quick test! what songs are #1 RIGHT NOW!!

[nat whilk II]

When I was a kid, we always followed the top 40 charts - even saved the little flyers the station put out (really small town Indiana) until Mom threw them all out

 

But can anyone, right now, tell me what song(s) are no. 1 on ANY chart, any genre? Does anyone care anymore???

 

nat whilk ii

[Tedster]

Excellent point!!!

[Bob Keelan]

The last time I looked it was "Heard it through the Grapevine"

[MarkZ]

Whatever the title is, it's by

 

(name of rap artist)

 

featuring

 

(name of female singer on the track)

 

with Lil'

 

(name of secondary rap artist)

 

 

When did the whole "featuring" thing become the norm?

[Duck King]

But, did your parents know? Thread over.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Originally posted by Duck King But, did your parents know? Thread over.

 

He's right. If we don't know, it's our own damn fault. We're old and we suck.

 

BTW: I have no idea.

 

- Jeff

[nat whilk II]

Wow, this forum is only visited by parents?? :(

 

I need a new playground in that case...

 

nat whilk ii

[offramp]

I'M from small town Indiana, and I don't remember saving those things.

 

 

But...there's no point in memorizing these things anymore, because "the charts" don't really exist anymore. They're a joke.

[DanS]

Let's see, I went to HMV last Thursday and bought:

 

Carmina Burana - Carl Orff

So - Peter Gabriel

Symphony No. 5 - Tchaikovsky

Joshua Judges Ruth - Lyle Lovett

 

All on SA-CD/DTS.

 

Are they on the charts this week?????

[nat whilk II]

Originally posted by DanS Let's see, I went to HMV last Thursday and bought: Carmina Burana - Carl Orff So - Peter Gabriel Symphony No. 5 - Tchaikovsky Joshua Judges Ruth - Lyle Lovett All on SA-CD/DTS. Are they on the charts this week?????

 

Interesante....now that SA-CD of So, how does it sound? 'Cause the production on that album always really bothered me - has a glassy, unsatisfying quality that screams DIGITAL, or at least to my ear. Great music, don't mistake me, but the overall sound....maybe the SA-CD is better.

 

nat whilk ii

[BOOKUMDANO]

Whatta bunch of old geezers!

 

At the moment, Mariah Carey's doing a pretty good dent in the charts with "We Should Be Together"and the new entry this week "Shake It Off". That's pretty amazing considering the way she seemed to be finished off a couple of years ago. Those two songs are pushing the top in at least 3 different mainstream charts...and hey...she's been around 15 years now on the charts...she's an old geezer too! At least in the eyes of the 20- somethings buying this music.

 

My favorite is Clarkson's Behind Hazel Eyes which almost makes the top every couple of weeks. "Dont cha" is up there and also pretty good. Some of these records are getting such extended runs through the various charts that there are quite a few pop songs with a chart life of 70-80 weeks...."Heard It Through the Grapevine didn't even have that kind of chart longevity when it was new...even the three different times people recorded and released it back in those old days. (And I mean at the time it was new...not it's eternal life as an oldie)

 

Anyway...I think Stefani's semi-ballad "Cool" will probably get right up there in the next couple of weeks, at least here In L.A.

 

Good stuff hitting the top three or four pop slots in the past year. I like more of it this year than I have in the past couple of years.

[PetersReviews]

Dang, I didn't need to read a thread that made me feel old but here I am. Anyway, I don't feel too bad because I did know a few top singles, like the Gwen Stefani & Kelly Clarkson singles but I don't listen to their music. I'm getting into an old school jazz kick lately.

 

Peter

[MrKnobs]

Originally posted by BOOKUMDANO At the moment, Mariah Carey's doing a pretty good dent in the charts with "We Should Be Together"and the new entry this week "Shake It Off".

 

Do you mean "We Belong Together?"

 

Because if you really meant We Should be Together I'd have to post a link to my old band's tune by that name.

 

Terry D.

