|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jan 28, 2019 11:54:10 GMT 10
Top-40 music during the 2010s has often been criticised for it's lack of diversity and questionable quality. While the earliest epoch of this decade was dominated by electropop, the charts during the Late 2010s have mostly been saturated by dull, lifeless EDM tracks and Trap music. The 2010s have arguably been the least diverse decade for mainstream music since the 1950s. As a result, I think it would be interesting to compare the charts from different countries and see which countries truly had it better than others. What would you say was the best and worst countries to experience chart music this decade? Obviously there's no objective way to determine it, but how would you judge it from your own personal observations?
Best: AustraliaThe Australian charts have, for the most part, been just as horrible as the other Top-40 charts from around the world, but the one thing that puts it leagues ahead of every other Western/Anglosphere country is the amount of great and/or interesting exclusives we've had. We've imported hits that have never charted in any other countries around the world. Also, some of the songs that came out of the Australian music scene this decade have been quite decent as well. Here are some examples of why I think Australia was the best country to experience Top-40 music during the 2010s: {Spoiler} Angus & Julia Stone had an international hit with "Big Jet Plane" back in 2010, but they had pretty much fell out of the limelight during the Mid 2010s. "Chateau" was their 'comeback' hit so to speak, and by Early 2018, it had peaked at #26 and was certified 2X Platinum by ARIA. It's a great song IMO and I think it's a shame that it wasn't a hit elsewhere. This psychedelic-influenced, indie pop gem peaked at #25 last year and stayed within the ARIA Top-50 for 11 weeks. It didn't chart anywhere else in the world. I don't understand how it even became a hit here, because King Princess is an American underground artist and she had never tasted mainstream success prior to the release of this single. I think her Facebook page only has less than 5,000 likes.  This would have to take the award for the most bizarre thing to ever appear on the Top-40 charts during the 2010s, anywhere. Australia isn't even renowned for it's heavy metal music, but out of nowhere, this metalcore song by an Australian band somehow managed to debut at #19 back in 2015 and became a moderately successful hit (even though it only stayed on the ARIA Chart for one week). The strange this is, they even had two other songs that debuted within the Top-40 just a year earlier! That's not to mention the fact that Trap hasn't been as successful here as it has been in the US or New Zealand. Australia has also embraced a lot of British and mainland Europe songs during the 2010s as well. Worst: United States
The United States would easily be the worst country to experience chart music during the 2010s, IMO. Not only are the Billboard charts less diverse than other charts around the world, but many of the biggest international hits of the 2010s have not charted in the US at all. It also takes much longer for songs to fall out of the Top-40 and for whatever reason, the Billboard charts are not as "up-to-date" with the latest trends in Top-40 music as the UK, Australian and New Zealand charts are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 13:19:36 GMT 10
This was the decade of K-Pop (although it peaked in 2009 imo).
|
|
|
|
Post by Telso on Jan 29, 2019 12:28:23 GMT 10
Best: By far the UK, the charts constantly morphing and moving, and very responsive to new trends. They are always interesting to follow. Quite a few duds and unfortunate flops, but otherwise the good stuff strongly outshines them.
Worst: Yeah, the US. Boring charts to follow that are static as all hell ("Girls Like You" is still in the top 10, nine months after its release??? C'mon now!)
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jan 29, 2019 12:59:44 GMT 10
Best: By far the UK, the charts constantly morphing and moving, and very responsive to new trends. They are always interesting to follow. Quite a few duds and unfortunate flops, but otherwise the good stuff strongly outshines them. Worst: Yeah, the US. Boring charts to follow that are static as all hell ("Girls Like You" is still in the top 10, nine months after its release??? C'mon now!) Looking at the Billboard Hot 100 chart is just depressing, to be honest. Not only are the charts totally stagnant, but the current Hot 100 chart is such a stark contrast to how progressive it was just a couple of decades ago. Between the 1960s and Late '90s, the Billboard Hot 100 was much like the UK Singles Chart in that it was constantly evolving and very receptive to new trends. I mean, there's a reason why the US was once referred to as the "entertainment capital of the world". Something happened during the Late '90s which caused this to change and i'm not quite sure what that is. For whatever reason, Americans started to become even less embracing of imported pop releases around that time and music trends gradually began to fall behind the trends that were popular elsewhere. Even if you compare the Hot 100 and UK/AUS/NZ charts from the 2000s, you can notice significant differences in terms of how stagnant and transitional they are. I think the most depressing thing about the Billboard Hot 100 charts today is that they emphasise how the United States, as a society, has gradually declined over time. The US is no longer the respected leader of the music and entertainment industries; now it's the laughing stock of the world. Having Donald Trump as their president just sums it all up really...
