Cody
6x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 6,692
|
Post by Cody on Mar 18, 2010 15:32:42 GMT -5
The chart is pretty weak right now based on how long alot of the top 20 songs have all been on the chart. Uprising, Again, 1901, Savior, Back Against The Wall, I Want You To, Break, Kings & Queens, I Will Not Bow, Just Breathe, and #21 Mess Of Me have all been on forever. Usually with an average flow of prestigious releases, the amount of old songs that are there right now is absolutely unheard of.
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Mar 18, 2010 15:37:37 GMT -5
Sorry, my based on what comment wasn't in reference to the chart being weak. I understand that quite perfectly well. I want to know why "Mess Of Me" would have gone top 5 five years ago, as The Realest Ninja claims. It seems to me it would be the exact opposite, in the sense that right now it is a very weak chart, and five years ago there likely would have been stronger competition. Also, "Stars" was released roughly five years ago, and it didn't manage to do very well. And "Stars" was a pretty darn good song if I may say so myself.
|
|
Cody
6x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 6,692
|
Post by Cody on Mar 18, 2010 16:06:09 GMT -5
no I wasnt replying to anyone specific I was just replying the the weak chart argument that has went on in the thread
|
|
|
Post by The Party Captain on Mar 18, 2010 16:52:17 GMT -5
Based off the punk emo scene. The aggressive nature would have blended well with the Fall Out Boy time.
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,700
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Mar 18, 2010 19:52:08 GMT -5
The only events that could occur that would temporarily thwart this chart's "weakness" is a massive onslaught of new releases from past-their-prime core artistssszzz!!!! In which case, most devoted listeners would twiddle their thumbs in boredom and make cynical comments about the predictable, corporate, intelligence-undermining nature of modern-day "alternative" music.
|
|
Mega248
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 12,333
|
Post by Mega248 on Mar 18, 2010 21:43:37 GMT -5
The chart is pretty weak right now based on how long alot of the top 20 songs have all been on the chart. Uprising, Again, 1901, Savior, Back Against The Wall, I Want You To, Break, Kings & Queens, I Will Not Bow, Just Breathe, and #21 Mess Of Me have all been on forever. Usually with an average flow of prestigious releases, the amount of old songs that are there right now is absolutely unheard of. Exactly. Just take a look at the top 10. WOC (as of 3/14/10) are in bold: 1 1 MUSE Resistance Warner Bros. 1542 1584 -42 14[/size] 3 2 MUSE Uprising Warner Bros. 1402 1422 -20 322 3 FLYLEAF Again A&M/Octone/Interscope 1388 1424 -36 295 4 PHOENIX 1901 RED/Loyaute/Glassnote 1372 1385 -13 388 5 CRASH KINGS Mountain Man Custard/Universal Motown 1348 1250 98 20[/size] 7 6 ALICE IN CHAINS Your Decision Virgin/Capitol 1314 1271 43 15[/size] 6 7 RISE AGAINST Savior DGC/Interscope 1313 1332 -19 399 8 PARAMORE Brick By Boring Bric... Fueled By Ramen/RRP 1199 1161 38 17[/size] 4 9 CAGE THE ELEPHANT Back Against The Wal... Jive/JLG 1197 1390 -193 3310 10 CHEVELLE Letter From A Thief Epic 1101 1069 32 16[/size] That's 4 songs in the top 10 that are at 30+ weeks, and all of those except "Back Against the Wall" will probably hit 40 weeks before dropping out of the top 10. Less than a decade ago the all-time record was under 40 weeks. I don't see how it can be argued that this is anything close to a competitive chart. Sorry, my based on what comment wasn't in reference to the chart being weak. I understand that quite perfectly well. I want to know why "Mess Of Me" would have gone top 5 five years ago, as The Realest Ninja claims. It seems to me it would be the exact opposite, in the sense that right now it is a very weak chart, and five years ago there likely would have been stronger competition. Also, "Stars" was released roughly five years ago, and it didn't manage to do very well. And "Stars" was a pretty darn good song if I may say so myself. Yeah, I'd say 6-7 years ago is was when "Mess of Me" might have been huge, as that's when Switchfoot was at their 'peak' on Alternative. 5 years ago the format was already turning its shoulder on them. The only events that could occur that would temporarily thwart this chart's "weakness" is a massive onslaught of new releases from past-their-prime core artistssszzz!!!! In which case, most devoted listeners would twiddle their thumbs in boredom and make cynical comments about the predictable, corporate, intelligence-undermining nature of modern-day "alternative" music. It's not the music itself that's predictable, it's the way PDs ensure that almost any lead single from any of these bands will fly up to #1 in a matter of days. More often than not, the new material is almost as good as the band's 'classic' hits. In my opinion at least.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Mar 18, 2010 22:03:57 GMT -5
A song that doesn't have a lot of money.