[BOOKUMDANO]

Yeah...there's an old old old Jefferson Airplane song with a similar title and I never used to get it right either.

[EugeneBr]

nat whilk II, catch a bunch of teenagers and make them play the ringtones in their mobiles. That'll tell you what's #1 in these days.

[Shars]

I aint got a clue!

I dont listen to the crap thats out there myself.

I prefer real music!

[Base]

I think a chap called James Blunt is no 1 over here, because he has been for something like the last million weeks so the media keep talking about it. If it is the song I'm thinking of it's a not altogether unpleasant acoustic ballad, nothing special tho.

 

I could probably name a few bands / songs that are in the charts from the amount of radio airplay they're getting, but the only station I listen to doesn't play any hip-hop/teeny-bopper stuff and I couldn't tell you what positions any of it was at.

 

Nor could I give a rats rear end...! I live in the country that let a ring-tone get to no. 1 for f's sake!!!!!

[philbo]

no, nobody cares...

 

Top 40 was always a means for reord companies to tell teenyboppers what they should like. But now the manipulation is so blatant that even they are wising up to it.

[Lee Flier]

 

Originally posted by philbo no, nobody cares... Top 40 was always a means for reord companies to tell teenyboppers what they should like. But now the manipulation is so blatant that even they are wising up to it.

 

 

You betcha.

 

I don't think this is an "age" thing at all. I never cared about the top 40 when I was 15, and I know plenty of teenagers now who don't care about it. The only people of any age who care are those who judge what is good based on what's popular.

[fantasticsound]

 

Originally posted by Lee Flier You betcha. I don't think this is an "age" thing at all. I never cared about the top 40 when I was 15, and I know plenty of teenagers now who don't care about it. The only people of any age who care are those who judge what is good based on what's popular.

 

 

You may not have cared about the Top 40, Lee, but I think you were part of a small minority.

 

When I (and sometime before that, you) were growing up, lots of kids listened to American Top 40 every week, regardless of what music they listened to. That was before cable tv, videos, not to mention the internet.

 

It is my humble opinion that people today largely ignore the charts because they have such immense access to information and music that the charts don't mean much to them.

 

Personally, I have virtually no interest in any rap, or (what's called) R&B these days. Subsequently, I don't pay attention to the Top 40 pop charts at all, because most of it represents those genres. I don't pay attention to the Country Top 40 because I'm jaded in regards to many of the songs and, again, I have access to many more song samples via the internet. If I want to hear what's available, the charts are far from the easiest way to find new music.

 

Changes in the music industry in the past two decades have made the charts essentially worthless except to advertising execs in the record companies and for products looking for an artist as spokesperson in ads.

[nat whilk II]

Maybe my experience was non-standard, but when the Beatles and the other Brit Invasion bands were working their way on the charts along with the Beach Boys and the soul artists, we watched the charts kinda like watching a horse race - we rooted for the good stuff to move up high and stick there.

 

here's a 1966 annual top 40 from some radio station back then...

 

1. MONDAY MONDAY

2. These Boots Are Made For Walking

3. Cherish

4. Strangers In The Night

5. Ballad Of The Green Berets

6. Last Train To Clarksville

7. Groovy Kind Of Love

8. (You're My) Soul & Inspiration

9. Little Red Riding Hood

10. You Can't Hurry Love

11. Wild Thing

12. Kicks

13. California Dreamin'

14. Good Lovin'

15. Reach Out, I'll Be There

16. Good Vibrations

17. Hanky Panky

18. Lightning Strikes

19. 96 Tears

20. See You In September

21. We Can Work It Out

22. My Love

23. You Don't Have To Say You Love Me

24. When A Man Loves A Woman

25. Sunny

26. Pied Piper

27. Sumer In The City

28. Sunshine Superman

29. Winchester Cathedral

30. Daydream

31. Eleanor Rigby

32. Secret Agent Man

33. 19th Nervous Breakdown

34. Red Rubber Ball

35. Paint It Black

36. Walk Away Renee

37. Cool Jerk

38. Michelle

39. Sounds Of Silence

40. What Becomes Of The Broken Hearted

 

I mean Nancy Sinatra at #2, Barry Sandler at #5 and the Beatles don't show until #21, the Stones only at #35. And what is Lou Christie doing on the chart at all?? Those kinds of things really bothered us - we knew this stuff like baseball fans know their stats.