|
|
|
|
Post by Telso on Jan 29, 2019 13:34:08 GMT 10
Best: By far the UK, the charts constantly morphing and moving, and very responsive to new trends. They are always interesting to follow. Quite a few duds and unfortunate flops, but otherwise the good stuff strongly outshines them. Worst: Yeah, the US. Boring charts to follow that are static as all hell ("Girls Like You" is still in the top 10, nine months after its release??? C'mon now!) Looking at the Billboard Hot 100 chart is just depressing, to be honest. Not only are the charts totally stagnant, but the current Hot 100 chart is such a stark contrast to how progressive it was just a couple of decades ago. Between the 1960s and Late '90s, the Billboard Hot 100 was much like the UK Singles Chart in that it was constantly evolving and very receptive to new trends. I mean, there's a reason why the US was once referred to as the "entertainment capital of the world". Something happened during the Late '90s which caused this to change and i'm not quite sure what that is. For whatever reason, Americans started to become even less embracing of imported pop releases around that time and music trends gradually began to fall behind the trends that were popular elsewhere. Even if you compare the Hot 100 and UK/AUS/NZ charts from the 2000s, you can notice significant differences in terms of how stagnant and transitional they are. I think the most depressing thing about the Billboard Hot 100 charts today is that they emphasise how the United States, as a society, has gradually declined over time. The US is no longer the respected leader of the music and entertainment industries; now it's the laughing stock of the world. Having Donald Trump as their president just sums it all up really... If I remember correctly, Billboard revamped their formula in 1992 putting more emphasis on radio airplay. Which is in my opinion what caused the charts to be so static. You can literally see this change by the ammount of songs that reached number 1 depleating in half between 1991 and 1992, and singles also weren't constantly on the move unlike before. This is in my opinion what caused to have periods dominated by singular genres in the Billboard (Adult Contemporary during the rest of the 90s, Bubblegum Pop in the Y2K, R&B in the 2000s, Electropop, ...). Past 1992, there was also very little Rock songs that reached number 1 in stark contrast to the 80s so I'm wondering if this also accelerated the demise of the genre in the mainstream?
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jan 29, 2019 15:50:15 GMT 10
If I remember correctly, Billboard revamped their formula in 1992 putting more emphasis on radio airplay. Which is in my opinion what caused the charts to be so static. You can literally see this change by the ammount of songs that reached number 1 depleating in half between 1991 and 1992, and singles also weren't constantly on the move unlike before. This is in my opinion what caused to have periods dominated by singular genres in the Billboard (Adult Contemporary during the rest of the 90s, Bubblegum Pop in the Y2K, R&B in the 2000s, Electropop, ...). Past 1992, there was also very little Rock songs that reached number 1 in stark contrast to the 80s so I'm wondering if this also accelerated the demise of the genre in the mainstream? That's true. I was going to mention the Early '90s as being a transitional point for the Hot 100 charts, but I decided to use the Late '90s as an example instead. I think 1998/1999 was the point in time where the Hot 100 charts had really started to become less diverse. It's hard to say. The change in formula may have played some role in the demise of the genre in the US mainstream, but on the other hand, rock was still a huge cultural force during the rest of the '90s and even well into the 2000s. Lifehouse's "Hanging by a Moment" was the most played song on US radio for the year 2001. Given the fact that rock was still very popular, it would only be natural to assume that the amount of airplay the genre received on the radio would have resulted in higher chart placements on the Billboard Hot 100. Yet, that wasn't the case. I agree that Billboard's change of formula would have contributed to rock's decline in the mainstream in some way, however i'm not sure if the emphasis on radio airplay was responsible for it. I think it actually has more to do with hip-hop/rap's rise in popularity over time and America's taste in music gradually evolving along with it. Otherwise, rock would have likely enjoyed more success on the Billboard Hot 100 during the Mid-Late '90s and the Early 2000s. For instance, songs such as "Black Hole Sun" and "One Headlight" were very successful on the Radio Airplay charts, but both songs performed abysmally on the Billboard Hot 100.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telso on Jan 30, 2019 9:31:12 GMT 10
That's true. I was going to mention the Early '90s as being a transitional point for the Hot 100 charts, but I decided to use the Late '90s as an example instead. I think 1998/1999 was the point in time where the Hot 100 charts had really started to become less diverse. It's hard to say. The change in formula may have played some role in the demise of the genre in the US mainstream, but on the other hand, rock was still a huge cultural force during the rest of the '90s and even well into the 2000s. Lifehouse's "Hanging by a Moment" was the most played song on US radio for the year 2001. Given the fact that rock was still very popular, it would only be natural to assume that the amount of airplay the genre received on the radio would have resulted in higher chart placements on the Billboard Hot 100. Yet, that wasn't the case. I agree that Billboard's change of formula would have contributed to rock's decline in the mainstream in some way, however i'm not sure if the emphasis on radio airplay was responsible for it. I think it actually has more to do with hip-hop/rap's rise in popularity over time and America's taste in music gradually evolving along with it. Otherwise, rock would have likely enjoyed more success on the Billboard Hot 100 during the Mid-Late '90s and the Early 2000s. For instance, songs such as "Black Hole Sun" and "One Headlight" were very successful on the Radio Airplay charts, but both songs performed abysmally on the Billboard Hot 100. Obviously it continued to be popular, but a lessen exposure like that, especially over the course of 20 years, definitely tends to hurt a genre's popularity over the time. I feel like this change came at an awful time when the Alt. Rock genre was finally fully embraced by the mainstream. I don't think for instance that things like radio payola exactly sit well with the ethos of the alt scene, doesn't it ? On the other hand, radio executives usually go for safe music that attract the most audience possible, therefore Pop Rock blandness and balladery like Bryan Adams is exactly what's needed in this case. And it was totally possible for the genre to score huge hits, looking at how U2 managed to send an Alt. Rock song to number 1 way back in 1988. By the way, you're true about "Hanging by a Moment" being a huge radio hit in 2001. That's probably why it ended up being the number 1 song on the year end list of 2001: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2001It never reached number 1 during the year because it both faced "Lady Marmelade" (sung by a quatuor of very popular Pop singers in the early aughts) and the Drake of the 2000s, Usher.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jan 30, 2019 12:58:57 GMT 10
Obviously it continued to be popular, but a lessen exposure like that, especially over the course of 20 years, definitely tends to hurt a genre's popularity over the time. I feel like this change came at an awful time when the Alt. Rock genre was finally fully embraced by the mainstream. I don't think for instance that things like radio payola exactly sit well with the ethos of the alt scene, doesn't it ? On the other hand, radio executives usually go for safe music that attract the most audience possible, therefore Pop Rock blandness and balladery like Bryan Adams is exactly what's needed in this case. And it was totally possible for the genre to score huge hits, looking at how U2 managed to send an Alt. Rock song to number 1 way back in 1988. By the way, you're true about "Hanging by a Moment" being a huge radio hit in 2001. That's probably why it ended up being the number 1 song on the year end list of 2001: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2001It never reached number 1 during the year because it both faced "Lady Marmelade" (sung by a quatuor of very popular Pop singers in the early aughts) and the Drake of the 2000s, Usher. I agree that rock's decreased presence on the Billboard Hot 100 charts over time would have contributed to the genre's decline in mainstream popularity, but I wouldn't say that the genre necessarily lost exposure as soon as the change in 1992 occurred. Music channels such as MTV and VH1 would have still played alternative-rock on a heavy rotation, and like what I mentioned in my earlier post, many alternative-rock songs continued to perform well on the Radio Airplay charts. It is true that radio stations would be more inclined to play pop-rock or R&B/Hip-Hop songs over something off In Utero, for instance, however rock still would have been just as accessible to the general public as it was prior to 1992. It's just that the Billboard's flawed method of determining chart placements resulted in the Hot 100 charts no longer reflecting rock's popularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by X2M on Feb 5, 2019 12:12:55 GMT 10
No doubt you two are correct. It has seemed like America hasn't had the best Top 40 music for some time. I check the charts occasionally and most of the songs so far are awful and the ones I like are never on there.
|
|
