Vive Le Rock #88

[STEVEh]

It's cool that you think the UK chart is still relevant in 2021, is the "main measure" and/or is even remotely good at what it is designed to do. You'd be very much mistaken.

If the Charts don’t matter why do bands throw everything at getting a number one. Manics, Steps, Maximo Park and The Specials spring to mind in more recent times.

The singles chart I agree is pretty meaningless as it contains non singles but the album chart is a more accurate reflection of what people are buying.

Whatever the record books still show the Stranglers had a number 4 album.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bear Cage]

It's cool that you think the UK chart is still relevant in 2021, is the "main measure" and/or is even remotely good at what it is designed to do. You'd be very much mistaken.

The album chart is “designed” to chart the sales of an album in any particular week in comparison to its contemporaries, to do so it includes physical sales, downloads and streaming, thus reflects the totality of sales that week. Although not perfect it is widely accepted and continues (in 2021] to be used by labels, artists, media, etc… as a main measure of how an album is doing. There are other measures (continue to earn enough to keep recording, having the freedom to record what they want, etc…) although many sit at an artist rather than an individual album level.
So in 2021 the uk album charts are still the main measure for gauging the weekly success of an album (chart position), the best weekly performance (peak chart position) and the longevity of that success (number of weeks on chart), in comparison to other contemporary releases.
However it is one of those inconvenient truths that counters your bias, so you choose to keep shouting irrelevant (whilst covering your eyes and ears to the facts).

[theraven1979]

Charts are completely irrelevant these days. You don't have to shift that many sales to achieve Top 40.

When charts mattered they were on the TV (Chart Show, TOTPs etc) which would in turn lead to further promotion and more sales. Does anyone know who's an number 1 in either the album charts or single charts right now? Nope? How come? Cos they're irrelevant. I'm guessing "LadBaby" or similar is number 1 for Xmas with a song about sausage rolls.

Much better to get on the 6Music playlist or similar. That way the song gets played in front of an audience that might relate to further sales and encourage people to buy gig tickets etc.

Jim

[Bear Cage]

Charts are completely irrelevant these days. You don't have to shift that many sales to achieve Top 40.

When charts mattered they were on the TV (Chart Show, TOTPs etc) which would in turn lead to further promotion and more sales. Does anyone know who's an number 1 in either the album charts or single charts right now? Nope? How come? Cos they're irrelevant. I'm guessing "LadBaby" or similar is number 1 for Xmas with a song about sausage rolls.

Much better to get on the 6Music playlist or similar. That way the song gets played in front of an audience that might relate to further sales and encourage people to buy gig tickets etc.

Jim

You are conflating the singles and albums charts here, which are different beasts. And yes getting on radio playlists always helps in raising awareness, as does getting in the charts, they are not exclusive.

[theraven1979]

It doesn't matter which chart you're talking about. There's about a million charts now and they're all irrelevant.

To my knowledge they didn't make the playlists. In fact I don't recall DM being played on the radio at all apart from Liz Kershaw months before the album was released and 2 or 3 times tops. Missed opportunity IMO.

Jim

Charts are completely irrelevant these days. You don't have to shift that many sales to achieve Top 40.

When charts mattered they were on the TV (Chart Show, TOTPs etc) which would in turn lead to further promotion and more sales. Does anyone know who's an number 1 in either the album charts or single charts right now? Nope? How come? Cos they're irrelevant. I'm guessing "LadBaby" or similar is number 1 for Xmas with a song about sausage rolls.

Much better to get on the 6Music playlist or similar. That way the song gets played in front of an audience that might relate to further sales and encourage people to buy gig tickets etc.

Jim

You are conflating the singles and albums charts here, which are different beasts. And yes getting on radio playlists always helps in raising awareness, as does getting in the charts, they are not exclusive.

[Jake]

Without meaning to weigh in with my hobnail boots, I am under the impression that physical album sales don’t need to be as drastically high as they were in the days of albums like Rattus or La Folie.

I’m using one example and admittedly the source is Wikipedia, Goldfrapp- Tales of Us (2013)

Tales of Us debuted at number four on the UK Albums Chart with first-week sales of 13,817 copies

By the second week, like Dark Matters it was barely in the top 20, by the third/fourth week gone from the charts.

Now I feel sure that back in the day you needed to shift a lot more than 14,000 units to get a top ten album position. I’m willing to say that I don’t know this for sure, but I don’t believe 14,000 was enough to get a top ten album position in the 70s and 80s, willing to be proved wrong however

[Bear Cage]

Without meaning to weigh in with my hobnail boots, I am under the impression that physical album sales don’t need to be as drastically high as they were in the days of albums like Rattus or La Folie.

I’m using one example and admittedly the source is Wikipedia, Goldfrapp- Tales of Us (2013)

Tales of Us debuted at number four on the UK Albums Chart with first-week sales of 13,817 copies

By the second week, like Dark Matters it was barely in the top 20, by the third/fourth week gone from the charts.