|
|
singingrulebritannia
Diamond Member
source: https://twitter.com/spookyfoxinc/status/1832168743704596972
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 25,591
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by singingrulebritannia on Mar 19, 2010 0:30:51 GMT -5
It's not the music itself that's predictable Linkin Park has been using the same basic song structure for nearly every song their entire career. RHCP is always trying their darndest to bring back the funk but only succeed in being boring. You can still count on Weezer to jam some basic chord structures to an insecure 7th grader's poems. Foo Fighters are just playing pop rock hard enough to retain their alt cred. Green Day is, well, pop punk. I could go on forever. The only ones that are not predictable are Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails, but PJ is just getting more and more boring, and Trent Reznor of his own admission is 'getting too old for this'.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Mar 19, 2010 0:34:00 GMT -5
It's not the music itself that's predictable Linkin Park has been using the same basic song structure for nearly every song their entire career. RHCP is always trying their darndest to bring back the funk but only succeed in being boring. You can still count on Weezer to jam some basic chord structures to an insecure 7th grader's poems. Foo Fighters are just playing pop rock hard enough to retain their alt cred. Green Day is, well, pop punk. I could go on forever. The only ones that are not predictable are Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails, but PJ is just getting more and more boring, and Trent Reznor of his own admission is 'getting too old for this'. I don't know, I find NIN to be pretty predictable. Even when Trent tries to be unpredictable, he's predictable.
|
|
singingrulebritannia
Diamond Member
source: https://twitter.com/spookyfoxinc/status/1832168743704596972
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 25,591
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by singingrulebritannia on Mar 19, 2010 0:38:13 GMT -5
Yea I went easy on NIN there because he made Only, and I like that song more than probably any #1 last decade aside from Feel Good Inc. NIN's at least not as bad as the others.
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Mar 19, 2010 0:45:54 GMT -5
I thought AIC was surprisingly heavy with Black Gives Way To Blue. But I guess that's not that surprising. Smashing Pumpkins if nothing else have become sorta unpredictable. Though the quality has become predictably subpar.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Mar 19, 2010 1:02:16 GMT -5
I thought AIC was surprisingly heavy with Black Gives Way To Blue. But I guess that's not that surprising. Smashing Pumpkins if nothing else have become sorta unpredictable. Though the quality has become predictably subpar. I don't know, I don't find anything unpredictable about their newer material, except for people's reactions to it.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Mar 19, 2010 1:03:23 GMT -5
Yea I went easy on NIN there because he made Only, and I like that song more than probably any #1 last decade aside from Feel Good Inc. NIN's at least not as bad as the others. I really fail to see how there's anything bad about it. Those artists are known for bringing a certain something to the plate, and they're good at what they do. There's really not a need for them to radically change in any way.
