1. Originally posted by SonerMulder:With all the talking about hits.. Ordinary Love was a pretty big hit in the Netherlands! Not massive, but I heard it everywhere and all my friends knew it without being interested in U2.

    But then U2 decided to not play that song once in the Netherlands
    It was pretty big here in the US too, though I don't know how it charted. I barely listen to the radio and I heard it everywhere well into 2015, lots of my friends knew it, etc. It just seems like the charts aren't very reflective of how music is doing... Invisible was a #1 US single... On SOME chart, I think Adult Alternative or some such. Never heard it on radio at all. So... I don't know. I'm not sure singles positions means anything.
  2. I don't care about charts... charts are not measurement of quality anymore...
  3. Were they ever though?

    And again it is all so subjective. Not saying you are like this but I HATE elitist pricks who proclaim that nothing new is good and that what is number one now isn't comparable or worthy.

    That is your opinion.
  4. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]
    Were they ever though?

    And again it is all so subjective. Not saying you are like this but I HATE elitist pricks who proclaim that nothing new is good and that what is number one now isn't comparable or worthy.

    That is your opinion.
    Do you not think it's harsh calling people elitist pricks for voicing there opinion? The charts doesn't exactly cover a wide range of genres nowadays so it's no surprise a lot of people don't like anything from it. I'm not quite as dismissive as to say nothing new is good but I do think a lot of what's in the charts is terrible. I think there's great music still out there though but a lot of it doesn't make the charts and isn't played on radio.
  5. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    Do you not think it's harsh calling people elitist pricks for voicing there opinion? The charts doesn't exactly cover a wide range of genres nowadays so it's no surprise a lot of people don't like anything from it. I'm not quite as dismissive as to say nothing new is good but I do think a lot of what's in the charts is terrible. I think there's great music still out there though but a lot of it doesn't make the charts and isn't played on radio.
    exactly my thoughts... in the past there used to be very various genres in the charts, so almost everyone could find something for them there... but these days just a few (and all of them are similar) genres are in the charts...
    I never said I hate everything new, just don't like what is in charts now...
  6. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]
    Were they ever though?

    And again it is all so subjective. Not saying you are like this but I HATE elitist pricks who proclaim that nothing new is good and that what is number one now isn't comparable or worthy.

    That is your opinion.
    And this is just YOUR OPINION
  7. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    Do you not think it's harsh calling people elitist pricks for voicing there opinion? The charts doesn't exactly cover a wide range of genres nowadays so it's no surprise a lot of people don't like anything from it. I'm not quite as dismissive as to say nothing new is good but I do think a lot of what's in the charts is terrible. I think there's great music still out there though but a lot of it doesn't make the charts and isn't played on radio.
    This. I feel 100% confident in saying that the top 10 of this list at the moment: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100 is complete garbage. Sure there's a science to creating a pop hit, but that doesn't mean they're creating quality music.
  8. I had a look at that top 100 there and the only song I quite like is castle on the hill by ed Sheeran.
  9. To be fair, the top 100 of any year is filled with crap, one-hit wonders and plastic pop groups. That's nothing new. People that grew up in the 80's said in the 90's that the current music is crap, and we say the same thing today.
    Milli Vanilli, Paula Abdul, Color Me Badd, etc. coexisted with U2, Nirvana, Guns N Roses, INXS, etc.
  10. Speaking as an elitist prick, there is a shit ton of great new music and artists out there. A ton. But none of it dominates the charts. And if agreeing that ^^^ above chart is 100% regurgitatable vomit, than I am a proud, card carrying, certifiable elitist prick. And proud of it. Everything on the charts is force fed. Go listen to your local AC or CHR (if they even still call them that) formatted stations. Tune into one for 2-3 hours and write down every song. How many different songs did you hear? How many songs did you hear more than once? They arehits because they are paid up front to be forced down your throat... then the music industry disguises their ruse by awarding a grammy to a deserving critics and fan favorite...
  11. Originally posted by cesar_garza01:To be fair, the top 100 of any year is filled with crap, one-hit wonders and plastic pop groups. That's nothing new. People that grew up in the 80's said in the 90's that the current music is crap, and we say the same thing today.
    Milli Vanilli, Paula Abdul, Color Me Badd, etc. coexisted with U2, Nirvana, Guns N Roses, INXS, etc.
    Yes. This is true. But the medium was slightly different. Radio wasnt quite as rigidly formatted (same 10 songs every hour on the hour) and there was MTV when it was actually Music Television that would play blocks of different styles...

    And if you gave me the choice, I'd throw up in my mouth much less listening to Color Me Badd as opposed to Bieber, or Paula Abdul as opposed to Katy Perry or Miley Cyrus.

    Elitist prick, out!
If all of our active forum posters would donate € 0,50 a year, we could pay all our hosting and storage bills without personal funding. Learn more