Are music charts relevant anymore?
 

If you look at any "what song are you listening to" thread or viral video - none of the songs mentioned are in the current charts? So... are the charts relevant anymore since they are based only on sales??

Well, the charts would indicate the most popular music in terms of downloads and physical releases bought legally.

Chart music is available to the vast majority and the market for pop music tends to be those who are most likely to have disposable income and those most likely to be easily targeted. I.E. It is easier to exploit teenage girls with boy bands than it would be to target the same artists at geriatrics.

And since there are a lot more teenage girls buying music than geriatrics, the markets desired artists will be most successful in a commercial sense.

In short, having greater exposure will allow one to have greater sales.

Top 40 charts have never claimed to contain the best technical pieces of music nor have they claimed to have the most talented artists, they have always been based on sales.

They are no less relevant now than they were at their inception.

hmm.. i see your point. I think I phrased my point incorrectly. I didn't mean to suggest the charts are irrelevant but more so that it would be great to have a chart or some sort of indicator that measured what is being played currently across the globe instead of whats being purchased.

If you have Spotify, they have just that.
It measures which tracks are most played on their service across the world as well as in different countries.

The American charts also incorporate radio airplay into their Top 40 charts.

The bigger question is: were they ever relevant?

Well, they're not relevant to me. I don't need to know what's popular. I buy the music that I like to listen to, whether or not it shows up on a chart.

Thats fair enough Burning Down - but wouldn't you be curious to know what others are listening to - not on a "showing off" or "bragging" level but on the off chance it might lead you to discover some new music?

I doubt it, I think you'll find that most members here kicked the Top 40's to the curb years ago, at least when it comes to determining what new music we listen to. With countless blogs, music forums, last.fm, spotify, and RYM there's no real reason to go back.

Are you asking this on every music forum or something? I think I just filled-out your little questionnaire on another site ;)

Im trying to gather a lot of opinions - so I thought this to be the best method! Thanks for the comments though!

Not really. The best selling singles of the past sold in millions, they were heard by everyone, people listened to the radio more. That was certainly the case back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s.

So, it still serves the same purpose then doesn't it?
It still charts the most popular music.

Yes, but the music itself is less popular (which I consider significant).

Yea when the Beatles and the stones were big, that's when the charts were good, now it's just auto tuned shiit :L

Whether or not you like the bands on the charts doesn't mean the charts are relevant.

I'll keep saying it, more people liked the music in the charts in the past.

In what sense?

What I said before, record sales and more actually heard the music. Music was less segmented for more people.

What is the difference between the popular music of the past and the music now?

As I said it was less segmented, more listened to the same music. That's the difference in the chart music.

How did you come up with that? And what is segmented when it's at home?

Were you around during the 50s and 60s?

Well the sales would suggest that. Anyway, believe what you want. I'm leaving it at that.

Were they ever relevant?

i liked what i liked if it was popular great, if it was un-popular even better.

i really don't care about the Charts "Top ten" or wthv.. >_>

I don't get that. I've never minded liking something if it was popular or not.

I do think there is probably more of a disconnect now between what the media hype is for something and what the general interest is. Lady Gaga for example is probably better known for her image than for her music.

I don't know that that's necessarily true. I'd be willing to bet that back in the 1950s and 1960s it was a much narrower age demographic purchasing music.

I think they are a measure of sales, it doesn't demonstrate who the popular or talented artists is for me.

I think it does measure popularity, but not talent, of course. As has always been the case.

And of course they are relevant, and have always been, but not to everyone.

It was probably less segmented even in the 50s, there were fewer genres. Disco in the 70s is probably a good example of a genre reaching across age groups, even some old 60s stars did disco songs for their fans. And in the 60s a group like The Beatles, while not liked by everyone, were covered by artists from various genres and age groups.

I really doubt that many people born before, say, 1935 were fans of the Beatles.

Anyway, my point was simply this: People who were middle-aged and older during the 50s and 60s did not typically buy many records because, unlike their children, it's not something they grew up with. That's not to say those people didn't like music, it's just that they didn't consume it in the same way the younger generation of that time did. As a result of this, the music that made the charts during those decades tended to be skewed toward the listenening habits of the youth which, obviously, doesn't give you the whole picture.

Even if in that earlier period of the 50s and 60s they didn't actually buy music maybe many of the middle-aged people at least heard the music on the radio or TV and had more awareness of chart music than most people probably do now. And my point about music of some periods being remade for other audiences wasn't made flippantly. See The Hollyridge Strings and the success they had.

The Hollyridge Strings | AllMusic

Starrynight, were live in the modern age where music is ****ing everywhere.

You can't go out to a bar/club/restaurant or even a take-away without hearing music, you pass somebody in the street, high chance they are listening to music if they are alone.

Music is at its most accessible, most diverse and is more widespread than it has ever been. I don't think your argument carries much substance.

It's everywhere, but many different kinds of music is everywhere. The choice is enormous and diverse (as you say). So you are making my point for me. :D

but it's still the same artists that prevail, i.e. Katy Perry, Eminem, Ke$ha.
They are always at the top of the chart or around it, as the Beatles, Beach Boys, etc were 50 years ago.

Therefore I do not see how the charts are less relevant in 2012.
Surely, if there is a wider choice of music competing for sales, it would add more prestige to hold the Number 1 slot?

There will still be prestige, but I have to say I couldn't name a single song from the three artists you mention. So they don't mean much to me, my choice has gone elsewhere. I've probably hardly heard their music at all.

so what you're saying is charts are not as relevant because you don't personally like the artists?

I think what he's saying is that people are aware of more kinds of music than they used to be because of the internet and much more public underground music scenes, so people don't pay attention to the charts as much anymore because they don't have to. Back in the day, most people only knew about a band because they were on the radio or on Dick Clark's American Bandstand.

If you don't mind my asking, how old are you?

Yep that's really what I said before. There are many more radio stations now playing all different types of music, more TV stations too. People have other things to do as well like the internet, computer games. Older music hasn't gone away either, in fact things like youtube have made more of that available than ever before. And more younger people may be aware of older music than ever before.

I'm not denying that some younger people may well follow the charts, though some may not. But the general interest I think is less. I suppose I've entered middle age now but I still make an effort to hear new music, but on my terms because with resources like the internet I can make choices of my own (just like everyone else).

oh don't get me wrong, im not looking for weird bands just to seem original but i usually like them better than the "IN" artist at the time.
i can like a lady gaga song but i prefer daniel johnston recording songs in his 4 track..

Most of the time nowadays I also prefer lesser known groups or singers. That's not so much the case with older music though.