 

nat whilk ii

[Jon Doe]

 

Originally posted by Lee Flier You betcha. I don't think this is an "age" thing at all. I never cared about the top 40 when I was 15, and I know plenty of teenagers now who don't care about it. The only people of any age who care are those who judge what is good based on what's popular.

 

 

Ditto. Wasn't no "Top 40" for FM ...

[BOOKUMDANO]

.......Maybe my experience was non-standard, but when the Beatles and the other Brit Invasion bands were working their way on the charts along with the Beach Boys and the soul artists, we watched the charts .......

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but who are "WE" ? And when did your particular bunch of "we" STOP following the charts?

 

For example, I was ferverently watching the charts by 1962 and the sheer change that was going on just in 1962-63 was so cool. In that small blip of time, the charts moved from the horrible phase of all the "tv kid stars" putting out records (top 10 stuff even then) to the "new" Motown stuff (which I didn't like much really...there was so much of it so fast out of nowhere and at least for me, there was only so much Holland-Dozier-Holland stuff I could take in a day)...BUT...the charts began to change.

 

We went into the folk-guitar hootenanny thing for a big part of 1963 and I was loving it. I followed the charts every week. This was before the Beatles hit..actually during the 63 summer when Please Please Me was on the radio charts and bombed...couldnt' get above 35. But hey, that "folk " stuff on the charts was great....a complete change from what had been big. There were the other stars of the day also who continually hit the charts with new hits...over and over and over and over...Gene Pitney being one of them. I didn't see how he kept doing that. He was sort of the Madonna hit machine of the day there for a couple of years. I and lots of others followed the charts completely at that moment in time. So...there are different categories of "we".

 

But hey, I also followed things intently from that point on. The period you listed for 1966 was a cool time also......in a transitory kind of way. The "we" I hung around with then were looking at what was going on...the Beatle format was 2 years old in 1966 and was getting pretty boring to lots of "we".

 

The commercialization of the format was r-e-a-l-l-y getting boring...we had overload of the "Beatle format" on tv...Bandstand.."Where the Action Is" , "Hullaballo, "Shindig (which got cancelled first) and four trillion local beatle-format band shows. All the radio stuff was Beatle-format-clone-band-this-and-that. If you were at an age where you just came into it in 1966, it was probably all new to you and your other "we" friends. But things were actually becoming a little bit of a drag in 1966 for me. There was an interesting harder edge coming out on the charts though that was interesting towards the end of the year. The charts had more of the offbeat stuff, but hardly anything charted high. The "splinter" aspect of the music ...the Nancy Sinatras (Jessica Simpson of the moment) and stuff that came out of the Hullabaloo mentality began clogging the charts in my mind. The charts were just getting swamped with bad music for a bit there...in my experience anyway.

 

In fact, I have a photocopied reprint line from a 1966 Hit Parader article on one of the lobby bulletin boards here. It's a quote from Steve Stills and he says "I just dunno where things are going to go. I don't think this Beatle-format can last much longer. We've all pretty much wrung everything out of it".

 

But to me, 1967 got much better. Much. Studio technique opened WAY up. Overdubbing went WAY up. Mellotrons and Hammonds came forward in mixes. Weird non-pop instruments came in. Hey..we have new toys to make music with. And the charts changed that year And it was a fun ride that year. Even though I now heard complaints from all the diehard 25-somethings who hated the "new" music and wished the old surf music would come back. By April 1968, about when Lady Madonna came out, I and a bunch of other "we" friends of mine were getting bored again. Psychedelia was a drag. No one seemed to be coming up with new ideas on the charts....for awhile. Then we went in to something completely new at the end of 1968. And by 1971, the charts were boring again...and underground fm was worse...it was one big sludgepool of garbage for the most part by 1971. A real mess. But then, things got gradually better again...with new stuff. And the "top 40 charts"cycle (for me) went on like that up until...well now.

 

I still follow the charts and I'm still jazzed by lots and lots of pop music. Sometimes a few months or most of a year will go by where I'm not thrilled by a lot of stuff....but then it changes. The music takes another turn and some interesting things start coming out.

 

I can take a look at charts of say 1968 and follow right through to see how little changes gradually moved music (chart music) to slightly new evolutions. I can draw a line that shows exactly how we got here...where we are now...from way back in 1962 or before. And it is all such a cool evolution. There's great music all along the way.

 

Of course, if you stop listening for a significant length of time, say 3 or 4 years, you miss out on the subtle changes......what you see is some sort of massive change...that perhaps you don't like. Or even if you listen to the radio constantly but the music moves further and further away from the "blip" of chart-history you liked, there is resistance.

 

And then you are required to say "today's music sucks".

 

So if you can nail down when you STOPPED watching the charts, how old you were and what year it was...that's pretty much where you can figure (in pop music history) that you sort of got off the bus. On the other hand, there are tons of "we" who still watch those charts and are involved in supporting the continuing evolution of the cool artform called pop music.

 

And of course NONE of this applies to folks who never followed charts or were interested in radio anyway.

[nat whilk II]

 

------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes, but who are "WE" ? And when did your particular bunch of "we" STOP following the charts? I can take a look at charts of say 1968 and follow right through to see how little changes gradually moved music (chart music) to slightly new evolutions. I can draw a line that shows exactly how we got here...where we are now...from way back in 1962 or before. And it is all such a cool evolution. There's great music all along the way. Of course, if you stop listening for a significant length of time, say 3 or 4 years, you miss out on the subtle changes......what you see is some sort of massive change...that perhaps you don't like. Or even if you listen to the radio constantly but the music moves further and further away from the "blip" of chart-history you liked, there is resistance. And then you are required to say "today's music sucks". So if you can nail down when you STOPPED watching the charts, how old you were and what year it was...that's pretty much where you can figure (in pop music history) that you sort of got off the bus. On the other hand, there are tons of "we" who still watch those charts and are involved in supporting the continuing evolution of the cool artform called pop music. And of course NONE of this applies to folks who never followed charts or were interested in radio anyway.

 

 

 

Wow, a lot there. I totally agree that the charts have sort of drama to them as they evolve - it's an education to just scan the charts year to year.

 

My crowd stopped following the charts when album rock took over and singles declined as the focus of new material being issued. And when radio stations started to specialize a lot more - I mean look at that 1966 Top 40 list, it's incredibly eclectic by today's standards - then I just stuck to the Rock or Progressive stations who didn't talk about charts and all that. So the charts kinda became this quaint thing from the past - but that was from our perspective, I admit.

 

Naw, I'm not off the bus and just taking cheap shots from the sofa....I really wonder - who follows the charts? anyone? is there a "buzz" to the charts like I experienced way back? I'm really asking, not just a rhetorical question. I admit I suspect that people don't follow the charts much anymore, but hey, I can be trained (somewhat).

 

So maybe it would be worthwhile to follow the charts now and get back into the flow and evolution of pop? That's an interesting idea I'm going to think about for a while.

 

When I said "we" I basically meant my brother 'n me and some guys that lived in the neighborhood - so I didn't mean be a generational spokesperson or anything.

 

It's such a typical scenario - most folks fall in love with the music they listened to when they were first falling in love, and that becomes their life-long benchmark for "the good old stuff" and they start to gripe about all the crap that passes for music these days, etc etc etc rewind play tape again. Personally, I think that's okay for people who only listen to music casually - but for me, I'm constantly combing the woods for new stuff to like, regardless of when it came out.

 

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply...

 

nat whilk ii

[ZED]

I have no idea what songs are even popular right now.