You'll have probably heard this week from the mid week chart update that it is predicted 9 songs in the Top 10 on Friday will be by Ed Sheeran. Furthermore, all 16 tracks from his new album are expected to be in the Top 40.
Once again this has got people questioning whether the charts mean anything anymore. I would agree that it is ridiculous that 9 of the Top 10 are by the same artist whoever it is. It also seems ridiculous that an artist who's seemingly only been around 5 minutes can clock up 35 Top 40 hits so quickly, which he will have done if the predicted charts are correct. But is it really that ridiculous?
Throughout the entire history of the UK Charts there has been an argument that they do not truly reflect what is popular. There are several well known acts who's singles chart career has been virtually non existent.
During the late 90s/early 00s the big criticism was the lack of time any record would spend in the charts and that they would generally enter at their peak before quickly sliding out of the charts. It was also a criticism that you would often have a new number one every week. What tended to happen in those days was that singles would get so heavily promoted prior to release that they were already old hat by the time they charted.
Nowadays it seems pretty much the opposite. Records are hanging around the charts a long time, it's not unusual for a record to enter the lower reaches and climb, like a previous Ed Sheeran number one which took 19 weeks to get there. Then these expected new entries from Ed Sheeran are as new as they come from a general public perspective.
One thing I learned about the charts when I was younger was that there were 8 records which had spent 9 weeks at number one, the most recent at the time being "Two Tribes" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood in 1984. It would take 22 years until the next 9 week chart topper which was "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley in 2006, though there were 3 number ones in between that exceeded this number of weeks. This figure reached 10 this year with "Rockabye" by Clean Bandit and is looking to reach 11 on Friday.
The point many people will make is that in years to come nobody will remember the current Ed Sheeran number one, or Clean Bandit or "One Dance" by Drake which reached 15 weeks at number one last year, in the same way they remember Bryan Adams. This may be true, but prior to Bryan Adams breaking the record in 1991, the record was held for 36 years by Slim Whitman with "Rose Marie". Many of you will be thinking what's that? prior to this it was held by David Whitfield with "Cara Mia". Again not one that a great deal of people will know.
In terms of acts clocking up a lot of hits quickly, this isn't exactly anything new either. Although he didn't quite reach 35, Lonnie Donegan's chart career lasted the same length of time as Ed Sheeran has so far and he got to 30, so not too far behind. Then there was Elvis who had 12 hits in 1957 and took one year less than Ed Sheeran to reach 35 hits.
Maybe the charts are coming full circle now. They could change the rules to make it more appealing, but is there really any point? It's obvious that the inclusion of streaming has largely contributed to the charts being what they are now, and to a lesser extent downloads. Although I don't have the facts and figures to hand, I would speculate that CD singles are such a tiny proportion of how these songs are consumed nowadays that excluding streams and downloads would achieve absolutely nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment