and The Wreck, a Southern band whom I've been lucky enough to see in smaller venues, but whom nevertheless have YT videos with more than a million plays.

 

It's a very different world in terms of how music is consumed, and to look at the Top 40 (which used to be the be-all and end-all of success) is nowadays only looking at a very small fraction of the wider picture, so the original piece doesn't worry me at all.

 

There's lots of new rules for the Hit Parade (like No Artist Can Have More Than Three Songs In The Top 40), the Accelerated Chart Ratio* and the Standard Chart Ratio, so, although the Goode Olde Days saw lots of sales shenanigans, today it's even more manipulated, which is very depressing, and one reason I pay no attention to it.

 

Here's an example: The ratio for an album stream in 1000:1. So that’s 1000 streams of a single track counting as a listen to an album. It doesn’t matter if you listened to one track 1000 times or the whole album front to back, it counts the same.

 

* Although without this, Mr Brightside wouldn't have left the Top 40 pretty much since its release: it was in the Top 100 for 298 weeks...

Edited July 19 by Muzz