|
|
singingrulebritannia
Diamond Member
source: https://twitter.com/spookyfoxinc/status/1832168743704596972
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 25,591
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by singingrulebritannia on Mar 19, 2010 1:28:00 GMT -5
I just meant 'bad' in terms of to what degree, though I will say I don't like any of the most recent releases from the bands I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by My Life Is A Stereo on Mar 19, 2010 1:36:16 GMT -5
I just meant 'bad' in terms of to what degree, though I will say I don't like any of the most recent releases from the bands I mentioned. And its your opinion. I love the bashing of successful bands just because it's seems trendy to do it. Weezer's last album had some great stuff on it and their new album is Weezerific. RHCP's last album was great. And seriously bashing the Foo Fighters.....come on....get real. I don't understand why people have such a hard time realizing that its not a prerequisite for a band to change the sound that has made them successful. It's the overly critical who seriously need to take a look at how ridiculous that argument is. For example, when someone says the only reason they hate a band like AC/DC is because their music sounds the same. Well okay, you have every right to hate them....but they have millions of fans who love for that reason and when they want to hear something that doesn't sound like AC/DC they listen to something else....they don't ask AC/DC to make a Def Leppard album.
|
|
singingrulebritannia
Diamond Member
source: https://twitter.com/spookyfoxinc/status/1832168743704596972
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 25,591
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by singingrulebritannia on Mar 19, 2010 1:48:16 GMT -5
Man you're insecure. I wasn't assaulting your taste in music at all, so why did you feel the need to ramp up the tone of the thread 50 notches higher than where it was? I was stating my opinion. I know my opinion isn't going to make other people not like those bands. I'm not trying to do that. I'm not a hipster either. I'm just saying what I perceive those bands to be doing. It's not like I'm picketing outside some musician's house telling them to change their sound. Do you seriously not understand that? Do you not know where my opinion ends and yours begins or something?
Jesus, this is so far off-topic it hurts.
|
|
|
Post by The Party Captain on Mar 19, 2010 10:12:52 GMT -5
why did you feel the need to ramp up the tone of the thread 50 notches higher than where it was? What does that even mean? 50 notches? I would estimate about 25.
|
|
|
Post by The Party Captain on Mar 19, 2010 10:16:37 GMT -5
Jesus, this is so far off-topic it hurts. A quick trip to the General Music Forums would change your mind about that. By the way, My Life Is A Stereo is actually one of the posters on here I respect most. There is nothing about what he said that even suggests a lack of security. Watch yourself, cowboy.
|
|
|
Post by My Life Is A Stereo on Mar 19, 2010 10:28:28 GMT -5
Man you're insecure. I wasn't assaulting your taste in music at all, so why did you feel the need to ramp up the tone of the thread 50 notches higher than where it was? I was stating my opinion. I know my opinion isn't going to make other people not like those bands. I'm not trying to do that. I'm not a hipster either. I'm just saying what I perceive those bands to be doing. It's not like I'm picketing outside some musician's house telling them to change their sound. Do you seriously not understand that? Do you not know where my opinion ends and yours begins or something? Jesus, this is so far off-topic it hurts. Speaking of insecurity.....sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out that I find it absurd that it only ever seems the biggest bands get bashed for doing what they always do. It was more of a generalization of critics overall, not you in particular. You have every right to have your opinion and I have every right to tell you why I disagree with it. People have no idea how to debate something. They immediately take anything as a personal attack. At most I'm attacking your statement. Which you should be okay with standing behind without (insert new Godsmack song here)** ** - This is totally intended as a joke....I hope we can all chill now.
|
|
lockebox
5x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2009
Posts: 5,739
|
Post by lockebox on Mar 19, 2010 12:52:07 GMT -5
What the heck is a poor song? "Lay Me Down"... pay attention next time
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,700
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Mar 19, 2010 15:52:19 GMT -5
The only events that could occur that would temporarily thwart this chart's "weakness" is a massive onslaught of new releases from past-their-prime core artistssszzz!!!! In which case, most devoted listeners would twiddle their thumbs in boredom and make cynical comments about the predictable, corporate, intelligence-undermining nature of modern-day "alternative" music. It's not the music itself that's predictable, it's the way PDs ensure that almost any lead single from any of these bands will fly up to #1 in a matter of days. More often than not, the new material is almost as good as the band's 'classic' hits. In my opinion at least.[/quote] I agree that it isn't necessarily the quality of music from the '90s staples. In fact, I consider myself a fan of Weezer, RHCP, NIN, PJ, and others. The longevity and dominance of their new releases, combined with slowing modern-day chart activity and in the greater scheme of things culture by incessantly regurgitating those golds, makes the modern charts all too predictable and makes turnover ridiculously slow. And as for 3DG, BB, et al....I considered myself a fan for many years and still do to a small extent, but screw them. And any alternative station who plays Five Finger Death Punch, Godsmack, and Metallica in its top twenty simultaneously should be purged from the format and placed in with the blander and ever-more-irrelevant active rock format.
|
|
singingrulebritannia
Diamond Member
source: https://twitter.com/spookyfoxinc/status/1832168743704596972
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 25,591
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by singingrulebritannia on Mar 19, 2010 16:32:54 GMT -5
Speaking of insecurity.....sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out that I find it absurd that it only ever seems the biggest bands get bashed for doing what they always do. You didn't. ??? He said "core artists", I made examples of core artists. Those are intrinsically going to be the most successful, so I don't know what you want me to say. I am standing behind it. I was standing behind it then when I was telling you what I actually meant! I wasn't getting angry at you or anything. Seriously, I'm not offended by any of this! I just said what I perceive to be happening. Can you see what I mean now? I don't want to make an enemy out of anyone.
|
|
(Artie Ziff)
5x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2007
Posts: 5,993
|
Post by (Artie Ziff) on Mar 19, 2010 18:35:38 GMT -5
I know what song he meant. I just do not understand what poor meant.
|
|
lockebox
5x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2009
Posts: 5,739
|
Post by lockebox on Mar 19, 2010 18:42:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Party Captain on Mar 19, 2010 20:56:41 GMT -5
I'm actually going to have to side with Artie here. Poor is a poor word to describe music you view to be poor. Not everyone panders to your subjective tastes.
|
|
(Artie Ziff)
5x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2007
Posts: 5,993
|
Post by (Artie Ziff) on Mar 19, 2010 22:50:55 GMT -5
A song that doesn't have a lot of money.
|
|
lockebox
5x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2009
Posts: 5,739
|
Post by lockebox on Mar 20, 2010 11:26:35 GMT -5
I'm actually going to have to side with Artie here. Poor is a poor word to describe music you view to be poor. Not everyone panders to your subjective tastes. Poor is a poor word to describe music you view as poor? ??? A song that doesn't have a lot of money. "Not adequate in quality; inferior:"
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Mar 20, 2010 11:28:03 GMT -5
Hey, I was making a joke.
|
|
lockebox
5x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2009
Posts: 5,739
|
Post by lockebox on Mar 20, 2010 11:41:25 GMT -5
I'm aware of that. Artie was just attempting to use that comment as an assist to his side of the arguement. I don't quite understand what he's trying to get at here anyway.
|
|
jvandyck87
5x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 5,213
|
Post by jvandyck87 on Mar 20, 2010 12:28:01 GMT -5
Well since you're trying to dodge the 'tongue in cheek-ness' of their points, you're also I think missing their point. You say what it means to be a poor song using the definition lacking in quality or inadequate; but you fail to say what makes a song objectively lacking in quality or inadequate. Do you have criteria to objectively evaluate what makes a song poor or not poor? You can say the lyrics, the music, the melody, etc...but then i ask you: do you have criteria to objectively evaluate what makes a melody poor or not poor? A rhythm poor or not poor? And even if you do, is your criteria objective or unbiased? Somebody else could easily feel that your criteria is bulls**t.
That's the point they're trying to make by making fun of your word 'poor'.
|
|