Why is the UK more obsessed with pop charts than the US?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I mean, am I right? Or is it just the UK posters here?

Does it have something to do with the fact that the UK countdown is on BBC radio on Sunday nights, so everyone just kinda has it on? (Like how half of the U.S. watches 60 Minutes?) Whereas "American Top 40" is syndicated (so nobody knows when it's on) and on MOR stations that plenty of people don't care about? (Although now that that hottie Ryan Seacrest is taking over, maybe there'll be lots new fans!)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:38 (twenty-two years ago)

The UK is a smaller place.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:41 (twenty-two years ago)

The UK chart is less static than the US one, and is still solely determined by sales, which makes the possibility of shocks that much bigger (also aided, yes, by the fact we have less people than you do). That said, the chart is on a bit of a downturn in popularity at present, serving primarily as a means for pop bands to chart outside the top 5 and get dropped because they have failed, or something.

― William Bloody Swygart (mrswygart), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)

We're a bit more twee

― pete s, Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:46 (twenty-two years ago)

the single is still a viable commercial product in the UK.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, I was obsessed with the Billboard charts from the age of 11-14. But now I see it as a quaint hobby of my youth. I think I stopped photocopying the charts at the library after this hip girl I knew saw what I was doing and said, "Ugh."

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:49 (twenty-two years ago)

WBS is right, the fact that it's entirely sales based means that people have an emotional as well as financial investment in it. If airplay was used, as in the US, that link would be broken.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I think its a combination of Top of the Pops giving the charts a visible representation in the public consciousness over the past 30-odd years, the way in which the charts are actually a representation of what people are buying, rather than what the radio wants us to listen to, and that the UK charts are a lot more... interesting than the US charts (more unpredictable at least).

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:49 (twenty-two years ago)

"The UK is a smaller place."

And historically the UK has been a more homogenous place. So it seems strange for us Brits to hear talk of seperate country, r'n'b etc charts or when you hear that eg The Beach Boys had Californian hits before going national or whatever.

And as we've had fewer radio stations, television stations, magazines and newspapers that can legitimately be said to reach the whole country then a single broadcast or published chart can have greater impact.

I guess.

Also, don't be fooled by the posters here.

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:49 (twenty-two years ago)

A US style "including airplay" chart is the Pepsi chart, though, which is pretty much inconsequential.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:50 (twenty-two years ago)

the single is still a viable commercial product in the UK.

I don't see how buying singles has anything to do with taking an interest in the chart, though.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Oops, that was a major x-post. I get it now.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks :)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 8 January 2004 22:52 (twenty-two years ago)

But the US music scene is every bit as single-driven as the UK music scene is. You don't watch albums on MTV, you watch singles. They don't play albums on the radio, they play singles. Tons of people know "Milkshake", nobody knows Tasty, etc. Only difference is, the US record labels absolutely hate singles. US record companies have killed the singles market off so they can force you to buy the album. Strange that hasn't happened in the UK yet, because it does make really good sense from a purely business standpoint.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Thursday, 8 January 2004 23:12 (twenty-two years ago)

The UK Singles chart would be better if it was based on airplay. Then novelty singles would never get to the top, crap indie/metal bands would never chart and pop acts & Dido would rule the charts for months on end.

― Billy Bunter, Thursday, 8 January 2004 23:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't get it

― Ferrrrrrg (Ferg), Thursday, 8 January 2004 23:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate indie rock. I'd rather hear Dido on the radio than Athlete or The Vines.

― Billy Bunter, Friday, 9 January 2004 00:17 (twenty-two years ago)

The pop charts should be whats actually "popular" what people are actually listening to, not what a few thousand people are buying. More people listen to the radio than buy singles.

― Billy Bunter, Friday, 9 January 2004 00:20 (twenty-two years ago)

The charts should just consist of what people want when they phone in late night request shows on local radio, ie, XTM and Ashanti.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 9 January 2004 00:58 (twenty-two years ago)

dido is playined on classic rock stations here.

― keith m (keithmcl), Friday, 9 January 2004 04:09 (twenty-two years ago)

To some extent, it seems that this singles question also mirrors the general difference in formation in youth culture: the UK has more of a sense of containedness, where something (mod, punk, manchester, dance music) can "take over" for a little while.
The US has never had those same mass/national youth cultures (except maybe hip hop), and hence, the charts don't "mean much" in terms of mass style/trousers/haircuts/drugs or whatever.
As for why, I think it's cos the US is just so much more culturally variegated...it's kind of analogous to considering the UK/France/Germany as one country.

― paulhw (paulhw), Friday, 9 January 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

the charts should just be what the popular high school students listen to.

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 January 2004 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

US record labels absolutely hate singles. US record companies have killed the singles market off

is this true or are you just speculating based on trends? (meaning, well, how have they killed it off?)

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 January 2004 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Because they don't make singles anymore!!

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Friday, 9 January 2004 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

also by charging $3-7 for cd singles

― mig, Friday, 9 January 2004 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

Speaking as a record store singles buyer, Yeah, US companies don't like the single. Hot singles such as Brittney, Timberlake, Outkast (HEy Yeah) I have to get as UK or Australian singles first. Then maybe it will become a US domestic. I have always wanted to know the reason for this. UNI sells me singles at like a .50 cent cost. sometimes even .01 cent. I think they want me to mark the single down to .99 cent to the customer and force them to buy it on price alone. Why?

― machinehugger (cs appleby), Saturday, 24 January 2004 19:20 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...

I totally hate the UK Top 40, none of the bands i listen 2 get in2 the charts, maybe cause they r all variations of Punk, Oi!, Ska-Punk, Hardcore,etc. 2 me this is REAL music, but the charts r all about which bands or artists sell the most records. The crap radio stations over here play people like James CUNT every fuckin' hour of every fuckin' day. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! If it's not him, then it's that INDIE SHITE, R&B:RUBBISH & BOLLOCKS, GIRLS U SHOULDN'T B ALOUD, SUGAR APES. It's just bullshit. Don't get me started on the so called Jazz King, Jaime Cullam. UN-FUCKIN' REAL.

― ETHAN HAWKE, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 19:50 (twenty years ago)

Esteban?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 14 December 2005 19:56 (twenty years ago)

Yes Boss!

― Esteban P Buttez, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 20:11 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.