Now I feel sure that back in the day you needed to shift a lot more than 14,000 units to get a top ten album position. I’m willing to say that I don’t know this for sure, but I don’t believe 14,000 was enough to get a top ten album position in the 70s and 80s, willing to be proved wrong however

Album sales are significantly lower than the 70s and 80s (they are also significantly lower across the year than leading up to Christmas). However the overall chart does include physical albums, downloads and streams, so it’s more than just the physical sales it was in the past, so I’m unsure how easy it is to fully gauge the difference over time.
Excepting that it takes a lot fewer sales to enter the charts does not change the fact of how an album has done against its contemporaries in any particular week, which is what the charts measure.

[STEVEh]

It doesn't matter which chart you're talking about. There's about a million charts now and they're all irrelevant.

To my knowledge they didn't make the playlists. In fact I don't recall DM being played on the radio at all apart from Liz Kershaw months before the album was released and 2 or 3 times tops. Missed opportunity IMO.

Jim

Charts are completely irrelevant these days. You don't have to shift that many sales to achieve Top 40.

When charts mattered they were on the TV (Chart Show, TOTPs etc) which would in turn lead to further promotion and more sales. Does anyone know who's an number 1 in either the album charts or single charts right now? Nope? How come? Cos they're irrelevant. I'm guessing "LadBaby" or similar is number 1 for Xmas with a song about sausage rolls.

Much better to get on the 6Music playlist or similar. That way the song gets played in front of an audience that might relate to further sales and encourage people to buy gig tickets etc.

Jim

You are conflating the singles and albums charts here, which are different beasts. And yes getting on radio playlists always helps in raising awareness, as does getting in the charts, they are not exclusive.

The charts are the charts, no matter what the sales are.

In past times sales were much higher than now but to use that as a reason to dismiss the chart is like saying because one team won the Premier League with 99 points one year and nobody has since then all subsequent winners can not be deemed as being the top team.

Even in the past it was not uncommon for artists to have a number one with far fewer sales one week but then another act the week after not to get number one with significantly more sales.

One more thing if the charts don’t matter why did Ed Sheeran change the release date of his album so as to avoid clashing with Abba and Adele?

In 10,20,30 years time the record books will show Dark Matters was number 4.

You mock the charts on the basis of sales figures but what does it say about Hugh? Only Wolf and Monster have ever charted for one week each at 98 and 62.

Your narrative is constantly negative towards any success or publicity the band has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theraven1979]

You're missing the point entirely. You're equating success to getting a Number 4 chart placing for 1 week (then bombing out whilst the other artists around you still remain Top 10 - Manics etc). Whether we want to have some romantic nostalgia about it or not charts simply don't hold the relevance that they once had.

I couldn't name you 1 song or album in any chart right now and I listen to current music as well as the classics.

Jim

[STEVEh]

Number 4 is number 4 come what may.

Had the album not made the top 50 say and disappeared after one week what would your narrative be?

I find it incredible that as moderator/ owner of a Stranglers forum you and your side kick Stan go out of your way to find some angle to dismiss or discredit the band.

If you don’t recognise the band as the Stranglers anymore, which your posts suggest, then close it down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theraven1979]

Number 4 is number 4 - there's no denying that In a meaningless chart. Do you think it sold as many copies as Rattus (which also got to number 4)?

The only reason I'm having this debate with you is I find your viewpoint absolutely staggering.

Jim

Number 4 is number 4 come what may.

Had the album not made the top 50 say and disappeared after one week what would your narrative be?

I find it incredible that as moderator/ owner of a Stranglers forum you and your side kick Stan go out of your way to find some angle to dismiss or discredit the band.

If you don’t recognise the band as the Stranglers anymore, which your posts suggest, then close it down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STEVEh]

Number 4 is number 4 - there's no denying that In a meaningless chart. Do you think it sold as many copies as Rattus (which also got to number 4)?

The only reason I'm having this debate with you is I find your viewpoint absolutely staggering.

Jim

Number 4 is number 4 come what may.

Had the album not made the top 50 say and disappeared after one week what would your narrative be?

I find it incredible that as moderator/ owner of a Stranglers forum you and your side kick Stan go out of your way to find some angle to dismiss or discredit the band.

If you don’t recognise the band as the Stranglers anymore, which your posts suggest, then close it down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I don’t think it sold anywhere near as many but both records will forever be shown as a number 4 album. Whatever importance you personally attach to the charts they still exist and are supported by the record industry.

The Stranglers have had diminishing sales from the early 80s onwards. Dreamtime only spent 4 weeks on the Chart, 10 just six. Norfolk Coast, Suite XVI and Giants scraped in for one week . Coup De Grace didn’t chart.

By any measure getting to number 4 is a form of success.

I also find your viewpoint staggering too for the record. You and Stan have made these forums an unpleasant place. It’s not that you disagree with peoples views, that is what a forum is for. You both constantly dismiss anyone who disagrees with you with an answer that infers that person is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk