All 16 tracks from the album in the Top 20? Every one a smash hit, not a single duff filler on there.By that "measure" he's easily the most popular act in the entire history of the charts. Better than the Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Queen, Elvis, Sinatra, U2, Jackson, Springsteen, Madonna etc
popularity <> quality
By the measure of success currently used he outperforms those artists this week.
I don't mind Ed tbh, but that Galway Girl song ... it's like a conscious effort to out Blunt James Blunt.
[quote=Northwind ]That's not ridiculous, what's ridiculous is thinking the charts mean the same in the digital age as they used to in the days of physical media.
the charts have always been crap
first time I flew with Emirates. Browsing the in flight entertainment and they had "Every Number 1 since the charts began".
Brilliant I thought. Let's go to some classic years
67 - crap
68 - crap
70 - crap
73 - crap
etc etc.
It was all crap novelty pop stuff, cheap glam rock stuff etc.
Came home and told my old man and he confirmed that the charts were always garbage. The good stuff rarely hit number one. It was always crap that people bought in large numbers on a regular basis.
the charts have always been crap
Yeah but at least it was varied crap. 😀
Imagine the old chart countdown these days:
"Okay pop pickers, we're down to the Top 10 and it's a new entry at number 10, Ed Sheeran, down two places to number 9, Ed Sheeran, up one place from last weeks position it's Ed Sheeran at 8, .... dooo-de-doo de-de-dooo... staying in at 7 it's Ed Sheeran, falling three places it's Ed Sheeran at 6..."
😆
The good stuff rarely hit number one
Mixed bag perhaps but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_by_number_of_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones
[quote=GrahamS ]the charts have always been crap
Yeah but at least it was varied crap.
Imagine the old chart countdown these days:
"Okay pop pickers, we're down to the Top 10 and it's a new entry at number 10, Ed Sheeran, down two places to number 9, Ed Sheeran, up one place from last weeks position it's Ed Sheeran at 8, .... dooo-de-doo de-de-dooo... staying in at 7 it's Ed Sheeran, falling three places it's Ed Sheeran at 6..."
The good stuff rarely hit number one
Mixed bag perhaps but:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_by_number_of_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones
br />
the fact westlife have x2 the number ones of Jacko, says everything really
I was just happy to see McFly in there.
BoardinBob - Memberthe charts have always been crap
Sure, but that's not really what I meant- today's charts just don't record the same thing as old charts so making any comparison just doesn't make sense.
the charts have always been crap
Not really. The charts have always been perfect at what they are designed to do.
Showing who sold/streamed the most records that particular week.
That's all they do. And all they have ever done.
You could argue they are a better measure these days, because people don't repeatedly stream a song if they don't like it.
But bought singles always counted, even if the buyer grew to hate it, once they had listened to it a few times.
today's charts just don't record the same thing as old charts
Completely agree - what I'm saying is that large parts of the media and industry still [i]act[/i] like they do. They still book acts, set playlists, write stories, do interviews etc based on what is happening in that chart. Hence my explanation for Ed's instant megafame.
today's charts just don't record the same thing as old charts
Completely agree - what I'm saying is that large parts of the media and industry still act like they do. They still book acts, set playlists, write stories, do interviews etc based on what is happening in that chart. Hence my explanation for Ed's instant megafame.
That's because, oddly enough, TV stations want popular people on their shows, and radio stations want to play the music that is popular (in general)
And there is no better gauge of popularity in music in any given week, than the charts.
Wonder why they use it ?
You could argue they are a better measure these days, because people don't repeatedly stream a song if they don't like it.
Maybe, but the fact that all 16 of his songs are in the Top 20 suggests that a lot of people are just playing the whole album.
Playing a whole album? That'll never catch on! What do people think it is? The 1970's?
Maybe, but the fact that all 16 of his songs are in the Top 20 suggests that a lot of people are just playing the whole album.
Yes. A LOT more than ANY other album ever made that's currently available for sale or streaming.
Quite impressive really eh ?
So. If you were booking a musician for a popular chat show this week, or choosing popular songs to add to a playlist for the radio, who would it make sense to feature do you think ?
Someone who's currently popular maybe 😉
Edit- and if people are playing the album [b]in full, 100 times[/b], do you think it's reasonable that he gets the equivalent of ONE single sale per track counted towards the charts ?
Try some John Martyn. Nuff said.
"Playing a whole album? That'll never catch on! What do people think it is? The 1970's?"
😀
just heard it for the first time and i liked it. not a lover of music but thought it was good
fallsoffalot - Membernot a lover of music but thought it was good
Harshest review ever 😆
A LOT more than ANY other album ever made that's currently available for sale or streaming.
Indeed. All 3 of his available albums are in the Top 5 of the album chart. 😯
if people are playing the album in full, 100 times, do you think it's reasonable that he gets the equivalent of ONE single sale per track counted towards the charts ?
The 100 (or 150) times thing is irrelevant though.
As sharkbait pointed out earlier no one actually buys singles anymore, so the chart is almost entirely based on streaming. The scaling factor applies to everyone so it has no influence on chart position, only the "sales" figures.
Basically I think the historic purpose of the charts has been lost, and that's a bit of a shame, but things move on.
I don't know how you could "fix" it or get any kind of equivalent these days.
I think he's crap but then I'm a middle-aged man and I don't really understand what young people do anymore. He's no Roger Whitaker that's for certain.
I don't know how you could "fix" it or get any kind of equivalent these days.
Well, you would look at how music consumption has changed. And you would figure out that mostly people stream music, but some people still buy it.
Then you would look at how to measure the popularity of a particular track, in a particular week. So you would count the number of sales first, then you would add the number of streams (with a formula applied to the streams to take into account the relative cost differences between streaming and buying)
Then you would line up all the tracks in order, with the most popular at the top, and all the others in order, according to how popular they are relative to each other.
Then you publish the list to anyone that cares (almost nobody apart from those that want to say it's crap)
So it's pretty much the same as it always has been.
fallsoffalot - Member
just heard it for the first time and i liked it. not a lover of music but thought it was good
Rearrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying:
Faint. Damned. Praise. By.
😉
not a lover of music but thought it was good
😀
Ideally, your opinion shouldn't count. But it does, along with all the other people who aren't lovers of music who buy Ed Sheeran's records.
the fact westlife have x2 the number ones of Jacko, says everything really
Probably Karma, I don't think anyone from Westlife abused children
😀
Shane touched my heart 😆
PMSL @ juanghia
